I am sure you all heard about Paul Hill's lethal injection for killing an abortion Dr. and an asst. in Fla. I have a question. Do you think this was too extreme? I know he was a man of cloth and he was against abortion and yes he did kill which was against his beliefs. But there are many others who have committed killings and they are not put to death. Again was this too extreme?

he admited to this, and said he would do so again. there was no doubt to his guilt (in my opinion the only time the death penalty should be used if there is no doubt to the persons guilt. and only then if it is likely he will kill again, such as mr bundy, or uncle charlie (manson) he took the lives of two people in malice, and was willing to do so again. even most anti-abortionists didn't support the dude (a few did) he got what he deserved.

I think that if a murderer openly admits that they are unrepentent then they deserve the maximum penalty. In this case, the death penalty was appropriate. He planned them, he carried them out, he would do it again. The perfect case for the death penalty, regardless of the reasoning behind the attacks.

He was clearly a nut case, if not outright crazy. Most protestant religions acknowledge free will, to sin or not to sin, to choose their own path in life, and who was Mr. Hill to decide for others whether or not they are allowed to have or perform abortions? He knowingly violated God's law and is foolish to think that he will be welcomed in the hereafter as a saint or a martyr. That is the kind of thinking some extremist Muslims use to get their young men to become suicide bombers.
Based on his obvious mental derangement, I suppose life without parole would have been more appropriate.

It is in no way too extreme. Who cares what his beliefs are, he is a cold-blooded murderer. I'm sure the people he killed really couldn't care less what he thinks or believes, they're dead all the same.

We need to send a strong message in this country that nutball religious fanatics are going to get slapped down hard for violating the law, just like everyone else. There is no appreciable difference between Paul Hill and Jeff Dahlmer.

I oppose the death penalty in all cases, especially in cases where there are political considerations such as this one. His death might actually encourage other "martyrs".

Then we can kill them too. Might weed out the gene pool.

Could we please try and be constructive in our posts?

I agree that people should not go around sparratically murdering at will. I think that as a Christian he had the responsibility to notify the Doctor in advance and tell him exactly what he was going to do. In the Christian religion, before you start a war, you are required to tell your enemies what offenses they are guilty of, give them adequite time to stop and then tell them exactly what repercussions will occur should they not stop. Had he followed these steps I would show more support for what he did. But I can't say that I have a lot of disdain for someone that killed a child murderer and his assistant.

Got references for this war thing? I sure would like to read where in the New Testament (the part of the Bible most relevant to Christians) it says this. Or is it old Testament? Regardless, individuals are not allowed to declare war, that is reserved for governments, always has been to my knowledge.

Abortion is as old as sex, thus it obviously predates Christianity. And the Catholic church was very tolerant of it, before "quickening", until about 130 years ago.
Here is a link for those interested in the history of abortion.
http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html#2

Mr. Hill's actions has only served to weaken the position of pro-life advocates. If you are pro-life, you don't kill, simple as that. The rest of us are now more likely to be suspicious of the more vocal pro-life side, even if we agree with them.
He killed more than a doctor, he has killed a certain amount of credibility.

Oh, I get it now. So Paul Hill's mistake wasn't that he murdered two people in cold blood. His mistake was that he didn't tell them first that he was going to kill them.

Whatever happened to "Thou shall not kill?" Has it been replaced by "An eye for an eye?"

I doubt that this is what Christianity teaches. It does seem to be what Christian religious fanatics believe. Murder to further a personal politicial agenda is extremism and Hill was just another domestic terrorist cloaking his hatred and zealotry under the trappings of religion.

Not the first madman to do so and unfortunately, probably not the last.

The problem with giving the death penalty to these fanatics is they prefer martyrdom to life in prison.

Bill,
Anyone can make war and Bibilically speaking when wars were first entered into by the Israelites, they were just a band of 12 tribes that had agreed upon a specific leader to intermediate between tribes. Often times wars were carried out only by one tribe without even the knowledge let alone approval of the rest. Usually however they worked together.

