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

[Polycarp]

More [pro-lifers] 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.

Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, just send me a FReepmail. Please realize that some of my "ping" posts are long.)

[Alberta's Child]

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.

It's also worth noting that violence against abortion clinics and doctors was almost non-existent until peaceful picketing in front of clinics was severely constrained by the FACE Act and the RICO lawsuits against Operation Rescue.

[Alberta's Child]

Curious statistics ping.

[litany_of_lies]

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.

[Romulus]

BTTT

[CARepubGal]

Great article and thanks for the info.

[Cicero]

The statistics will never be known, but I suspect that a high percentage of abortions are primarily the "choice" of the parents or the boyfriend, not the pregnant mother.

[lizma]

I suspect that a high percentage of abortions are primarily the "choice" of the parents or the boyfriend, not the pregnant mother.

Mary Matlin had a talk show several years ago. Once her show was about late term abortions and her guest was a nurse who did some work in an abortion clinic and had testified to the Senate.

She said pretty much all the third term abortions were kids whoses parents finally noticed they were pregnant.(Sad, but I've actually seen it happen)

I've read that abortion clinics are not required to submit data on morbidity and mortality like a hospital have to. Can anyone back this up? There was a Finland study (the results were not pretty), but what about this country?

[litany_of_lies]

Where did that come from? What's your specific beef?

[coloradan]

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.

[litany_of_lies]

I don't think reducing the penalty for statutory rape would reduce abortions by more than the teeniest bit. Even reducing the age of consent, which I think would be a BIG mistake, would not accomplish anything in reducing abortions.

Boyfriends coerce their girlfriends into getting abortions so they can avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood. If they even think about adoption (which I would guess rarely happens), they would rather avoid the embarrassment of having to admit to civilized people that they "knocked up" (I hate that term but it's the street vernacular they would use) someone 8, 10, or 12 years younger than they are.

If anything, strictly enforcing the statutory rape laws, which are routinely ignored unless the girlfriend files the complaint (even then, it's not a high-priority prosectuion in most jurisdictions), would reduce teen pregnancies by older men, which I understand is (incredibly) the majority of teen pregnancies, pretty quickly. This is something that is SOOO overdue.

[Victoria Delsoul]

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.

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.

Absolutely not. The media has more important things to report, like Bush dropped his dog or Arnold had consensual group sex 26 years ago.

[victim soul]

BUMP

[MHGinTN]

The Depravity Potential In America

I’m tapping this out on Friday night, September 5, 2003. This past week, a murderer of a paid serial killer was executed in Florida. The man executed was convicted using the law and courts to convict and sentence him (to be truthful, the executed murderer actually killed more than just his intended victim). The man he murdered was never tried or convicted of the serial killings he is absolutely known to have committed. The people who paid for the killings were easily identifiable, but were never questioned regarding their solicitations. Why you may ask? … Because the serial killer was an abortionist hired by women to kill their alive, unborn children. That’s perfectly legal in America, and only women are granted that horrible right. The fathers have no legal say, though they may aid in the solicitation and the payment to the serial killer.

Argument has flown hot and heavy at various Internet sites over whether the murderer of the abortionists should have been executed, whether the abortionists was just as guilty of criminal acts against humanity, whether one murderer is more evil than the other. Lost in the sometimes-heated exchanges is the reality that already accomplished dehumanization of the unborn is preparing our nation for deep and abiding wrong. We are on the verge of embracing cannibalism as an enlightened application of science and technology because of the accomplished dehumanization inherent in the abortion industry.

If our legal system recognized the provable humanity of the alive –absolutely alive, or abortionists wouldn’t be need to kill them-- prenatal, a myriad of coming evil exploitations would be easily refuted and repudiated. [I wonder, is cannibalizing alive human beings wrong at this juncture in American History? … If you can persuade someone that the thing being cannibalized is not a human being, there is no contest. And that’s where there is an astonishing disconnect, as you will shortly see.]

