Conference yukon::christian_v7

    .52
    
    or perhaps it was just some distraught *father* of a child who was
    aborted without his consent.
    
    or
    
    Perhaps ... I dunno have they caught the *person* yet?
    
    Maybe it was a woman who had an abortion and is suffering from post
    trauma guilt...
    
    Nancy

    RE:52
    Mark,
         this guy  is a extremist quack and deserves to be punished to the 
    fullest extent of the law. He did more harm to the pro-life movement 
    than any other acts of violence has done.

    My only hope is that the extremist quacks on the pro-abortion side
    don't come out with acts of violence on pro-life people.

    Jim

>    Mark,
>         this guy  is a extremist quack and deserves to be punished to the 
>    fullest extent of the law. He did more harm to the pro-life movement 
>    than any other acts of violence has done.

Did you read my message properly?  He MAY INDEED BE an extremest quack
but have the rationale I posted.  I agree that he's done more harm than
good, very much so!

Whether or not this guy is extremist, it brings up all of these provocative
questions.  Abortionist are not extremist quacks; instead, they have
been characterized as "butchers" and the like for their "murders/procedures".

See my point?

Mark


(Nancy, yes it was a man: from the reports, he shot the doctor (3 times)
and waited for the police, walked over and said "I'm the guy who shot him.")

    Okay, I get it, he has been caught!!
    
    Any word from him at all, yet?
    
    Nancy

(.56) Dunno.  I expect you'll get more media press from the pro-(life/choice)
groups than *reporting* of the incident.

Watch and listen, folks, but more importantly THINK!

re:55

>Did you read my message properly?  He MAY INDEED BE an extremist quack
>but have the rationale I posted.  I agree that he's done more harm than
>good, very much so!

    The rational you cite has no comparison to the Hitlers or Caligula's
    of the past. Abortionist are misguided on their understanding of
    the unborn, but would hardly carry out the deeds of a Hitler or
    Caligula on people.

>Whether or not this guy is extremist, it brings up all of these provocative
>questions.  Abortionist are not extremist quacks; instead, they have
>been characterized as "butchers" and the like for their "murders/procedures".

    They have been characterized as butchers and murders which gives
    justification for the quacks to commit acts of violence towards them.
     
>See my point?

 No.

    Jim

 The only word I've heard is that he requested a Bible to use in his defense.





  Good note Mark and I agree.







Jim

>    The rational you cite has no comparison to the Hitlers or Caligula's
>    of the past. Abortionist are misguided on their understanding of
>    the unborn, but would hardly carry out the deeds of a Hitler or
>    Caligula on people.

To *YOU* and to me, Jim, but not to this vigilante.  *He* sees no difference.
*He* sees the millions of lives aborted.

>    They have be characterized as butchers and murders which gives
>    justification for the quacks to commit acts of violence towards them.

Please retype this.  I don't understand it.

>>See my point?
>
> No.

That's evident.  I hope I've been more clear this time, and thank you for
bearing with me to hear it out.

Mark

>>    The rational you cite has no comparison to the Hitlers or Caligula's
>>    of the past. Abortionist are misguided on their understanding of
>>    the unborn, but would hardly carry out the deeds of a Hitler or
>>    Caligula on people.
>
>To *YOU* and to me, Jim, but not to this vigilante.  *He* sees no difference.
>*He* sees the millions of lives aborted.

To further comment, The rationale I cite is what I see as the rationale for
this man's actions (AND DOES NOT SAY THAT I APPROVE OF HIS RATIONALE).

As to Hitler: he killed innocent people.  An abortionist kills innocent
people.  Many abortionists have killed more (unborn) than Hitler (killed
born people).  How is one abortionist different than Hitler?  In this
man's mind, only scope of destruction.  Hitler possessed the political
and military machinery to kill 6 million Jews and millions of others.
Stalin killed 20 million of his OWN PEOPLE!!  An abortionist does it
one by one by one by one.  When you look at it philisophically, in this
man's mind, the abrotionist is no different than Hitler.

Mark

I DO NOT CONDONE VIGILANTE ACTIONS!

In regards of the man who was caught:

He wants to use the Bible as his defense... CNN showed a video clip of
him at his arrangment(sp? I always got D's in spelling!) 

All I could think about after seeing this clip was: First Wako, now
this... These wackos sure are gonna hurt the Christian image with the
general public!

And then when I think about this, and the stuff mentioned in note 58.* (the
"Sign of the Times" note) all I can say is


WOW!