Nightimer,
In regards to your first paragraph, yes.
As for what happened to "thou shalt not kill", that includes innocent children that this Doctor was maiming in cold blood, then bleeding them from the womb of their cold mothers who forsake them in their own weakness. I compare the Doctor's murder to the murder of Adolf Hitler. Not so good, not so bad. Murder is appropriate in war, hence the need to declare war on the doctor, hence the need for the things I listed in my first posting on this thread. Murder to further a political agenda is one thing, murder to stop a murderer is another. Granted I don't usually feel this way, if we were talking about a people with representation or a voice that leftist reporters could go and take notes from, then be represented in the media, that would be another story, as it stands, innocent children continue to die with no representation.

The problem you have here John Locke is that whether or not you and Paul Hill think murdering a murderer (in your opinion) is justifiable, it still is against the law.

Comparing doctors that perform abortions to Adolf Hitler is hysterical hyperbole taken to a ridiculous extreme. The fact is abortion is legal in this country. If you don't like that fact then you and others that agree with you rally support and go to the polls to elect like-minded politicians to change the law.

Extremists don't care about politics or niceties like the law. They're all about the pursuit of the narrow little goals they affix their peanut-sized brains to.

Hill was a extremist and no different from a Timothy McVeigh except in scale. Zealots are all about their narrow little causes and for those that deem themselves "pro-life" to turn around and take a life stuns me in its hip-deep hypocriscy.

Murder to further a political agenda is one thing, murder to stop a murderer is another

In the case of Paul Hill had he the patience or the intellect he might have run for Congress or governor or become a Supreme Court justice and brought about real change to further his goal of ending abortion. As it stands, all he has done is brought shame and scorn upon the movement.

I support the death penalty, but only if there is no doubt of the person's guilt.

The interesting twist to this case is apparent. It was against his moral code for a doctor to terminate a pregnancy because he equates the unborn with human life, yet it wasn't against his moral code to kill a born human.

Justice was served.

They guys first name was Paul. He most likely grew up in a very religious area and was never able to see or look at the world in any other light. Then he went insane, its rather simple. When religious people fly planes into buildings some call them terrorists, when they kill abortion doctors some call them a hero.

The bottom line is again in relativity, i am sure just about everyone in America has something they hate or could care less about in America. If you decide that killing is how you want to go about getting rid of it i feel sorry for you.

I don’t agree with the death penalty, we should have let this guy become a preacher in prison, it would fulfill his life with an endless task.

Nightimer,
Not comparring mass murderers to other mass murderers is just as ridiculous and your own vehical for rhetoric is hyperbole my friend. What can congress change when the Supreme court has deemed it legal? Nothing. What can a State do against a tyranical Supreme Court that involves itself with issues that belong to a State? Nothing. What baby in the womb can scream out "please don't murder me, I'm your child"? None.

You should know that I don't like Paul Hill, nor do I think his actions represent a sound mind and I'm more inclined to think they are indicative of serious problems in our social structure especially in the lack of representation at the higher levels of government (ie..abortion and gay marriage and on and on...these should be states rights to choose). But worst of all is the threat to common people that shouldn't have to worry about being gunned down in the middle of their lives. Was he right to do it? No. Was that Doctor right to murder several babies? No. Will this have some profound affect on society? No. It didn't matter when it happened and it won't matter tomorrow. People will go on murdering babies as usual. I just thought some people ought be thinking about the children that die everyday at the hands of abortion doctors...while one murderer gets all the attention from the press.

Do you have any pity for murdered children, or are they all just Blastula to you?

Your first paragraph is a lot of hear-say.

Sorry for the double post.

I agree with Hugo. This man's death will do only fuel the radical extremist cause. Now, they have a martyr.
He would be less dangerous living out the rest of his days behind bars.

MrsP,
Sorry, but I have to count you as wrong. His initial acts did nothing to propagate the movement because there is no movement to speak of. Hence his death will do nothing to affect the non-existant movement. Also, there seems to be a large misunderstanding about Christianity here. People held and killed for dying for a cause are not automatically martyred. One can only be martyred by dying for his belief and love for Christ. Furthermore at no Church will you find anyone declaring the greatness of this man and his steadfast beliefs, because Christianity abhors such behavior, you're likening it to Islam, where a man blows himself up, and his family is made rich and famous and his Os-Mosque declares him a hero. This is America and everything in our culture tells us that these things are wrong. And let us not forget that our culture in inspired by this religion and our freedoms are believed granted to us by God. Or so says the declaration of Independence

I am pro-Life and therefore against the death penalty as well.

