ABORTION-SLAY REV EXECUTED

New York Post ^ | 9/04/03 | GERSH KUNTZMAN

[Godebert]

" And finally, Paul Hill was still a terrorist murderer who gleefully reveled in his slaughter. Have a nice day, y'all!

What was it you said earlier? Something about "declaring victory and retreating".

[Godebert]

" Those who bear false witness aren't respected either.."

Don't you have a NARAL meeting to go to or something?

[MEG33]

Those who accuse falsely are not respected.

[Godebert]

"Those who accuse falsely are not respected."

That I have accused falsely has not yet been determined. That you refuse to answer my questions tends to indicate that I have not. The accusation stands.

[MEG33]

The accusation is a lie.

[Godebert]

The accusation is a lie.

As is usually the case, pro-abortion defenders on this forum will not answer the simple questions which could prove their vehement denials.

[MEG33]

Your accusations are a lie.Your accusations about me are false.You are not credible or rational.

[Godebert]

You're like a broken record. You pro-abortionists are all alike.

[MEG33]

You are defaming me with false accusations based on no evidence except your "feeling".I told you to show me where I led you to believe I was a rabid defender of abortion or a defender of abortion or approved of abortion and you cannot because it isn't there. I told you the accusation is a lie and you continue to accuse.Can you not read?

[Dave S]

Insults from an individual such as yourself can hardly do any damage to my Conservative armor on this forum.

You are a conservative?? Jeez, I thought you were merely a nut job that crawled out from under some rock.

[Dave S]

Over at DU that might bolster your reputation, but this is a Conservative forum where gun-grabbers, abortionists and cowards are not held in high regard.

Neither are idiots or liars.

[wimpycat]

Good heavens, Meg. All the "evidence" he needs is that you don't see things exactly the same way he does. Because you're not a raving nutter like him--in fact, quite the opposite--you are therefore "pro-abortion"....and a "gun-grabber" to boot. It makes perfect sense, in a slack-jawed, vacant-eyed, arrested development sort of way.

Besides, you should take all this as a compliment, because it could be worse...you could be in total agreement with him...scary thought, indeed.

[itsinthebag]

Whatever you think,Hill committed a crime against the people and the state of Florida.You may applaud his breaking of the law and the killing of an abortionist and his guard and wounding of the woman but he broke the law.You don't have the right to correct a wrong law or practice by killing.There would be chaos in a country where a person can choose who to execute.Two wrongs don't make a right.Lynching is against the law even if you string up a murderer who has been convicted.

There was a time in Hitler's Germany that it was lawful to kill Jews. There was a time when it was lawful to own slaves. Just because these were laws, it did not make them right. There are such things as unjust laws. You can find them throughout history. Abortion is legal, but that doesn't make it right.

[MEG33]

Agreed

[MEGoody]

"(shakes head, resists temptation to ask how one could combat an "enemy" whose name one can't even spell) ..."

That enemy being?

[Heartbreak of Psoriasis]

"Perhaps some day people will remember Hill with the sort of moral ambivalence with which most now view John Brown. Was John Brown a saint of a sinner? Was slavery such a moral abomination that it justified the spilling of blood to resist? If so, then how does the moral outrage of African slavery compare with the millions of abortions legally performed in America since 1973?"

The answers to these quetions are totally dependant on how the unborn is viewed. If the unborn is recognized as a human, then the next question is constitutional protection. Under those circumstances, The anti-abortion extremist will be viewed will be viewed in a much kinder light, perhaps 'ahead of their time'.

Notice how that the slave owner was completely within the law, yet today we cannot think of the slave owner is a postive light. Maybe future generations will feel the same about the abortionist.

It all depends on winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the public. Murder is not the way.

I agree with your premise, but I think the conclusion you draw does not follow.

You first agree that slavery in the Old South is analogous to the legalized abortion today, and you agree that perceptions of slave owners changed radically, and appear to hope for a similar change in attitudes toward abortionists.

I don't follow, then, how you can conclude that "murder is not the way," by which I take it you mean that violent resistance to abortion is not conducive to changing hearts and minds.

After all, the radical change in public attitudes toward slavery came about NOT through peaceful means, but rather ONLY AFTER four years of bloody and fratricidal war - to date the most horrific war in our history.

Violence was that catalyst to that change in attitudes, not peaceful persuasion. The radical abolitionists were the ones who dragged the nation into that change by their direct-action tactics, whether we agree with the change or not.

The very history you cite proves that violence can lead to desireable conclusions.

The question thus remains: if armed resistance to slavery was morally justified (and I think it was), then why was not Paul Hill as justified in his actions as John Brown? Regards,