When the debate centers upon the degrees of wrong between an abortionist and a murderer of an abortionist, the humanity of the little ones the abortionist has slaughtered tends to fade into the background and become a non-issue. And there are folks who actually seek to accomplish that because they do not believe the abortionist was doing wrong as long as the law protects his serial killing … they used to ignore the truth regarding the unborn because it was expedient to deny the unborn were alive human beings, until the nation became numb to the reality and the numbers grew to the tens-of-millions exterminated. In fact, there are people who do not believe the unborn are yet human beings ‘in full’ and thus it is acceptable to slaughter them to avoid consequences of earlier behavioral laxity. [Applied logically, killing of crib-bound and toddlers could be defended since they are not yet fertile, or fully grown, or fully aware, or … well, you get the picture, dehumanization always has a preferred utility making the category quite palatable.]

In a previous essay (Human Embryo/Human Being), we addressed the truth that even an embryo not yet implanted in a woman’s body is a human being, albeit shaped and arranged very differently from we who live in the air world. Let’s look at the dichotomy now at play in defending embryonic stem cell harvesting and cloning for body parts, for that is precisely what is looming in our approaching future, if men like Orrin Hatch have their way with the law.

Many who support abortion on demand do so under the mantra of ‘a woman’s right to choose’ (they mean choose the serial killer, not earlier choice to expose herself to pregnancy, but that is the grist of another essay). These people of whom I write actually acknowledge the humanity of the little ones the serial killers slaughter, but these same defenders claim the woman has a right to kill that child before it becomes a burden to the woman’s lifestyle. [If you have trouble believing this, catch a read of a recent Glamour Magazine article in which the female writer encourages teen readers to ‘have as much sex as possible and get plenty of sleep, enjoy this magical time of your life. And if you do get pregnant, there is always abortion and forgiveness. And there is much more putrid sludge in the article, but I won’t subject you to it here.] These people even have quasi-religious rituals that they will help the abortion seeker perform toward their alive-unborn prior to the killing! They encourage baptizing the soon to be diced being, and/or write Valentines to the little ones slaughtered to free ‘mommy’ from caregiving. Folks, you don’t baptize a non-human. These people condone the killing because of the expedience and they will readily admit the ‘thing’ being killed is a human being, but assert that a woman must have this right to kill a fellow human being.

Since it is becoming acceptable to kill individual human beings during their earliest age of their individual lifetime, it no longer requires deceit to lobby for the full exploitation of embryonic and fetal individuals when the goal is to treat older individuals! That, dear Reader, is the onset of cannibalism by utilitarian design. That is the evil we now sink toward because we have allowed dehumanization of the unborn under the guise of ‘a woman’s right to choose’ a serial killer to terminate an inconvenient fellow human being sequestered in the womb by no fault or design of the innocent one.

As usual, the Europeans are ahead of we naïve Americans. I wonder how long it will take the liberal politicians to bring us up to speed so we can compete with the Euro-techs and Chicom-labs in the field of cannibalizing the preborn? I’m sure people like Daschle, Kennedy, Harkin, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Clinton, Boxer and Dean have plans already in the works, and they’ll have plenty of help from the likes of Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter. But is that what we really want to be our final … strike that final, for humankind have depravity potential I cannot even imagine. But is that what We the People really want to be, C-A-N-N-I-B-A-L-S?

[hocndoc]

There was a chemical bomb at a Denver facility last month. But, the only place you'll find any mention of it is on pro-life sites, because the bomb was near a protester's car. It was probably meant for the prolife protestor, not the clinic, so it's not news.

http://www.prolife.org/state106.html
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/972092/posts

[Walnut]

I believe the choice is still with the mother. she can refuse to have the abortion. lets put the blame where it belongs. the person who actually goes thru with it.

[luckymom]

"More abortion opponents have been seriously injured and killed in the last thirty years than have abortion supporters..."

And they never even had the chance to ask the 43 million babies, those most opposed to abortion, who were victims of the most violent act of all.

[semaj]

BUMP