Paul Hill should have spent the rest of his life behind bars. Perhaps after the first 20 years he might start questioning the "righteousness" of taking two lives and the "reward" he planned to receive in Heaven for it. As it is, he got a lot of publicity, sympathy and limelight. He deserved none of it.

It's one thing when an unborn child threatens the life of the mother. It's another thing altogether when the pregnancy is inconvenient. Even in the case of rape, the resultant life is still a life, whether one wants to consider it an embryo or fetus. That's how we all started out, after all.

Taking a life is wrong. In both abortion and capital punishment, however, it is considered legal. Paul Hill happened to choose a way not (yet?) seen as legal. He knew what he was doing. He was not insane but chose to take extreme action for a good cause but in a horrible manner. The end did not justify the means.

How do you explain the likes of the Nuremberg Files?

I have to say that if there was ever a case where capital punishment was deserved it is here. We have an admitted murderer who is unrepentant, there's no way he should ever see the light of day and I don't like the idea of him getting three square meals a day on the taxpayer's dollar for the rest of his life.
As for him being a martyr, the extremists of his ilk are so far around the bend it makes no difference- anti-abortion people who have some concept of morality will never do what he did, the rest of them are dangerous no matter what.

I do have to admit that nutjobs like this make me question my concept of a God of love- the God I worship would never countenance this crap being pulled in his name.

JohnLocke has made a good point about the abortion issue.

Unless something EXTREME happens, there is no changing the law, because there was no law here. The Supreme Court somehow interpretted abortion as a "right" and rights cannot be legislated away.

Paul Hill, as I stated earlier, is nothing more than a multiple murderer. I don't care what you views on abortion are, what he did was wrong. He is the poster child for the death penalty.

As far as martyrdom goes, fanatics do not need martyrs. Only those of wavering faith need martyrs. This will not effect the abortion debate (or protests) either way.

There is a movement, Johnlocke. Martyrs die for some cause, they don't die for Christ, necessarily.

MrsP,
Sorry again. I don't know if you bothered to parouse those links on your link, but you just made me a fanatic. While I was clicking around I stumbled upon the most worst awful and disgusting things in the world. Pictures of ong-term borted babies. Their are pictures of helpless children in there! What were you thinking about?

After having seen the picture I saw there is no chance in hell that you will ever get me to believe that what Paul Hill did was wrong! I formally take back everything I said about Paul Hill. If anyone is as unlucky as I was to stumble on that picture.....heaven help you if you don't call him a hero too!




Edited to add this warning:

If you are looking at MrsPigpen's link, some links lead to pictures of mutilated babies! There are not warnings for all of them.

You were saying about a 'nonexistent cause'?

Those aborted babies are almost always spontaneous ( IOW natural) abortions, Johnlocke. Anti-abortion sites use miscarriages for photos because they appear more human, and are usually more intact and developed.

In fact, the radical violence against abortion clinics has fallen to virtually nil since the arrest and conviction of Paul Hill. Most of the Christian nutcases are seeing that their faith isn't enough to keep them out of prison. About the only conceivably positive thing the ludicrous Patriot Act has brought us is to properly define these lowlifes as terrorists and they should be punished as such and terminated with much prejudice.

Cephus, I didn't think it was possible to identify a benefit of the Patriot Act, but you're right. People who murder abortion doctors and and bomb clinics are terrorists and should be treated the same way as any other terrorist. I can't say that he should have been executed because that just means that the government is now guilty of the same crime Hill is guilty of, but he certainly should have never entered society again.

Once more: The translation is "You shall not murder", not "You shall not kill" The distinction is very important theologically, as murder involves killing the innocent. The Bible contains no prohibition on killing others in self-defense, and in fact specifically addresses how such a situation is to be handled, the operative concern being "was it self defense? If so, no sin", a position which clearly contradicts the ridiculous reading of "thou shalt not kill" using modern understanding. Incidentally, for those who are going to point out that the King James translation is "thou shalt not kill", I must point out that a) language changes, modern translations use "thou shalt not murder" (okay, no "shalt", but it has a certain ring to it ), and c) the modern translations are fully supported by the Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts.

