Anti-abortionist murderer executed (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:59 pm

It happened earlier today. Paul Hill, a 49-year-old ex-Presbyterian minister, had killed a Florida doctor who performed abortions and his driver, while severely wounding the doctor's wife, back in 1994. He never appealed the conviction, said he was "sure to meet God in heaven," would do again what he has done, and said that others should continue his work. He also claimed that by committing these murders he had saved thousands of unborn children.

The whole business sickens me--but especially, the way the US is held up in this fashion to ridicule before the world, as though we are nothing but a nation of moral absolutists bent on restructuring the world through hatred. A man like Hill was a psychopath, IMO. Resorting to violence is no solution, no matter what of this issue one may be on; assuming it can even be reduced to something as intransigent as "sides."

What's your opinion?

jennabard · Post by **jennabard** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:12 am

Personally my belief is that murder, especially premeditated murder, is still murder. There is no moral justification for what he has done. Unfortunately, many people find that abortion is also murder, but that is an ethical and personal viewpoint and since there is no law abolishing it, each of us must our own decision on where we stand on the issue.

Abortion will never go away, it has been around for thousands of years. The problem with America is that we don't believe in descretion.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:32 am

Originally posted by fable
What's your opinion?

I'm strangely ambivalent about the whole affair. I don't approve of abortion from a religious perspective but hearing about people saying that Hill died a martyrs death really need to get their views in perspective. Murder is murder, its as simple as black and white IMO.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:39 am

I abhor those that preach anti-choice, and murder those that perform abortions.
I am completely opposed to capital punishment.
IMO neither has grounds for justification.

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:14 am

These anti-abortionist men don't realise that there are many reasons why a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy - if her health or even her life is at risk, for example, or if the child could be severely handicapped, if she's been raped, etc - these considerations happen all the time and I personally uphold any woman's right to make her choices concerning what happens to her body and her future life.

I find it hard to see how abortion can be defined as murder in a civilised society. I also am scared by how religious belief can cause some people to behave so irrationally and so strongly uphold opinions that don't even affect them personally.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:12 am

Just a side tangent. Is a baby solely a females how do you say it product? Basic biology shows it takes a males and females DNA to create a child. Now in the case of a man wanting the child and the female not, can the woman still morally decide to terminate the pregnancy? What would you guys think?

Anyway on topic. Murder is murder. Abortion is murder. This mans action were/are murder. No other way out.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:24 am

Well - I'm pro-choice, and am not per se against capital punishment, so personally I feel it good that he has been executed.

As for the morality in capital punishment or not, it is a different matter, but I have a hard time to see why people could be "anit-choice". There is little reasoning behind ruining two or more lives by forcing people to have children that aren't wanted.
Yes - there are ways to protect from getting pregnant and all, but still I can't follow it.

Also that somebody like this guy, can claim to be religious and then commit murder.
What ever happened to "turn the other cheeck".

Enchantress · Post by **Enchantress** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:44 am

Here's an excerpt I found on the internet which I thought was quite interesting:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does abortion meet the moral or legal definition of murder?

Summary:

Murder is defined as "illegal killing with malice aforethought." Abortion fails this definition for two reasons. First, abortion is not illegal, and second, there is no evidence to suggest that expecting mothers feel malice towards their own flesh and blood.

Argument:

Is abortion murder?

Not all killing is murder, of course. Murder is actually a small subset of all killing, which includes accidental homicide, killing in self-defense, suicide, euthanasia, etc. When pro-life activists call abortion "murder," they are suggesting that abortion fits the definition of murder, namely, "illegal killing with malice aforethought." However, abortion fails this definition for two reasons. First, abortion is not illegal, and second, mothers hardly feel malice towards their own unborn children.

Some might object the first point is overly legalistic. Just because killing is legal doesn't make it right.

Many pro-life advocates claim that the same reasoning applies to abortion. Although abortion is legal under current U.S. law, it is not legal when it is held up to a higher law, namely, the law of God.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the Bible is indeed the law of God. Unfortunately, this doesn't help the pro-life movement, because there is no Biblical law against abortion. (Abortion is as old as childbirth.) The Hebrew word for "kill" in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is "rasach", which is more accurately interpreted as "murder," or illegal killing judged harmful by the community. It is itself a relative, legalistic term!