/Scott

>>    The rational you cite has no comparison to the Hitlers or Caligula's
>>    of the past. Abortionist are misguided on their understanding of
>>    the unborn, but would hardly carry out the deeds of a Hitler or
>>    Caligula on people.

>To *YOU* and to me, Jim, but not to this vigilante.  *He* sees no difference.
>*He* sees the millions of lives aborted.

    Right, but there are plenty of crazy people who see things in a warped
    kind of way. I'd hate to try and rationalize their behavior as
    something other than sick.

>>    They have be characterized as butchers and murders which gives
>>    justification for the quacks to commit acts of violence towards them.

>Please retype this.  I don't understand it.

    Using labels such as "butchers and murderers" gives nuts like this
    guy the justification for their actions.
    
    Its what editorial cartoons do in times of war. Dehumanize the enemy
    so the populace doesn't have a conscience when it comes time to kill
    them.

     Jim

    Wow, he had a Bible in his hand. So doesn't David Kerish sp?.


    Jim

.64>    Using labels such as "butchers and murderers" gives nuts like this
.64>    guy the justification for their actions.

Reflective statement, Jim.  "nuts like this" is a label.  Yes, you and I may
think of him as a nut, but he thinks of the abortionist as a butcher.

Now do you see my point?

If we can see both sides *WITHOUT* our biases (easily said, not easily done),
we'll see that there is plenty of reality to be digested.  As I said before,
it boils down to what constitutes a human life, doesn't it?

re:66


>If we can see both sides *WITHOUT* our biases (easily said, not easily done),
>we'll see that there is plenty of reality to digested.  As I said before,
>it boils down to what constitutes a human life, doesn't it?

    That Doctor was a human life who probably saves more lives in other
    parts of his medical profession than he destroys performing abortions.
    Also, that doctor has children of his own. What about their lives now ?
    Do you think they'll ever see the pro-life side of abortion now ?
    I'd think they'll grow up to be pretty bitter, do you ?

    We hate the sin, but love the sinner here don't we. 

     
    Jim

    This particular case won't last more than a day in court.  The guy is
    representing himself.  The law lets you do that.  But, regardless of
    the issue, these types of cases are short because the court basically
    has no patience with non-lawyers.  I've seen it happen when the person
    representing himself was (IMO) clearly in the right, did his research
    well and presented his case calmly and rationally.
    
    The pro-abortionists have made a campaign out of depicting pro-life
    folks as deranged, law-breaking and (now) murderers.  They are painting
    themselves as the guardians of freedom, lawful action, liberty and
    (now) life, believe it or not.  Good for evil and evil for good.  I
    agree that this fellow did no help for "the cause."  His action has
    served to give pro-abortionists more ammo for their propaganda.
    
    I like the previous discussion regarding Hitler.  I would have to answer 
    "no" to the question of whether or not it would have been "right" to
    assasinate Hitler.  Mind you, it would probably "feel" right.  But,
    remember that Hitler was not alone.  He was simply representative of a
    greater evil that promulgated throughout Germany.  In fact,
    assasinating him would, I think, have helped Germany to continue and
    win the war.  Why?  He was popular, but not competent.  His own top
    leaders -- very patriotic Germans -- saw this and several times
    attempted to assasinate him.  Were they successful, Germany might have
    succeeded.  "Purification" might well have succeeded and the history
    books might only now have told of what happened in the camps, similar
    to what the Russians are now hearing about their camps.  The Germans 
    as victors would fell national remorse, but they would remain the
    victors, just as the Russians are still victors in that war.
    
    In other words, assasinating Hitler sounds like a "good" thing, but
    given the larger picture it would have meant very little and might
    actually have contributed to even greater atrocities.
    
    Back to the present.  This fellow (and I like the thoughts that
    started this line of reasoning -- thanks for posting it, Mike) would
    be, IMO, wrong in assuming that he saved lives by assasinating this
    guy.  True, some women may have delayed their abortions long enough to
    have their babies.  But, how many other abortions will now be carried
    out as a result of public favor swinging towards the pro-abortionists
    and their soon-to-be-hero martyr?  In the end, his action may
    ironically lead to MORE abortions.
    
    If he dies for his crime, he *might* also be considered a martyr.  But,
    I doubt it will have as much support since it can be argued that he
    took an innocent life in order to become a martyr.
    
    Steve

>    That Doctor was a human life who probably saves more lives in other
>    parts of his medical profession than he destroys performing abortions.
>    Also, that doctor has children of his own. What about their lives now ?
>    Do you think they'll ever see the pro-life side of abortion now ?
>    I'd think they'll grow up to be pretty bitter, do you ?
>
>    We hate the sin, but love the sinner here don't we. 

