The Executioner’s Hill--The pro-abortion movement has a dirty little secret

www.catholicexchange.com ^ | 9/06/03 | Steve Kellmeyer

[Polycarp]

"The pro-abortion movement has a dirty little secret. More abortion opponents have been seriously injured and killed in the last thirty years than have abortion supporters...the NAF reports 125 incidents of less serious physical injury against abortionists. The NAF does not bother to mention that abortion-rights supporters committed 1001 similar incidents of less serious physical injury against pro-lifers during the same time period.

The Executioner’s Hill

9/06/03

			Paul Hill is dead. Like many newborns in China, the former Presbyterian minister who gunned down an abortionist and his bodyguard was killed by lethal injection. The are differences, of course. Paul Hill is a murderer. The Chinese newborns aren’t.

Paul Hill got his injection intravenously. The newborns get their poisoned needle through the base of the skull or directly into the heart. In the US, where technology is much more advanced, we shake our heads at the barbaric Chinese. We know enough deliver the baby feet-first, punch a knife through the base of the skull and suction out the child’s brains before the head pops out of the birth canal. Contemplating the beauty of a woman exercising her right to choose can bring tears to one’s eyes.

As far as we know, Paul Hill didn’t cry when he pulled out his shotgun. The state has the right to execute an unrepentant murderer, and Paul Hill was certainly that. Some fear his execution may cause problems, though. The fear is that executing a murderer like Paul Hill will set off a wave of violence. It seems likely that this fear is justified. You see, for thirty years, a concerted effort has been made to paint pro-lifers as wild-eyed, violent fanatics. By concentrating on aberrations like Paul Hill, the media increases the likelihood that someone, somewhere, will again decide to kill a pro-life advocate simply because she is pro-life.

The word “again” is used deliberately. The pro-abortion movement has a dirty little secret. More abortion opponents have been seriously injured and killed in the last thirty years than have abortion supporters. The National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) own statistics bear this out. While the NAF reports 81,973 incidents of violence since 1977, nearly 68,000 (that is, 82%) of these “violent” acts consisted entirely of picketing. Yes, that’s right. Walking a picket line is a violent act (sshhhhh! Don’t tell your union). Twelve percent were harassing phone calls or e-mails, while an additional 2.8% consisted of trespass, stink-bomb attacks, and similarly juvenile stunts. The remaining three percent of attacks is where the problems lie.

When you finish drilling through the smoke and mirrors, it turns out that in twenty-six years of opposition to legal abortion, there have been 27 incidents of deadly or extreme physical violence against abortionists: seven murders, seventeen attempted murders and three attempted kidnappings. That’s about one a year. Certainly nothing to be proud of from a movement that claims to venerate life. In that sense, people like Paul Hill are news.

However, in that same time period, there were 337 incidents of deadly or extreme violence committed by supporters of legal abortion against those acting on pro-life convictions. In 1999 alone, American abortionists killed six of their own girlfriends and one wife. These women refused to have abortions, you see. As these seven adults were murdered, four children were also murdered to prevent their becoming witnesses. Now, admittedly, 1999 was not a good year for women who happened to be pregnant by an abortionist. But it is an unusual six-month period where we don’t read a small squib buried on page C-6 about some red-blooded American man who injured or killed his girlfriend because she refuses to exercise her constitutional rights. Really, this kind of thing is barely news.

Real news has more meat to it. For instance, the NAF reports 125 incidents of less serious physical injury against abortionists. The NAF does not bother to mention that abortion-rights supporters committed 1001 similar incidents of less serious physical injury against pro-lifers during the same time period. Clearly, the NAF has a nose for news.

While pro-life organizations regularly repudiate the violence done in their name, there is not one documented case of any pro-abortion organization decrying the mayhem perpetrated by their supporters. Pro-lifers engaged in violence or mayhem that’s news. Pro-abortionists engaged in violence or mayhem that’s not news.

We may, from these rules, make the obvious conclusion: violence and mayhem are only to be expected from abortion supporters. You know the old story: dog bites man is nothing. But man bites dog? Run it, page one, below the fold. News reporting tells us what is considered normal and what isn’t. Another abortionist killed his pregnant girlfriend? Hmmm, well. Pass the comics, honey. Anything in sports?

