7 comments

• 

  Rev Don Spitz

  10 months ago

  Paul Hill did the right thing. If there were only 250 people like Paul Hill the daily murder of thousands of helpless unborn children would end immediately I pray God raises up more men and women in the spirit and courage of Paul Hill.
  Paul Hill did not murder that babykilling abortionist. He killed him. There is a difference between murdering someone and killing someone. Paul Hill protected the 32 babies the babykilling abortionist was going to murder from being murdered. When one protects innocent people from being murdered, in this case the 32 babies the babykilling abortionist was going to murder, with lethal force that is defensive action.
  SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
  reply
• 

  Jon

  10 months ago

  Paul Hill did not have the authority to kill the abortionist. I sympathize with Mr. Hill's motives, but he is just as bad as the abortionist whom he placed himself in judgement of.
  
  Even in the Old Testament, the avenger of blood was the next of kin. Had the abortionist personally killed Mr. Hill's son? But the U.S. is not a theocracy as Israel was, nor should it be. God's people is now a Church, not a nation or nations.
  
  Vengeance is God's; God will repay. The civil government is God's minister to administer God's vengeance. All rulers will some day answer to God. Mr. Hill could have prayed--and I would think that he did. I would hope that he did also support crisis pregnancy centres, adoption agencies, foster parents, and prolife legislation. I would like to think that he is in heaven even now, but such a decision is not mine to make.
  
  If Mr. Hill had been in the situation of being a witness to an abortion, he would have had other ways to prevent it. He could have physically restrained the abortionist from beginning the operation. He didn't have to kill the abortionist to defend the life of the unborn baby. Sure, he would have been arrested by the police, but that's my point: all murderers, whether abortionists or Mr. Hill, have no authority to make decisions of life and death for other human beings.
  reply
• 

  Celina

  9 months ago

  Paul Hill may be a man of God but is not God and should let women in Colorado make choices for themselves. Mothers make decisions for their children everyday. Maybe an abortion would simply be the first choice that a mother would make.
  reply
• 

  T.S.

  9 months ago

  Indeed, this is very well said and simply put. The pro life movement seeks to undermine the role of women in deciding how and when they will bring children into the world. It is a bizarre rationilzation which causes people to arbitrarily define the unborn as "innocent" and those who are killed outside of the womb (in wartime especially) as arbitrarily "guilty." These are not the gleanings of people close to Divinity, but deeply imersed in their own ignorance.
  reply
• 

  glh3

  2 months ago

  Children are "innocent" (whether inside the womb or outside) and killing them is neither rational or right. Life is life and has intrinsic value to be honored and protected. Anyone who believes that killing a child is legitimate, at any age, is morally bankrupt. Both sides of this debate are invalidated by their own position if they do not equally consider the born and the unborn.
  
  The idea that a mother makes choices for her children and that abortion is just another possible choice is a false premise in defense of abortion. The idea that a mother can decide that killing her child is reasonable is insane and immoral. This argument (if it were valid) legitimizes the murder of another Caylee Anthony, as well as infanticide, gendercide, genocide, and eventually eldercide in the form of "mercy killing". From a purely secular perspective, is devaluing human life at any stage reasonable? Hitler reasoned that the Jew was "sub-human" and white slave owners did the same thing.
  
  Margaret Sanger, pen-pal to Hitler and founder of Planned Parenthood, took a similar position, in defense of abortion: the "untermenschen and 'human weeds'" are befouling the earth with their "reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning".
  
  We in the US have allowed so-called reason to lead us into a wholesale warfare and slaughter of a whole class of human beings: the unborn. Our government, or any government, which does not or is not able to protect the most defenseless of it citizens or guests to its country, is illegitimate and worthy of demise. It is time to clean house, fire all our politicians, and take another look at the direction of our country. Do we stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL, or only for those who vote, pay taxes, complain, and have the loudest voices?
  
  God Bless America and help it see the error of its ways.
  reply
• 

  T.S.

  9 months ago

  It is very unfortunate that citzens of this once great nation have been stuck in the misleading quagmire of pro life activism. This is an issue of respect and autonomy, which the pro life movement has not even begun to account for or, I suspect, has the itellect or historical context by which to offer sensible and reasonable debate. There is a lot of noise, not sense and reason. We are a country founded by the rule of law. Those who would profess to respect life so much as to kill are sociopaths and do not even live up to the values they pretend to fight for. "Judge not or you shall be judged thou hypocrite"
  reply
• 

  Les

  9 months ago

  I agree. These who 'kill are sociopaths and do not even live up to the values they pretend to fight for'. All who kill or support those that do should be held accountable. I am 'Pro-Choice' at conception. I do recognize that it is an extremely difficult decision for a mother and father to decide to take the life of their baby. Perhaps if adoption was the price and easy of attaining as an abortion, this wouldn't be an issue. If harming a child is repulsive to most, why isn't it when that child is growing in the womb?
  reply