Still don't see my point, do you, Jim?  

Yes to everything you say about the Doctor.  Yes, what this murderer did 
was wrong.

Now:     That unborn child was a human life who may save more lives in other
    parts of his medical profession, or become <insert_whatever>.
    Also, that unborn child may one day have children of his own. 
    What about their lives now ?
    
>    Do you think they'll ever see the pro-life side of abortion now ?
>    I'd think they'll grow up to be pretty bitter, do you ?

His children have the worst of it.  Because it is a paradox.  They 
will abhor the killing of their father, and perhaps in bitterness
in turn will assist in killing more unborn children.

>    We hate the sin, but love the sinner here don't we. 

Absolutely.  Have I made the point yet?

Mark

    Mark
         I think I see that you're trying to look at it from the murderers
    prospective.( Does he have a name ?) However, even if the prospective
    that you  presented is the same as his, its wrong. The man is sick !

    Jim

(Steve Sherman)

.68>    But, how many other abortions will now be carried
.68>    out as a result of public favor swinging towards the pro-abortionists
.68>    and their soon-to-be-hero martyr?  In the end, his action may
.68>    ironically lead to MORE abortions.

When this reasoning reaches this "nut" and "soon-to-be-hero martyr"
it will be the irony that will push him over the edge in grief for
the very thing he was trying to prevent he sets into action with a
fervor.  (Better than the idea of the Illuminati - people planted
to do these things for covert operations - get an unwitting fellow
to do what this guy just did and watch him roast while further
the "cause."

MM

>    Mark
>         I think I see that you're trying to look at it from the murderers
>    prospective.( Does he have a name ?) However, even if the prospective
>    that you  presented is the same as his, its wrong. The man is sick !

Jim, 
  I don't think you're trying to look at it from the murderer's perspective.
Nor have you seen the implications of such a perspective.

As for being wrong, how is this different than killing an unborn child?
You're right, what he did is wrong.  So is killing an unborn child wrong.
So is killing a 1 week old (born) child wrong.

Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald.  This guy (I don't know his name)
may veiw himself as Jack Ruby.  I'll bet many people back in '63
(I was too young) felt good about Oswald's death.  How is this guy
different than Jack Ruby?  Answer: he's not.  Jack Ruby was WRONG, TOO!
And so, how is Lee Harvey Oswald compared to an abortionist? They
both terminate(d) life.

    another analogy is all the Americans calling for Saddam Hussein's head
    on a platter.

    .73>
    
    It seems that murder is justifiable if it is institutionalized somehow
    (abortion clinics, gas chambers, electric chairs, and the toppling of
    tyrants).
    
    Pause for thought.

    .74>
    
    Getting a bit off the topic, but isn't/wasn't there a topic
    discussing the differences (if any) between killing and murder?

    Only straying a little from the news item, Otto.  One of my
    predictions, way back a number of replies, was that this guy
    who did the killing/murder will view it as killing and not murder.
    
    I'd call it murder.  Would I call it justifiable murder?  I don't 
    think *I* would in this case.  Is there such a thing as justifiable
    homicide? (note term change) 
    
    If faced with someone in my home about to attack my children, or the
    children of someone who was visiting me, I would do what I can to 
    stop this attacker/killer, perhaps including deadly force.  Would
    [generic] you? 

    As far as using deadly force in any situation, I seriously don't
    know.  I can think about it, I can say what I would hope, but
    until you're there.....  I do know, however, that if I were to
    kill someone for *any* reason, I'd feel a piece of me die as well.
    
    Otto

Amen, Otto - I'm happy to die, but killing would about destroy me..

								Andrew

p.s. - is 'Elks', like, a freemasons lodge?

								Andrew

>p.s. - is 'Elks', like, a freemasons lodge?

I'm not exactly sure, to tell the truth, but they are a fraternity of
men (no women members) and I think I also remember them being rather
"racially separate" (but wonder if this has changed).

MM

RE:72
    Mark,

>Jim, 
>  I don't think you're trying to look at it from the murderer's perspective.
>Nor have you seen the implications of such a perspective.

     Your right, I'm not trying to see it from the murderer's perspective.
    His perspective is usually what separates the insane from the sane.

>As for being wrong, how is this different than killing an unborn child?
>You're right, what he did is wrong.  So is killing an unborn child wrong.
>So is killing a 1 week old (born) child wrong.