Many forms of killing were considered legal in ancient Israel, and levitical law listed many of the exceptions. Generally, levitical law permitted killing in times of war, the commission of justice and in self-defense. Sometimes, God even gave Israel permission to kill infant children. In I Samuel 15:3, God ordered Saul to massacre the Amalekites: "Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants…"

Unfortunately, the levitical law we find in the Bible today is incomplete, and comes to us in large gaps. That is because the ancient Jews passed down their laws orally, and only wrote down the more complicated laws to jog their memory. As a result, levitical law is filled with tremendous omissions; for example, we know little of their laws on libel, business, lending, alimony, lease, rental agreements and civil rights. But perhaps the most unfortunate gap in ancient Jewish law is abortion. If a law did exist on abortion, then we simply do not know what it was. Fortunately, we have an excellent idea of what the law might have been. The Jews are legendary for their fanatical preservation of the law, and they have never considered abortion to be a sin. That alone should make many pro-life advocates stop and reconsider the legal basis, holy or otherwise, for their opposition to abortion.

Some pro-life Christians claim that just because there is no commandment prohibiting abortion does not give us the right to perform it. Since human life is so precious, we should err on the side of caution, they argue. But according to this logic, we should not drive cars! Each year in America, there are about 40,000 deaths due to automobile accidents. These deaths are accidental, to be sure, but our decision to participate in a mode of transportation that we already know will kill 40,000 people is not accidental. We also know there were virtually no deaths in horse-and-buggy days. We have decided to accept those 40,000 deaths a year simply because we value the convenience -- a notion surely not found anywhere in the Bible. But should we stop all automobile travel just because of Biblical silence on the issue?

One could equally argue that if God thought the issue were important, he would have made sure to include such a law in the Bible. The omission of such a law suggests that God allows humans to exercise their best judgment in the matter.

The second part of the definition of murder involves malice. Is it really reasonable to assume that mothers feel malice towards their own unborn children? Why would they even feel that? What has the fetus done to inspire the mother's hatred, anger, hostility and revenge? This is not the way women react to news of their pregnancy, even an unwanted one, as any woman who has gone through an abortion will tell you. It is a reaction that only men in the pro-life movement find plausible.

Some abortion opponents may then try to claim that the murder is cold-blooded, that the malice involved is really a callous, unfeeling disregard for human life. But again, any woman who has gone through an abortion will tell you that it just isn't so. They are fully aware of what they are doing and the moral implications of it. All would prefer not to go through the abortion, and feel sorrow and regret for having to do so. But they ultimately decide that the abortion is for the best, that they are not ready for the even greater moral responsibility of bringing a child into the world. Christian conservatives may question the wisdom of such a choice, but they can hardly question the emotions behind it.

The accusation that abortion is murder, in fact, places the burden of proof on the accuser. If women do indeed feel malice towards their own flesh and blood, then the accuser needs to supply the requisite proof, studies, or surveys to make his case. But such evidence will probably never be forthcoming.

speedball · Post by **speedball** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 11:33 am

Hill got exactly what he deserved. Regardless of whether or not you think abortion is wrong, it does not give you justification to commit murder.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:00 pm

What is frightening about religious fanatics, whether they are Islamic fundamentalists or Christian fundamentalists, is that they do not believe the rules of society apply to them. God has told them to do [fill in the blank with terrorist action--hijack planes and kill Americans or bomb/gun down abortion providers--of choice here] and so they are immediately justified in carrying out that action.

Listening to Hill on TV, he knows what he did was illegal, but because God told him to do it, his actions are (to him) morally justified. That's scary, scary stuff.

smass · Post by **smass** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:27 pm

A very good point HLD - which is exactly why fanatical extremists can only be effectively dealt with one way - with extreme measures.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:21 pm

By: smass
A very good point HLD - which is exactly why fanatical extremists can only be effectively dealt with one way - with extreme measures.

Are extreme measures really the way to deal with extremists? Extremists do what they do because of their strong (read extreme) belief that what they're doing is right. They are obviously not afraid of the punishment for their crime imposed to them by the state, so how would "extreme measures" help? I'm not suggesting that he should be let to go free, but I am suggesting that the punishing him will not lessen the actions of future extremists.

I hope that the above made sense

It's been a kind of a long day for me.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:24 pm

Originally posted by Vicsun
I'm not suggesting that he should be let to go free, but I am suggesting that the punishing him will not lessen the actions of future extremists.

Indeed. If anything it will only encourage extremists; Hill is likely to become a martyr amongst them. As both you and HLD state, religious zealots believe they are carrying out the mission of a 'higher power.' They probably also believe that the "sanctity" of their actions will be assure them a place in Paradise when the executioner's axe falls.