Morally, Paul Hill was more correct than wrong in what he did. It is the obligation of every civilized individual to protect the innocent. The operative question is, was Paul Hill protecting the innocent? That is both a legal, and a moral question. Forgotten by some here is the sad fact that our own history demonstrates that we can come up with two different answers.

A person could make a strong case that, from a utilitarian perspective, his actions were immoral, because they may be counterproductive, or may result in greater negative unintended consequences that outweigh the positive protection of the innocent from a predatory murderer (aka abortionist). Unintended consequences could include greater social instability, the erosion of the rule of law, backlash, etc. On the other hand, as has already been pointed out, what other immediate course of action was available to Paul Hill to protect the innocent?

The Courts? Closed.
The Legislatures? That route has been shut down by the courts.
Civil disobedience? Almost entirely shutdown.

There are those who claim that this isn't a Christian act. That's probably what the money changers in the Temple thought when Christ chased them out with a whip. "Hey, you can't do that, it ain't Christian." At least some of those making the claim aren't Christian themselves, so it begs the question: how the heck do they know what God would want when they deny His existence? Others claim to know what God is going to do with Paul Hill come Judgement Day. Sorry, only God knows that, and last time I checked, nobody posting on this board fits that description. FWIW, I doubt very much that God directly told Hill to do this, in large part because the God of the Old Testament rarely used his people as instruments of correction. God either handled it directly, sent supernatural minions, or used the natural nasty inclinations of who were also on the wrong path as disciplinary tools.

I believe that Paul Hill was wrong in what he did, although not because I believe that killing abortionists is categorically wrong. They are murderers and their actions must be stopped. At some point the question must be asked: How long do you waiting on others to do what is right? I believe he was wrong because it hasn't "come to that" yet. It will though, if this country continues heading in the direction its going. Had the RICO cases brought against some pro-life groups not been shot down in court, we'd be much closer. The burgeoning "hate crimes" and "hate speech" laws are bringing us closer, because when reformers are punished based not on what they do, but what they are attemtping to reform, civl remedies are exhausted. When that happens, the reformers do one of two things. Some give up, and the others? They become revolutionaries.

Finally, some are concerned that Paul Hill is going to be a martyr for the anti-abortion cause? No. There are already millions . . .

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now.

Bikerdad,
I concur one hundred fifty percent. I agree with everything you say except when you speak of the killing abortion doctors as "counter-productive". The idea that killing the doctors is more maladaptive than kill several million babies per year is not one I can agree with right now.


MrsP,
I no longer count them non-existent as per I plan to join one now. Please believe me when I tell you my sarcasm has left this thread!

Still waiting for references about war, or killling, that is justified, from the New Testament, anybody?
Many moral issues that the churches of today pursue are barely mentioned in the Bible, and then not considered heinous enough to justify clear warnings and promise of punishment.
The Christian stance of this era seems to be judging and condemning, actions not available to us according to the words of Christ.
Mr. Hill judged, condemned, and punished, thinking he was doing God's work, even though he had to know that all those actions are not his to perform. Then he took the easy way out, actually seeking his own death by not fighting his sentence of death. He would rather "die for Christ" than live for him. His is a severe case of self-delusion. I am not for killing the insane, mentally deficient, or even the morally mis-guided, unless it is the only way to protect society from their actions.

There are posters here who believe that our soldiers lives are less valuable and forfeit because they elected to join our military and serve our country. They rationalize that deaths of our own soldiers are acceptable because they have agreed to wage war and "kill innocent Iraqis". How is their stand any different than the one you advocate here?

Johnlocke...You're joining the movement to kill doctors? Thankyou, I suppose I should alert the proper authorities.

It seems really simple to me, if you don't like abortion- don't have one.
If you don't want others to have abortions, how about working to change the societal forces that would lead someone to make such a difficult decision.
What this sorry excuse for a human did was MURDER, and it honestly sickens me to se people defend it.