    Killing an unborn child is wrong. You and I know that an unborn Child
    is being destroyed. However, the doctors who perform abortions, through
    ignorance, self centeredness or whatever, don't see it as an unborn
    child. In fact, many feel they are helping the mother. That's what makes 
    them different than  Hitler, Stalin or other tyrants who knew they were 
    killing human beings. The tyrant's goal was to  eliminate certain races of 
    humans. The abortionist isn't in the same camp and to put them there is 
    stretching the point and damages any chance of changing the
    pro-abortionist way of thinking.

>Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald.  This guy (I don't know his name)
>may veiw himself as Jack Ruby.  I'll bet many people back in '63
>(I was too young) felt good about Oswald's death.  How is this guy
>different than Jack Ruby?  Answer: he's not.  Jack Ruby was WRONG, TOO!
>And so, how is Lee Harvey Oswald compared to an abortionist? They
>both terminate(d) life.

    Abortion parallels murder except  that a murderer knows he is killing a 
    human being, an abortionist believes he is not. 

    We can't kill people for ignorance.


     Jim

>    Killing an unborn child is wrong. You and I know that an unborn Child
>    is being destroyed. However, the doctors who perform abortions, through
>    ignorance, self centeredness or whatever, don't see it as an unborn
>    child. In fact, many feel they are helping the mother. That's what makes 
>    them different than  Hitler, Stalin or other tyrants who knew they were 
>    killing human beings.

So, *their* perspective makes them different than these other killers?
Let me quote your paragraph just prior to your entry of the one above:

>    "Your right, I'm not trying to see it from the murderer's perspective.
>    His perspective is usually what separates the insane from the sane."

Jim, can't you see the irony of all this?  You're asking me now to see
things from the Abortionist perspective of helping the woman (not a
mother if the baby is slaughtered, is it?)  I *CAN* see it, even though
I think the abortionist's perspective is the one that is "insane."

I hope you see that this murderer is more and more NOT UNLIKE any
generic abortionist.

>    The tyrant's goal was to  eliminate certain races of 
>    humans. The abortionist isn't in the same camp and to put them there is 
>    stretching the point and damages any chance of changing the
>    pro-abortionist way of thinking.

Let us not forget that you said "You and I know that the unborn child is
being destroyed."  Tyrants do not consider those they eradicate for race
purification as humans.  The reality is that BOTH DESTROY.  Stretching?
I do not think so.

>    Abortion parallels murder except  that a murderer knows he is killing a 
>   human being, an abortionist believes he is not. 
>
>    We can't kill people for ignorance.

So it was perfectly okay for a slave owner to kill his "nigger" because he
wasn't really human?  It was okay for Hitler to kill a Jew who was subhuman?

Further, an abortionist may indeed know he is killing a human being,
justifying it by "greater need" of the woman (sometimes deemed as 
choice).

Mark

    |<<< Note 16.81 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Bluegrass,Music Aged To Perfekchun" >>>
    
    |We can't kill people for ignorance.
    
    |Jim
    
    	Maybe we can not kill people for ignorance, But God surely may!
        ;^)
    
        If we go back to Levitican law, death was prescribed for a number
        of infringements, but after Christ came, we see that the need to
        kill is diminished. In fact there are few things which warrant
        death now-a-days. I firmly hold to capitol punishment as a deterant
        for the more hideous crimes. In Isreal, there are few that would
        consider murder or treason, why, because the punishment is fatal.
    
        America is one of the softest countries around. People are so quick
        to jump on bandwagons today that they do not even read the marker
        on the bus to find out where it is going or where it has been.
    
        I do not applaud the actions of persons who parade outside of
        abortion clinics, nor do I commend those that take life inside
        or out. - As Mark M. said earlier, the action of shooting an Abortion
        clinic doctor is finally going to get people off the fences. They
        will either be hot or cold. I hope they choose life, but if they
        do not, that is their choice. We as christians do not have the
        right to impose our morals on unbelievers, God does, but not you
        and I. If we want them to stop killing unborns, we must first teach
        them Christ, then let their conscience convict their ations. All
        to often I see christians try to teach the morality of Christ with
        out laying a foundation IN Christ. Come on, this is foolishness.
        What these christians are doing is building a house on sand not
        rock!
         !PC                 

�    Abortion parallels murder except  that a murderer knows he is killing a 
�    human being, an abortionist believes he is not. 

�    We can't kill people for ignorance.

Romans 1:18-19 says
 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the 
  godlessness  and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their 
  wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because 
  God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God's 
  invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been 
  clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are 
  without excuse...."

:32
 "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things 
  deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also 
  approve of those who practise them."