Further, the threat of the death penalty does not deter individuals from committing murder. Were that the case nations that practice capital punishment would have low violent crime rates. Such might be the case in regimes that are generally repressive, but it is hardly true of 'democratic' nations.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:43 pm

Not to stir the pot here, but deterring others from committing a crime in the future isn't as important to me as making sure that the person who has already demonstrated the willingness to commit the crime won't get the chance to do so again.

People such as this person who feel they are morally justified in committing their actions and even going so far as to call on others to to "take up the fight" are IMO not subject to rehabilitation. And I don't like the thought of my tax dollars going to keep such a person fed and housed for the next few decades.

As far as detering crime goes, I don't think it's possible to effectivly stop a person from commiting a crime based on how you handle someone else who has committed the same crime, be it by execution, imprisonment, or what have you. Some people are are going to commit murder, regardless of the precautions or preventive measures we take.

I don't support capital punishment for every act of such extremes on a crossboard basis. I think you have to take all the reasons and causes into consideration. But sometimes, I just think there comes a point where you have to admit that there are always going to be certain people who are beyond redemption so to speak. I don't see it as an issue of lessening such acts in the future so much as it is dealing with the act that has already been committed.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 11:14 pm

Well - can only nod in agreement with ole Bloodstalker up there.

I think a guy that regardless of arguments will justify one murder like this, will continue to do so, murder more people, if he were ever let loose.
As would all fanatics, in my oppinion.

Fanatisme(sp? - is this even a word

) is one of the most dangerous notions as I see it in this world, and combined with religious belifs it is a lethal and explosive combination (just to use the images)

smass · Post by **smass** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 9:26 am

BS and Dragonwench hit on some very key points here.

When I made my statement about dealing with extremists with extreme measures I was thinking more along the lines of BS's post. People who carry out acts of murder IMHO need to be removed from the picture. I believe that when one person williingly and with intent takes another persons life - they forfeit all of their rights as a human being - including the basic right to their own life.

The death penalty as a deterrent to others can be endlessly debated. The death penalty as a deterrent to the offender cannot - a murderer who is executed will never commit another murder.

Carrying this logic out to terrorists - one way to deal with someone who's focus in life is to kill you or your loved ones - is to kill them first and not give them the opportunity to carry out their plans. The other way is to negotiate with them and try to change their behavior or viewpoint - but a fanatic is by definition not open to negotiation - logic and reason have very little value to a fanatical person - therefore negotiations are very often futile.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:16 pm

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
Not to stir the pot here, but deterring others from committing a crime in the future isn't as important to me as making sure that the person who has already demonstrated the willingness to commit the crime won't get the chance to do so again.

Deterrance is not an option when dealing with people like Hill because he is conviced God has okayed his actions. Only rational people can be deterred by the fear of punishment. Hill and others like him believe they have been promised Heavenly rewards if they carry out their "mission" and that has made them psychotic.

This is the problem with religious fanaticism; there is nothing that anyone can offer them (or threaten them with) that matches the salvation "promised" by God.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:03 pm

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
Not to stir the pot here, but deterring others from committing a crime in the future isn't as important to me as making sure that the person who has already demonstrated the willingness to commit the crime won't get the chance to do so again.

People such as this person who feel they are morally justified in committing their actions and even going so far as to call on others to to "take up the fight" are IMO not subject to rehabilitation. And I don't like the thought of my tax dollars going to keep such a person fed and housed for the next few decades.

As far as detering crime goes, I don't think it's possible to effectivly stop a person from commiting a crime based on how you handle someone else who has committed the same crime, be it by execution, imprisonment, or what have you. Some people are are going to commit murder, regardless of the precautions or preventive measures we take.

I don't support capital punishment for every act of such extremes on a crossboard basis. I think you have to take all the reasons and causes into consideration. But sometimes, I just think there comes a point where you have to admit that there are always going to be certain people who are beyond redemption so to speak. I don't see it as an issue of lessening such acts in the future so much as it is dealing with the act that has already been committed.

Well, BS made all my points better than I could...so I'll just quote him and leave it at that.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 9:31 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
This is the problem with religious fanaticism; there is nothing that anyone can offer them (or threaten them with) that matches the salvation "promised" by God.

*Sigh* Thats one reason that keeps me questioning my faith in Christianity/religion and mankind in general

Those people need help but often its like talking to a brick wall. I tend to deal with parents with that particular mindset...