Posted on 09/04/2003 12:33:34 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:16:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The real question is if the choices one makes is good or bad. I don't see the tragedy in this event expect for what was done to Mr. Hill. The abortion doctor was not killed, he only met "early-physician" demise at the hands of Mr. Hill. Where is the tragedy in your eyes? According to others, Mr. Hill's actions did not prevent any abortions from taking place. If this is true, then why do so many seem upset. The doctor who got sent "home" early was brazen and begging to get his ticket punched, so that's what he got.
What about his contempt for the law and the Constitution, his attack on it?
I swore an Oath to defend that Constitution ...
The offensive nature of the procedure itself is not relevant...
I've seen what shotgun blasts do to bodies, too. Evidently that gore is acceptable?
Ok Constitutionalist, could you post that part of the Constitution that says abortion is legal? I mean I'd take your word for it, but having it in front of me to read an interpret at my pleasure would be preferable. I'm sure it won't take long for such a scholar to fulfill said request.
As you have noted, you've seen many things of "offensive nature." Why not show a simple "medical" procedure like 3rd trimester abortion? Why not have a law that all abortions should be video taped? I love how you describe these procedures. They surely must be entertaining, educational -though somewhat gory, to watch.
All abortions cannot be taped because of that selfsame Right to Privacy. These descisions have been implemented with legislation, such as the Right to Privacy act, which has also been upheld repeatedly. The descisions are available at numerous legal websites. It is dry reading, and would take up pages of bandwidth here to post. You should have no trouble finding them.
That is our system of law and government. Don't like it? Find it offensive to your conscience? You also have legal options: work to elect candidates who support your views, who will then appoint and confirm judges who likewise support them. Work to persuade others to vote that way.
You DO NOT have the right to use wanton violence to short-circuit those methods, just because you think they're too slow or things don't work out your way. That is what terrorists of all stripes do, and it still constitutes an attack upon the Constitution.
I don't particularly like the Income Tax, the Sixteenth Amendment which authorizes it, or the IRS. I DO NOT have the right to register that disapproval by shooting IRS agents.
Paul Hill committed no crime. Abortion is genocide. More than 45 million babies have been killed by abortion in this country (the total for the world is staggering) since 1973 (who knows the total before 1973). Hitler killed 6 million Jews. We called that a holocaust. What do we call the killing of 42 million babies? The abortion supporters call it "getting rid of an inconvenience".
What about his contempt for the law and the Constitution, his attack on it?
Could you help me out? I am not as familiar with case as you apparently are. How many people did Mr. Hill send to their early demise? You seem to indicate the 5 people met premature disposal at the hands of Mr. Hill. I don't mean to make light of people who were really injured, but please do not exaggerate to make a point. I don't want people to get killed over this issue, but I do want an honest debate. I don't like it when I believe some people are trying pull the wool over people's eyes to advance their sick political agendas. This is an issue where people wax eloquent about invented rights, justice, liberty...yada, yada, yada. I happen to believe quite sincerely in the Constitution, as it is really written and meant to be interpreted. People who support these kinds of procedures talk a good game, but they always try prevent people from seeing the reality of these procedures first hand so they can make up their own mind sans the editorial filter. What are you trying to hide? A picture and a video tape of these procedures I believe are worth 10 thousand words. There should be a law requiring anyone seeking such "medical" treatment to have to watch the procedure performed before undergoing such for themselves.
The law, the jury, and the judge disagreed.
I'm sure that his OTHER two victims would have, too. As would any cops he would have been willing to shoot.
The rest of your post is talking points. They have no relevance to Hill's crimes.
"yadda, yadda, yadda..."
You can call it that if you want, but like it or not, it is established law. Dismissing it because you don't like it doesn't change that.
Your attempts to change the subject to the offensiveness of the procedure itself are becoming disengenuous. No one is attempting to hide anything; however, you are seeking to divert the conversation. Again, no sale.
I guess those constitute "inconvenient facts".
All abortions cannot be taped because of that selfsame Right to Privacy.
So what you are saying is that none of these rights are actually in the Constitution, but they are implied rights if granted by a federal judge? Federal judges rule by fiat, whatever they say goes and can not be questioned? Is it possible for a federal court to get it wrong or become corrupted, or even worse, tyrannical? I always thought we had three branches of government.
Were the pro-DP folks out in force to cheer the execution?
I did not say that rulings could not be questioned. Just that the question cannot involve shotgun shells and violence.
The Constitution provides the framework for ALL these rulings. It also provides means, such as impeachment, to deal with corruption and criminal activity by judges. As well, judges retire and die natrually, to be then replaced by whatever President is in office at the time. A ruling that some people do not like is, however, not a reason stated for impeachment.
Look, I know it's a dose of cold water reality, but the system does not always produce results everyone likes. That is NO reason to attack and destroy it. Such are the actions of the immature and the childish.
You know all this. I'm beginning to wonder if you are just willfully ignoring it.
They're "Freedom Fighters", doncha know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.