How much blatant denial and wishful thinking does it take to change truth 
into a lie, and to wash the blood from the hands of the guilty?

How many thousands of children have I to answer for by my silence?
The foul religions of the Canaanites are resurrected among us with a 
'respectable' face, for which ours should be streaming with tears.

								Andrew

      <<< Note 16.80 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>>p.s. - is 'Elks', like, a freemasons lodge?

>I'm not exactly sure, to tell the truth, but they are a fraternity of
>men (no women members) and I think I also remember them being rather
>"racially separate" (but wonder if this has changed).

>MM


I believe the Elks are more of a social/drinking club and don't indulge 
in the rituals associated with freemasonry.  Hearsay, of course, 'cuz 
they won't let me play. ;^)


Sandy

 re: <<< Note 16.59 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Bluegrass,Music Aged To Perfekchun" >>>

     Jim,

     > The rational you cite has no comparison to the Hitlers or Caligula's
     > of the past. 

     Abortionists have now butchered (death by dismemberment and
     disemboweling *clearly* qualifies as butchering!) more people than
     Calligula, Hitler, *or* Stalin, and nearly as many as all of them
     combined! I'd say that they collectively compare *quite* favorable with
     these other demonically inspired misanthrops of the past. 

     > Abortionist are misguided on their understanding of the unborn, ... 

     Sure, Jim, sure. And sin is just a slight misunderstnading of G_d's
     stated desires for our lives, right! Misguided? They're clearly out for
     the money, and are willing to sacrifice any child, of any age, for the
     sake of profit. They're not exactly careful with the mother, either -
     the number and frequency of maternal deaths due to negligently done
     abortions continues to rise. Misguided? NO! Willfully cognotively
     dissonant? YES! 

     > ...but would hardly carry out the deeds of a Hitler or Caligula on 
     > people. 

     Explain to me the meaningful differences between their deeds, please. 

     Brian

 Re: <<< Note 16.67 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Bluegrass,Music Aged To Perfekchun" >>>
     
     Jim,

     > That Doctor was a human life who probably saves more lives in other
     > parts of his medical profession than he destroys performing
     > abortions. 

     Pardon me for breaking into this emerging firefight with a fact, but
     the abortionist *sole* (and very profitable) source of income was his
     abortuary. What the heck, at $400-$800 each (depending on how old the
     baby was at the time of its death) and at 8-12 abortions a day, 3-5
     days a week, what need had he for another practice. Besides, who'd have
     a known abortionist as their gynecologist, much *less* their
     obstetrition?!? 

     > We hate the sin, but love the sinner here don't we. 

     Yes, but there is a place for judgement, too. Try to sell this line
     without qualification to Joshua. He'd remind you about the Amelikites.

     Brian 

RE:86
    Brian,

>     Explain to me the meaningful differences between their deeds, please. 

     If I have to explain it, then I probably I should first explain what
     following the gospel of Christ means.

     I understand how many innocent lives have been lost due to abortion. I 
     have had many debates with pro-abortion people and pro-choice people.
     See the Soapbox conference if you don't believe me. I'm opposed to
     abortion as much as any of you, except that I will not let the rational
     get to a level which would lead some to believe that they can murder an
     abortionist with the same justification as killing a Hitler or Stalin.
     
     BTW, I must correct a statement I made in an earlier reply. I said
     that the murderer of the doctor should be punished to the full extent
     of the law. I was wrong! I forgot Florida has the death penalty. I
     oppose capital punishment.

    Let me ask you all something. Could you have forgiven the abortion
    doctor if he had seen the light and stopped doing abortions ?
    Would you still want him punished after ?

    Could you forgive Hitler ?
    Would you still want him punished after ?


    Peace
     Jim
     

   re: <<< Note 16.83 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>

     > I hope they choose life, but if they do not, that is their choice. 

     The nation *has* chosen - they elected Bill Clinton and chose death.
     And you think that this national choice has no implications before
     Almighty G_d? Do you think that G_d in his holiness and righteousness
     can and will let this national abomination go unjudged. 

     > We as Christians do not have the right to impose our morals on
     > unbelievers, God does, but not you and I. 

     Then *whose* morals *will* be imposed, pray tell? Hillary Clinton's?
     "All that is necessary for evil men to succeed, is for good men to sit
     by and do nothing" - Benjamin Franklin. While Ben was no Christian,
     even *he* would be appalled at the amoral condition of our nation,
     today. While we can *not* "legislate morality", we *can* and *should*
     "criminalize immorality", which is what we have done for centuries. The
     results of recent decriminalization of long-thought immoral acts is
     self-evident. G_d's judgment is sure and imminent. 

