Abortion Doc's Killer Expects 'Reward in Heaven' After Execution

FoxNews ^ | Wednesday, September 03, 2003 | AP

[milan]

STARKE, Fla. — Paul Hill (search), a former minister who gunned down an abortion doctor, said he feels no remorse and suggested the state will be making him a martyr when he becomes the first person executed in the United States for anti-abortion violence.

[milan]

Well. I am sure this will cause two sides of an issue. Did he, or did he not, do the right thing by ending this abortion doctors life. I tend to believe that this is not murder. He certainly killed someone, but by no means did he kill an innocent man. He killed a cold blooded murderer. Does that make it okay? I just don't know. Obviously, another doctor will take the mans place, but did the man somehow save the lives of any unborn children? To some these answers are cut-and-dry. To me, they are not.

[Portnoy]

This man will get a reward, but it won't be in Heaven....

[2timothy3.16]

Paul, I understand, I wish I knew you were right.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

In an absolute sense, you can't call the murder of a serial murderer a moral "crime". Strictly speaking without reference to law and society, no injustice is done by killing someone who intends with certainty to kill other people tomorrow.

On the other hand, Kopp's actions were scandalous and did nothing to help the cause of life. Nor was it morally right to kill an abortionist at home in front of his children when he was behaving peacably. Citizens are not deputed as summary executioners.

So what seems right to me is this. If you were to enter an abortuary for some good cause say your wife or girlfriend was about to kill your child without your consent), and observe and abortionist attempting to perform this murder; and if you then destroyed the equipment he was working with (say a well placed axe head through the vacuum aspiration equipment); and if the abortionist then attacked you physically with deadly force so that he might resume his work; then you might have a true moral right to kill an abortionist. However, its pretty obvious that you would have to submit to the penal laws of the state on this, and face capital punishment yourself. So while you might be morally justified in defending your child in this manner, the end result does not seem to bear out a reasonable outcome of the bloodshed involved. The end achieved (saving a child in danger of death) is not proportional to the means involved (the death of the murder and your own death - two corpses instead of one, plus the injustice of a child brought up without a father).

So the killing of abortionists by ordinary citizens must be thought illicit.

[2timothy3.16]

I should have said:

My pastors opinion;

Paul, I understand, I wish I knew you were right.

And like him I certainly understand the emotions behind Rev. Hill's actions, I just don't know if they are right or not, but, I will not condemn a man for doing what I at times wish I had the nerve to do.

[2timothy3.16]

So the killing of abortionists by ordinary citizens must be thought illicit.

Legally wrong? Yes,

Morally wrong? I don't know.

[milan]

Morally wrong? I don't know.

I'm with you. Part of me said that this was a valid response to the life that this man lived. He was a murderer...there is no denying this (for anyone with Gid given common sense). The problem is that our laws do not see the abortionist as a murderer. So what are we left to do? Just leave it alone? 30 million plus babies murdered in this country and no end in sight. Don't we have a moral responsisbility to stop this? Am I wrong?

[2timothy3.16]

I don't know.

[Loyalist]

PING

[Alberta's Child]

Give Mr. Hill credit for one thing . . . He was remarkably consistent in his pro-life outlook.

[Jim Noble]

I would have thought that the execution of Mr. Hill would provoke a crisis of conscience in the pro-life community.

My issue is this: Paul Hill took seriously the accusation that abortionists are kiling babies.

Do the people who told Mr. Hill this really believe it? If they do, why don't more of them act as he did?

Do the thought experiment: A facility opens in your town where three-month old babies can be killed. At first, you don't beleive it possible, but several are killed on the first day.

Would you not use lethal force to stop the killers? If you would not, would you even consider condemning the heroes who did?

Of course you would not condemn them.

It has been said of Paul Hill by some pro-life leaders, "He didn't understand what we were saying".

On the contrary, he understood it very well and acted in the only way a moral man could act, given that he believed babies were being killed.

Do those who condemn Paul Hill believe the victims of abortion are real babies, or is it a metaphor?

If they believe it, why don't they support him?

If they don't, why don't they feel guilty about Paul's death?

[John Beresford Tipton]

Time out guys.
Nobody is mentioning that he killed the other man.

Even bad guys know it matters *WHO* you kill, see:
Bob Marley's "I Shot The Sheriff"
"I shot the sheriff but I did not kill the deputy"

[RobbyS]

He should not have shot the other man. That was not only foolish but unjust.

[Blzbba]

"Morally wrong? I don't know. "


I do. It's called cold-blooded murder, whether it's the reprehensible abortion of a baby or the vicious shotgunning of an old man.

After all, isn't there a Commandment about not killing?

[milan]

Give Mr. Hill credit for one thing . . . He was remarkably consistent in his pro-life outlook.

I'll say! He certainly wasn't blowing smoke!

[milan]

After all, isn't there a Commandment about not killing?

Actually, no. There is a commandment about murder though. I think it all goes back to the "real" Hebrew translation. God commanded the Israelites to kill numerous times. Why would He have a commandment not to kill? He never told anyone to commit adultery, lie, have other gods before Him, etc. You get the point? It is not "do not kill" it is "do not murder" Sometimes killing is justified. This may be one of those times. The governemnt won't protect the children...this guy did.

[2timothy3.16]

After all, isn't there a Commandment about not killing?

It says, Thou shalt not kill, the hebrew word is fut, the meaning is: To take innocent defenceless human life. While abortion falls within kill, the shooting or taking the life of an abortionist, who is not defencesless might not be.

[2timothy3.16]

He should not have shot the other man. That was not only foolish but unjust.

Wasn't the other man an armed body guard/driver.goffer?

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Wasn't the other man an armed body guard/driver.goffer?"

So that makes it okay to kill that retired veteran>
He was just in the way?

If Hill thought what he was doing was right, perhaps after he meted out his version of justice he should have run, taking his chance of getting shot in the back?
Needle or bullet he's a going out for what he did.

[milan]

...who is not defencesless might not be...

Actually, he may have been defenseless, but he certainly wasn't innocent.