MrsP,
Once again your logic is flawed. Our boys didn't go over seas to kill innocent Iraqi's, they went over to forge a war in the name of liberty and American safety. It is not my problem you don't see that. Notwithstanding the idea that I accept the deaths of brave young men because they do so in order to protect the free world. You should support our troops that bravely face death so we can enjoy all this. Babies in the womb don't have choices, nor the law to protect them anymore! What's wrong with society when people equate a soldiers' glorious death in battle, with the murder of a helpless child Did you see the pictures? It looked like a 6 month old to me. I'm going to be sick. I don't believe for a second that the religious "zealots" are lying about the sick gruesome details of the abortion. There is a reason people don't discuss the details of it in public. There is a reason those rooms are equiped with inter-bodily vacuums. Please stop pretending a "right to choose" isn't a "right to kill".

Please, by all means report me. I haven't committed a crime, and to the best of my knowledge neither has anyone on that list save Paul Hill.

It is absolutely the same logic! It isn't 'my' logic, either.

I don't equate our soldiers' job on the battlefield with indiscriminate killing of 'innocents' and I don't equate an abortion doctor's job as the killing of innocent lives either. But, if you are going to refute the comparison, you'd better be prepared to demonstrate the inconsistency.

You haven't commited a crime (I hope), you threatened to commit a crime when you said you were joining the movement to kill abortion doctors.

Edited to add: At least pretend you read posts in their entirety. Those pictures are not the result of surgical abortions. Do you think the clinics brought the bodies in for inspection and a photo shoot? Fetuses like that are everpresent in most any hospital pathology lab. I used to work in a pathology laboratory, in fact. If you still don't believe me, here's a clue...one of them is still wearing a hospital identification armband.

Of course the logic is the same, as it always must be if it is correct logic. What we go back to is the core question legal and moral question: is the course of action you are undertaking justified? The answer to that question depends in part on the facts. Mistake the facts (as the posters who accept as deserved the sniping of our soldiers) and you will end up with the wrong conclusion.

Turn it around: Do the past and declared future actions of Al-Quada justify our hunting down and killing every last one of the SOBs? Yes. Why? Because Al-Quada had declared that they are going to deliberately attack and kill innocents, and have demonstrated that it is not an empty declaration.

So, the question goes back to this: are Paul Hill, or US troops in Iraq, or Islamofascists in the Middle East, or abortionists deliberately attacking and killing innocents? No (abortionists are not innocents), No (the troops are not deliberately attacking innocents), Yes, Yes.

Whether using deadly force to oppose them is justified depends on the answer to that question, and the secondary question: will a lower level of force be successful in opposing stopping them?

That, of course, is the core of the argument that Hill should not have been executed, because a lower level of force likely would have succeeded in stopping him. Unfortunately, the "force level" argument depends on the very thing that undergirds abortion, complete disregard for personhood and justice. (C.S. Lewis has a fine exploration of the inherent justice based on personhood in the death penalty, I suggest y'all read it.)

Likewise, some who oppose the Coalition action in Iraq argue (very unpersuasively given the history) that a lower level of force (diplomatic pressure, i.e., jaw jaw) was more appropriate.

I doubt if anybody here would object at all if, while having lunch across the street from a daycare center, Paul Hill were to blow away somebody hacking preschoolers down on the playground with a bloody machete. In fact, Hill would be hailed as a hero. Would anybody suddenly rally to the defense of the machete wielder if he were an abortionist? Not likely. Why? Because there's no doubt that the murderous lout was attacking innocents, and deadly force was appropriate.

The only difference between what Hill did, and the scenario given, is that the children were still in their mother's womb, the mother had given permission, and the abortionist wasn't actually in the act. The abortionist's actions remain deliberate and fatal.

So, back to the question: is the abortionist performing a simple medical procedure on mere tissue, or murdering an innocent?

Since that question depends on the legal AND moral definition of personhood, and the two definitions don't always match, the logic can lead to either Paul Hill is a defender of the innocent, or a murderer. The legal logic says Hill is a murderer, but the moral logic is obviously much more muddled, because the starting point is in dispute.