We can’t blame the media for not reporting this trifling kind of event. It really isn’t news. There really isn’t anything else to say.

The leading cause of death among pregnant women is homicide. Studies show that roughly 25% of the pregnant women who die each year are murdered. Meanwhile, studies also show that women who have an abortion are up to four times more likely to die within twelve months than is the general population. Their rates of suicide skyrockets, as does their drug use and general risk-taking behavior.

On the other hand, pregnant women who give birth are less likely to die than the general population and less likely to indulge in risk-taking behavior.

Apparently, when you choose to preserve someone’s life, you choose life not just for the other person, but for yourself as well.

Paul Hill would have done well to remember that.


Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally known author and lecturer, specializing in apologetics and catechetics. He has written several Scripture studies, an art study, a study of John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and designed the Calendar of Indulgences and the Neophyte Calendar. His books, talks and teaching tools are available through Bridegroom Press

[semaj]

"In addition, thousands of fathers of babies aborted by underage girls go scot-free every year even though they have committed statutory rape, and in most of those cases coerced the underage women into having abortions to literally bury the evidence."

...which justifies the murder of unborn babies or what?

[edchambers]

I believe the choice is still with the mother.

I alomost agree with this after all I can't get pregnant nor can I have an abortion so why don't you girls get together sort this out amongst yourselfs? Then again If wemen can chose to end a human life simply because it inconviences them to carry it to term why can't I "abort" all the people that inconvience me? I mean fairs fair isn't it?

[litany_of_lies]

I'm assuming that was sarcasm?

[litany_of_lies]

The mother must bear a large portion of the blame, but the pressure to abort from parents, boyfriends, and other so-called friends must be nearly overwhelming. What does a scared 15 year-old do if her parents threaten to disown her, or her boyfriend threatens violence, or her so-called friends tell her en masse that she's an idiot for going through with her pregnancy (and she isn't lucky enough to have called a true crisis pregnancy center first instead of an abortion factory)?

[litany_of_lies]

I like the cannibalism concept as a TRUE explanation of what embryonic stem cell use accomplishes-a very useful analogy. Actually not an analogy, a fact. The only difference is that traditional cannibals consume others with their mouths, while the "beneficiaries" of embryo research consume them in other ways.

I pray that God has seen fit to make sure that embryonic stem cells accomplish nothing medically beneficial (I don't think it's been proven yet that they do). I'm afraid that this is the only thing preventing mankind from going over the cliff into the cannibalism you so accurately describe.

The pro-aborts are SO determined to find a benefit in embryonic stem cells that they minimize the importance of the breakthroughs that I believe are being achieved with adult stem cells and trumpet even the tiniest hint that the embryonic ones will have a benefit.

[Deepest South]

Depends upon the state. CDC in Atlanta keeps some stats but reporting to them is voluntary. NY, CA, and FL for example don't report to CDC but have huge numbers of abortions.

[LiteKeeper]

INTSUM

[PropheticZero]

Well then, if pro-lifers wanted to reduce abortion rates, they should reduce the penalty of statutory rape such that those who do it aren't driven to kill their offspring to hide the crime and thereby escape the penalty.

And we should take away the three felony strikes rule too because it makes robbers murder people because they've haven't got anything to lose by killing their victims, and everything to lose if there's any witnesses.

[First Amendment]

I don't think I'm on this ping list - but I'd like to be, please.

[First Amendment]

I like the cannibalism concept as a TRUE explanation of what embryonic stem cell use accomplishes-a very useful analogy.

From what I've read (and thank you, MHGinTN, for your wonderful essays and comments about all these related topics!), embryonic stem cells haven't been "useful" anyway. Apparently (someone correct me if I'm wrong) some kind of cells from bone marrow? Or at least from adults, taken harmlessly, show more promise medically.

Two points may shed a small amount of light on this.

1. Those who abhor moral absolutes are by definition placing themselves and others like them on the pinnacle of authority, due to envy of God. Therefore, they reject out of spite and hatred His laws, both the laws of nature - life and death - and moral laws, such as equating same sex acts with the conjugal relationship between a husband and wife. Such rebellious souls, since they cannot create life (only God can) want to destroy His creation. You can see how they are attracted to death: abortion, euthanasia, the "right to die", Peter Singer's statement that infanticide has its virtues, and last but not least, sodomy.