     > If we want them to stop killing unborns, we must first teach them
     > Christ, then let their conscience convict their ations. 

     And if they will not submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit? You seem
     to view the world through rather rose-colored glasses. The majority of
     the world will *not* bow their knees to Christ, but will *continue* to
     live in open rebellion to our Sovereign. What then? Should be allow
     their amorality to rule our society? 

     > All to often I see christians try to teach the morality of Christ
     > with out laying a foundation IN Christ. 

     I am not trying to teach to world *anything* by my pro-life activities.
     I am merely seeking to restrain their amoral behavior and testify to
     them of G_d's righteous standard. 

     Brian 

RE:87

>     Pardon me for breaking into this emerging firefight with a fact, but
>     the abortionist *sole* (and very profitable) source of income was his
>     abortuary. What the heck, at $400-$800 each (depending on how old the
>     baby was at the time of its death) and at 8-12 abortions a day, 3-5
>     days a week, what need had he for another practice. Besides, who'd have
>     a known abortionist as their gynecologist, much *less* their
>     obstetrition?!? 

    Well I read different. The doctor practiced obstetrics. He had a separate
    practice other than the abortion clinic. 

    My wife's obstetrician does abortions, much to my dislike. He also
    saved my son's life. 

     > We hate the sin, but love the sinner here don't we. 

>     Yes, but there is a place for judgment, too. Try to sell this line
>     without qualification to Joshua. He'd remind you about the Amelikites.

     Better for you to love them and let God judge them.

     Jim

>     I'm opposed to
>     abortion as much as any of you, except that I will not let the rational
>     get to a level which would lead some to believe that they can murder an
>     abortionist with the same justification as killing a Hitler or Stalin.
 
It sounds to me like your rationale is based on the seen [the 
concentration camps and death chambers visible to all during, present 
and future via film]  versus the unseen [the embryonic soul].  Perhaps, 
a glimpse of the person that was aborted would level it out somewhat.
    
>    Let me ask you all something. Could you have forgiven the abortion
>    doctor if he had seen the light and stopped doing abortions ?
>    Would you still want him punished after ?

>    Could you forgive Hitler ?
>    Would you still want him punished after ?


My answer to that is Yes.  Yes, I could forgive him, and Yes, he should 
be punished.  The Bible says that we must reap what we sow, even whilst 
having God's forgiveness, I see no difference here.

Nancy     
    

 re: <<< Note 16.88 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Bluegrass,Music Aged To Perfekchun" >>>

     Jim, 

     > Let me ask you all something. Could you have forgiven the abortion
     > doctor if he had seen the light and stopped doing abortions ? Would
     > you still want him punished after? 

     I could not do any less than I see my Father doing. He forgives the
     repentant (bless His Name!) - elsewise *I* would still be dead in my
     tresspasses and sins! Therefore, I could do no less. Ask Carol Miller,
     former purveyor of of abortions in Dallas, Ft Worth and Shreveport! 

     > Could you forgive Hitler? Would you still want him punished after? 

     Again, if he, even he, had truly repented, there is forgiveness and
     grace in abundance. 

     Brian

.88 (Jim Richard)

>     ...except that I will not let the rational
>     get to a level which would lead some to believe that they can murder an
>     abortionist with the same justification as killing a Hitler or Stalin.

*WHO* said that someone CAN murder an abortionist?  If you think that I
have, then you have misread my replies and chosen not to see.

Now, if you draw this assumption based on a premise you hold that it is
okay and good to murder a Hitler, then I can see how you might think I
have advocated the murder of an abortionist (WHICH I HAVE NOT).

You will not see that both Hitler and an abortionist are both killers
of different magnitudes.

>    Let me ask you all something. Could you have forgiven the abortion
>    doctor if he had seen the light and stopped doing abortions ?
>    Would you still want him punished after ?
>
>    Could you forgive Hitler ?
>    Would you still want him punished after ?

These are good questions.  And the answer is yes, to both.  Punishment
must be meted out.  "'Vengence is mine', saith the Lord" is one verse
oft quoted, but also there is authority given to governments to perform
vengence, and guess Who give governments their authority.

Ignorance plays a factor in the punishment, no doubt.  So to turn your
question back on you, "If your abortionist/obsterician *knew* that 
he/she terminates a human life during an abortion, would you want
him/her punished?"