I stake my position that the abortionist is a murderer of an innocent person, and should be stopped. Did Hill satisfy the second standard, appropriate use of force? No.

Bikerdad, although I disagree with you fundamentally on this issue, I must thank you. That was the very best answer I've seen for a question I've asked, to one degree or another, over the past ten years. I was in a bad mood (due to reading posts regarding my husband's assumed expendability) until I read your post. Thankyou, I mean that sincerely.

There are actually three alternatives I can quickly think of that Paul Hill had

1) Persuade pregnant women to voluntarily choose life.
2) Lobby for a Pro-Life amendment to the Constitution.
3) Support Senatorial and Presidential candidates who would be sympathetic to pro-life judges.

I'm not because this question has to do with legality, not religion. Paul Hill violated the law, he commited premeditated cold-blooded murder, was found guilty by a jury of his peers, was sentenced, the conviction was upheld by an appeal and he has admitted *GLEEFULLY* to doing it! This man is a complete slime. There is no question that he is guilty, and under the law, he deserves to be lit up like a Christmas tree.

Nat Turner did the same thing. He was another religious fanatic who suffered the supreme punishment.

There is so much to go over here, where to start?

Bill,
I will start by repeating what Bikerdad already said. "Murder" is not allowed in Christianity. The killing of innocent people is not allowed! However, murderous doctors are not innocents! They are terrible disguting creatures performing mutilation on the children of our country .

Next, In the Old Testament God raises up the Israelite Army to go and conquer their neighbors to the east, which I believe were Pheonicians. They were the Worshippers of Baal. Baal, was a mighty Demon exerting control over the Pheonicians which worshipped him. In his name the worshippers would have ritual sex and they were really into blood lust. They mutilated children in sacrifice, they molested the children dead and alive and they had sex with any creature they could find. The Lord commanded the Israelite Army to draw up a declaration. They did. After there declaration went ignored, they went into the city and as commanded, they slaughtered every living tthing within the land. Not one stone was left unturned nor was one life spared. And I'm not just talking about people. They killed their livestock, their pets, their everything! This was not about profit or imperialism, this was about the removal of evil! Hence, it has been done before.

Most Christians and I mean like 99.9999% of Christians see what Paul Hill did as morally wrong and probably see him as psychotic. And I see everyone here harping on Christians, constantly! What people don't understand is that just about one hundred percent of all their culture comes from Christianity at least indirectly. The ideals that they preach in this debate site, the ones they walk the earth with everyday and all the ones in the Constitution, come at least indirectly from Christianity. Then these people act like they're so much better than Christians and hold their heads up high, telling us, "that's not very Christian". See, they hold Christians to a higher standard (just like Paul said they would) but they hold themselves much less accountable. Then They'll claim we're hypocrites, not stopping to ponder, if we're all humans, aren't we all hypocrites? No man is above reproach and I'm sooo terribly sorry that it bothers people that Chritians are by and large against the slaughter of innocent children. But the fact that I'm apologetic doesn't take away from the fact that abortion doctors are still baby killers!

Bikerdad,
Thank you, thank you and thank you. You put into words what I could not. That is a damn fine post if I have ever seen one.

.

The point I was trying to make is that Christians should use the culture and teachings of the New Testament as taught by Jesus, not the old culture and beliefs according to the Old Testament. And now that we have seperation of church and state (the Israelites did not), it is the responsibility of government, not religion, to declare war. If religious factions want to declare war on abortion, they should do it within their own religion. My choice of religon is against abortion, but they also acknowledge free will and the right of all of us to live according to our conscience. Doesn't mean there won't be a price to pay later, though. Again, judgment is God's , not man's responsibility.



