Replies

Britton performed abortions, in the legal sense of the term, he did not commit murder; you and I may not like that, and we can argue successfully that abortion is murder, but it does not change the fact that as revolting as you and I find this notion, he was performing a perfectly legal "medical procedure". But we are a nation of laws, and what holds us together is the ability to act in a lawful manner. We need to go about the two-pronged task of overturning Roe v. Wade, and raising children who understand that abortion is murder, and murder is a sacrilege in the eyes of Our Maker, we cannot accomplish this by engaging in the lawlessness.

The Founders built a secular system of government that relied on the religious morals of the people, they did it because they understood that it would take such individuals to follow the letter of the law, enforce that law, and uphold it, even when faced with a law that is completely against their personal beliefs. It's the only way that the system can survive.

The system cannot survive with rampant vigilantism, and people feeling justified in acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner whenever they do not agree with the current set of laws. What good would a trial by a jury of our peers, one of the cornerstones of our system of government be if actions like Paul Hill’s are elevated to the level of morality?

If we as believers in life are to make the argument that every life is sacred, we can’t by our actions display the opposite attitude. Paul Hill did just that.

Paul Hill didn’t save any babies; he didn’t help overturn Roe v. Wade, and he most certainly did not help advance the cause…Paul Hill could not promote life by committing murder, anymore than Britton could.

The system cannot survive with rampant vigilantism, and people feeling justified in acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner whenever they do not agree with the current set of laws.

Again, the issue here is not the retroactive judgment and punishing of past acts by private citizens, something which no one here is arguing that Paul Hill had any right to do.

It is a matter of human beings acting to stop someone who is about to murder other human beings.

As I said earlier, if Paul Hill acted in the belief that he had some authority to punish John Britton's past actions then he was wrong. But that's emphatically not what Paul Hill said he was doing.