2. A corollary is their fanatic attachment to the artificial or unnatural life of the body. Even if embryonic cannibalism COULD extend or improve my physical being, I would reject it with not a second's hesitation, because I know without doubt that life is not physically based. I am not a body with a soul, I am a soul waering a body. Death means I, the eternal soul, leave the body. I am therefore not afraid of death. Death is not a tragedy. Living a life of rebellion against the laws of Nature and Nature's God is a tragedy.

[Woahhs]

source please?

[litany_of_lies]

Do you mean source for the stat on the age of fathers of teenagers pregnant out of wedlock? I've read it in various places. I know that Cal Thomas the columnist has cited stats on this in the past. If I remember correctly the average age difference between the older man and underage girl was about 8 years.

Or do you mean the statury rape claim? It follows from the answer to the first question, but also just within the past year a "survey" was done of abortion clinics by a pro-life organization (in Texas, I think). They had an underage girl pose as somone needing an abortion, and were seldom, if ever, even asked about the age of the father, even though in most states health workers are required to do so (and I believe also required to report statutory rape). As usual, stone silence from the mainstream press.

[litany_of_lies]

You and I would reject embryo killing if even if there were scientific and health benefits. Most of the rest of the world, or at least most of the power elites, would not, which is why I pray the benefits aren't there. They get "hard cases" like Christopher Reeve to pull on your heart as he advocates embryonic cannibalism and at the same time attacks our president for trying to halt this practice. If there are ever proven benefits from this cannibalism, I fear that the pro-life movement won't be able to stop it.

The benefits from use of adult stem cells are coming so fast I can't keep up with them any more. I hope someone in the pro-life community is chronicling the benefits as they accumulate.

[Woahhs]

I was refering to the statutory rape claim. "Average" age difference does not support your contention that one follows the other.

[teeman8r]

also mandatory reporting from the clinics to the authorities before the abortion of evidence takes place would be appropriate, however, unlikely since parents of the child with child are not even notified...

[Woahhs]

thousands of fathers of babies aborted by underage girls go scot-free every year ... they have committed statutory rape, and in most of those cases coerced the underage women into having abortions to literally bury the evidence.

Boyfriends coerce their girlfriends into getting abortions

the pressure to abort from parents, boyfriends, and other so-called friends must be nearly overwhelming.

What does a scared 15 year-old do if her parents threaten to disown her

her boyfriend threatens violence

so-called friends tell her en masse that she's an idiot for going through with her pregnancy

The mother must bear a large portion of the blame

What portion of the blame would you assign to the mothers expressed as a percentage?

[litany_of_lies]

What portion of the blame does the underage girl get?

Oh come on, you know that depends on the circumstances: degree of coerciion, threats, intimidation, abuse, etc. I'm not going to play a percentage game, except to say that everyone involved is 100 responsible for their part in a horrible decision.

Also, the girl gets to carry around the guilt for the rest of her life for permitting or acquiescing to the abortion. More than likely, the other parties involved just blow it off.

[litany_of_lies]

"Average" age difference does not support your contention that one (statutory rape) follows the other.

I wasn't crystal clear. The average age difference I have read about is between the underage women having the abortions and their partners (women above the age of consent are excluded from the stat). Therefore, with such a large age difference, there's clearly a lot of unreported and therefore unprosecuted statutory rape going on.

[Woahhs]

Oh come on, you know that depends on the circumstances

Yes I do, but I think it's appropriate to point out your projecting like a Cineplex.

86% of your criticism is directed at males. 14% to a rather anemic admission that 'mother' does indeed bear some responsibility.

Just another fine example of the only difference between pro-life women and pro-choice women being their opinion of abortion.

[litany_of_lies]

You certainly misread me.

The girl is committing a serious sin in almost all cases (except a credible threat of "I'll kill you and the baby if you don't" that the authorities are ignoring).

86% of the criticism wasn't directed at males, unless the pregnant girl has two fathers and all her other friends are male. (/sarcasm)

And I don't even begin to understand your final sentence.