I don't see everyone here harping on Christians, especially not constantly. Hardly any of our culture originated with Christianity, nearly all of our culture and ideas existed prior to the life of Christ. He clarified and innovated more than he originated. Certainly the Jews contributed a major portion of the Christian culture, since it was born within their culture. Culture can change and develop, but Human Nature has not changed since pre-Biblical times. We are making some progress, though. Slavery is almost gone, and abortion is not as accepted/practiced as much as it once was, thanks more to modern methods of birth control more than any change in human nature.
If Christians claim to be of a higher standard, and they do, it is to be expected that they will be held to a higher standard. I am against abortion myself, except under certain circumstances, but that does not mean that it is my place to condemn or judge others who believe or practice otherwise.
True Christianity is indicated by actions, not words, and Mr. Hills actions AND his words clearly indicate that he is NOT the same kind of Christian as 99.9999% as the rest.
Mr. Hill deluded himself into a corner, then felt committed to staying there. He did this on his own, Christianity was just the vehicle he use to help him get to his destination.

I cant help but notice the irony of the circle of killing all based on the premise that murder is wrong, culminating in a State sponsored execution , just to make sure society understands that murder is wrong! Its almost laughable if it werent so goddam tragic.

My sentiments exactly...forgive me for the one-liner, but since you said everything that I would have said myself already, there's no need for me to say anything else.

Hugo.....

regarding your options

1. We're trying to persudae people. But people are selfisha nd still kill babies.
2. the Supreme Court ruled on this one and so you make an unconstitutional amendment to the constitution. I knows it's weird logic. Besides, we don't need a new amendment, we need to enforce the right to Life.
3. We do and we are...innocents are still dying.



Bill,

God is eternal, hence he is never changing and therefore the Old Testament is just as important as the new. In fact I read it more often. So do All Messianic Christians and Jewish Christians. Haven't you heard of Jews for Jesus?

Anyhow, to be honest with you I think it's going to come down to more violence soon anyway. Not because of radical groups, because the left has usurped a lot of power, especially over judges and the right isn't getting much of a voice. This is how it usually happens. Then someone gets *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and starts taking shots at people. Then those judges are a little more hesitant to make a final decision...ya know I'm not saying it's right, I'm only saying that this is the way the rest of history goes.

Artemis....tuche'

Wow, now I'm respecting those christians, who, before they act, ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" Somehow, I don't see Jesus with a gun shooting at doctors left and right.

Paul Hill broke a law, and got punished. I couldn't be happier.

BH,
I'm glad you associate one Christians actions with all other Christians. However I don't see you saying "Christians all over the world donate food, moneyand clothes to people in need, Christians go around the world with their knowledge of engineering and donate their time to build bridges and dams in the 3rd world." I could go on all day. You sir are only interested in one side of the argument.

Now shall I hold you responsible for all the actions of all the Democrats. You must be quite the racist....you know Robert Byrd used the so called "N" Word in public as well as California's Lt Gov. Bustamante.....at speeches in rooms full of Black people....Hey wasn't it the South that was Pro-Slavery and the Republicans Against it. Yes it was and the South was full of Democrats...I guess I'm glad I'm not a racist Democrat.

Perhaps you could be more constructive, if not may be you could just be more logically coherrant!

John, where has ANYONE used the actions of this wingnut to tar all Christians?
Becoming Human specifically stated that he respects those Christians who actually act as Christ teaches us to.

Killing is WRONG. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to people. Killing to attempt to force your pathetic worldview on those who don't share it is TERRORISM.
We, as humans, are not fit to judge others, certainly not fit to act as judge jury and executioner as this pathetic waste of humanity did.

Actually Grendell,
It has been implied all over this thread that Christians are radicals who can't stand to lose the abortion argument by law, so they kill the Doctors. I don't think killing is necessarilly wrong, Murder yes, Killing, no. Is it murder to kill a mass murderer while he's on his way to kill babies? Nope, not in my book.

I would like to take this time to retract any statements I made earlier implying that Paul Hill should have given warning to the doctor under proper Christian Terms of War. I retract the statement because it was made aware to me earlier today that he did warn the doctor and the doctor was infact wearing a bullet proof vest when he was killed implying that he snubbed his nose at G-d and continued to murder innocent babies. Have mercy.

Not Christians- lying, murderous, judgemental sociopaths like the worthless Paul Hill. I personally find it offensive that you try to link his psychotic delusions to Christianity- I guess now I know how most Muslims felt after the attacks of September 11.
Paul Hill killed people because he is a pathetic sociopath, not because he is a Christian. Christ never said anything that would support what this terrorist did.