The Paul Hill debate reminded me somewhat of what I have considered one of the most interesting incidents in American history, the slave rebellion led by a fanatical minister by the name of Nat Turner in 1831. For those not familiar with the rebellion check out this site

Slavery, like abortion today, was the moral issue of the time. Nat Turner had visions that led him to leading the rebellion. Today he would certainly be described as a religious fanactic. 55 whites were killed in the rebellion and many white slave owners and their families may never have slept well again. Virginia actually debated ending slavery after the rebellion, unfortunately the pro-slavery faction prevailed and the end result was even harsher conditions for slaves.

Was Nat Turner, taking into account he was property and had no legal means to address his cause, justified?

I would adress his cause more towards the Palestenian vs Isreali cause than the abortion issue. An oppressed poeple that lash out against everyone they see as an enemy, including those outsiders would consider innocent (there were a number of children in that 55 whites) while having no means of actually winning an armed conflict.

Of course, what's interesting here is that the ones turning violent are not the ones being "oppressed". Being driven by what you see as an injustice to take up arms should be a last resort, but seems less psychotic in a case where the insurrectionists are members of the class they claim is being "oppressed".

On a somewhat unrelated note, I can't be the only one to notice that the violent wing of the anti-abortion cause is exclusively represented by men. We men don't have to deal with the consequences of this issue to anywhere near the extent that women do, will never be forced with the decision between our unborn child's life and our own, or having to carry to term the child of a man who raped us- yet men are the ones taking the law into their own hands, murdering innocents as well as those they see as wrongdoers.

Maybe I should not have mentioned Paul Hill. We already have that debate going on. Was Nat Turner's actions justifiable?

My apologies for the hijack.

Certainly, in my opinion Nat Turner was deranged, and his insurrection killed innocents as well as those he saw as guilty. When the voices in your head tell you to kill people, it seems like a pretty good sign to me it isn't the voice of God.
Just because his cause was just does not make his actions right, however it must be noted that he was disenfranchised from the system we have set up to allow people to effect change non-violently.