>*WHO* said that someone CAN murder an abortionist?  If you think that I
>have, then you have misread my replies and chosen not to see.
>
>Now, if you draw this assumption based on a premise you hold that it is
>okay and good to murder a Hitler, then I can see how you might think I
>have advocated the murder of an abortionist (WHICH I HAVE NOT).

    Did you not say that the world would look at the person who'd murder
    Hitler as a hero ? Then why so different the abortionist's murderer ?

>You will not see that both Hitler and an abortionist are both killers
>of different magnitudes.

    But I do see Hitler and abortionist as killers of a different magnitude.
    That's my point. I see the abortionist as misguided especially due to 
    the social acceptance of abortion. 


>These are good questions.  And the answer is yes, to both.  Punishment
>must be meted out.  "'Vengence is mine', saith the Lord" is one verse
>oft quoted, but also there is authority given to governments to perform
>vengence, and guess Who give governments their authority.

    So then we should not let the National Right To Life movement be led
    by a former obstetrician who performed abortions ?

>Ignorance plays a factor in the punishment, no doubt.  So to turn your
>question back on you, "If your abortionist/obsterician *knew* that 
>he/she terminates a human life during an abortion, would you want
>him/her punished?"

     Not if he repented.

    Jim

>    Did you not say that the world would look at the person who'd murder
>    Hitler as a hero ? Then why so different the abortionist's murderer ?

Find it, Jim.  I said that people in '63 PROBABLY felt good about Lee Harvey
Oswald's death.

>    But I do see Hitler and abortionist as killers of a different magnitude.
>    That's my point. I see the abortionist as misguided especially due to 
>    the social acceptance of abortion. 

What?  Hitler was also misguided.  And in 1937 it was socially acceptable 
to terminate Jewish life.  The similarities keep piling up.  The order
of magnitude to which I refer is a man at the top approving all of this.
To be better applying this, we can say that Concentration staff had varying
degrees of culpability and the soldier who pulled the trigger, dropped the
gas pellets, or otherwise killed a Jew is the murderer and not Adoph Hitler.
After all, he probably didn't trifle with such things, right?  See my point?
We zero in on Hitler because he represented and possessed the authority
to exterminate millions of people.  Abortionists exterminate scores of
people per week.  Gas chambers could handle more per hour and not have
to worry about Post_abortion Stress and other psychological maladies of
family members.

>    So then we should not let the National Right To Life movement be led
>    by a former obstetrician who performed abortions ?

If it were up to me, I might have something to say about it.  There is
power behind a voice who once was wrong but has seen the light.  This
person may need to accept punishment for the crime, but punishment
served is service rendered and in no way negates the power of a
voice that has turned to Truth.
Mark

From .52 (Mark M)

>In the scope of history we have examples of Tyrants being brought down
>by assassination: Caligula (sp), Julius Caeser, Richard III, Mousilini (sp),
>and various attempts on Hitler.  These were applauded by those who saw these
>people as evil killers of the helpless.  So how is this man different from his
>perspective.  (AGAIN, I am NOT condoning his actions!!!!!)

This says that the murderer MAY think he is justified for murdering a murderer.
This is vigilanteism and not to be condoned.  I have not condoned it here,
but perhaps this is where you think I have, Jim?

>This begs the age old question: "Is it okay to assassinate a tyrant such
>as Adolph Hitler?"  If your answer is no, then the case is closed on this man.
>If the answer is yes, then we have to ask whether this man acted with this
>application: killing one to save another (or many others).  Or how about:
>"If a killer entered your home, would you defend yourself?  How about if the
>killer attacked your wife and children; would you then use deadly force to
>prevent this?"

This paragraph also does not imply anything as to my opinion on the matter.
Not here, Jim.

>To this murderer, he has "exercised his choice" to terminate a human
>life as a deadly illustration of the choice millions of women have exercised
>for decades.  He's willing to pay the price for this illustration and indeed
>he will.

Jim, I extracted this from my original note.  If you can find where you think
I've said that "the world would look at the person who'd murder Hitler as a 
hero"  I'll be glad to see it.  Now as to what you said:

me>>Ignorance plays a factor in the punishment, no doubt.  So to turn your
me>>question back on you, "If your abortionist/obsterician *knew* that 
me>>he/she terminates a human life during an abortion, would you want
me>>him/her punished?"
>
you>     Not if he repented.

And what if this vigilante repents?  Would you still like to see him punished 
to the "full extent of the law" (minus capital punishment because of your view).
Should he not be punished if he repents of his murder?

