Replies

I find Hill's logic unassailable.

Pro-lifers want it both ways. They insist that the fetus is a human person derseving of full legal protections, yet they refuse to accept that it follows then that one may use lethal force to stop another from taking that life.

Imagine if the abortionist had taken Hill's shotgun to the nearest maternity ward and started blasting newborns left and right. Clearly, everyone agrees that under those circumstances one is morally compelled to do anything within one's power to stop him, including killing him with all dispatch.

Hill acted to save innocent babies (by his reckoning) for a man who profited from their destruction. How is that significantly different from the analogy above?

I think that Hill did a service to us all by putting the Pro-Life movement to the test. Are Por-Lifers serious about the unborn being human? If so, it follows that abortion is murder, abortionists are murderers, and lethal force is justified (indeed, morally compelled) to stop it.

Heartbrak

God has ordained governmental authority to exact justice. Otherwise, we would all be doing what "we think is right" and there would be utter chaos. Murder is wrong but are we supposed to just go up to a murderer and pump a few rounds into them? Answer: NO!

Excellent post. Sooner or later, the pro-life movement is going to have to face a daunting moral dilemma:

1. If a fetus is a human being, then standing outside an abortion clinic with a sign and a bullhorn is a dreadfully inadequate response to the problem.

2. If a fetus is not a human being, then standing outside an abortion clinic with a sign and a bullhorn is a waste of time.

I think that Hill did a service to us all by putting the Pro-Life movement to the test. Are Por-Lifers serious about the unborn being human? If so, it follows that abortion is murder, abortionists are murderers, and lethal force is justified (indeed, morally compelled) to stop it.

You are one of the best examples yet of why the founding fathers didnt setup a theocratic form of government. People like you set the Pro-Life movement back a generation. If you think Paul Hill is so great why dont you go join him and his 72 virgins.

How many babies did Paul Hill save? NONE. In fact, the negative publicity the pro-life movement received because of him might have enabled more

There is no way to fight this battle with lethal force because the primary culprit is the mother, not the abortionist. We can argue about the level of responsibility of people at different levels (the doctor, the abortion lobby, the government, society as a whole), but the one actually making the decision to end the life of the baby is the mother, and you can't fight her with lethal force without killing the baby too.

That was the practical argument, and I know that there is a limit to practicality - it wasn't practical for Daniel to continue to pray and be thrown into the lions' den, but it was certainly right.

Should a Christian use force to take on evils in the culture? I don't see biblical justification for it - there are no calls for it in the New Testament, and if any culture warranted it, the Roman society of that day did. Physical warfare isn’t our battle - “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph 6:12)