RE:96

>>In the scope of history we have examples of Tyrants being brought down
>>by assassination: Caligula (sp), Julius Caeser, Richard III, Mousilini (sp),
>>and various attempts on Hitler. These were applauded by those who saw 
>>these people as evil killers of the helpless.  So how is this man 
>>different from his ?

>>perspective.  (AGAIN, I am NOT condoning his actions!!!!!)

>This says that the murderer MAY think he is justified for murdering a murderer.
>This is vigilanteism and not to be condoned.  I have not condoned it here,
>but perhaps this is where you think I have, Jim?

     Didn't say YOU condoned his actions. But I'm led to believe that you
     somehow understand his actions, being you believe abortionist are like 
     Hitlers and  other tyrants. Am I wrong ?

>>This begs the age old question: "Is it okay to assassinate a tyrant such
>>as Adolph Hitler?"  If your answer is no, then the case is closed on this man.
>>If the answer is yes, then we have to ask whether this man acted with this
>>application: killing one to save another (or many others).  Or how about:
>>>"If a killer entered your home, would you defend yourself?  How about if the
>>killer attacked your wife and children; would you then use deadly force to
>>prevent this?"

>This paragraph also does not imply anything as to my opinion on the matter.
>Not here, Jim.

    This is where your confusing me. Your talking about killing to save
    another or a killer who attacks your wife and I'm not suppose to see
    your comparison to the abortionist murderer as being equal ?


>Jim, I extracted this from my original note.  If you can find where you think
>I've said that "the world would look at the person who'd murder Hitler as a 
>hero"  I'll be glad to see it.  Now as to what you said:

     Well, not the word "hero," but up in the first paragraph you said,
    'These were applauded by those who saw these people as evil killers of the 
     helpless."  Perhaps I'm painted with too wide of a brush here, but most of 
     the world saw Hitler and the others mentioned as evil killers.

me>>Ignorance plays a factor in the punishment, no doubt.  So to turn your
me>>question back on you, "If your abortionist/obsterician *knew* that 
me>>he/she terminates a human life during an abortion, would you want
me>>him/her punished?"
>
you>     Not if he repented.

>And what if this vigilante repents?  Would you still like to see him punished 
>to the "full extent of the law" (minus capital punishment because of your view).
>Should he not be punished if he repents of his murder?

     Yes, he should still do time in Jail.

     BTW, the man who was one of the National Right to life was a former
     abortionist. In fact it was his admitted false statistics on botched
     illegal abortions that was used on the Roe v. Wade case.
     I couldn't think of a better leader for the right to life movement
     than him
     
    Jim

Isn't it time to move this whole discussion to a separate note, either on 
abortion in general or on the subject of the killing of the abortionist in 
particular?  Or perhaps two notes, one on each?

I've abhorred abortion for a long time, though up till now I haven't really done
anything about it.  But over the past year or so, this scripture has been laying
heavy on me:

  The Lord said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, Any man of the people of
  Israel, or of the stranges that sojourn in Israel, who gives any of his 
  children to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone 
  him with stones.  I myself will set my face against that man, and will cut him
  off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech,
  defiling my sanctuary and profaning my Holy name.  And if the people of the 
  land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives one of his 
  children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set my face 
  against that man and against his family, and will cut them off from among 
  their people, him and all who follow him in playing the harlot after Molech."

						  Lev 20:1-5 (RSV)

As far as I've been able to find, this is the only place where God says that if
we see other people sinning and do nothing about it, He will consider that as
sin against Him.  **That** is how much God abhorrs the practice of sacrificing
children to the gods of the surrounding cultures.  And what is abortion, but the
sacrificing of children to our culture's gods of feminist "emancipation,"
sexual license, and convenience?

I'm coming to believe that we will all have to answer for what we did about
abortion.  And I don't think that "well, I disagreed with it, and had nothing to
do with it" will be accepted as a very good answer.

Paul

>But I'm led to believe that you somehow understand his actions,

*Understand* as in seeing his perspective, but NOT as in assenting to it.
Do you see the difference?

We can *understand* his actions without affinity for them, can we not?

>being you believe abortionist are like Hitlers and  other tyrants.

I believe that anyone who willfully kills another, *including* this
vigilante is no better nor worse than these.  

>    This is where your confusing me. Your talking about killing to save
>    another or a killer who attacks your wife and I'm not suppose to see
>    your comparison to the abortionist murderer as being equal ?

Would you kill to save your wife from being killed?  If you would, then
we cannot be so smug as to condemn this vigilante *without condeming
ourselves in the process!*  For: if he acted out of this [warped]
reasoning, he acted in the same way you or I would to protect the
life of another from a killer.

>     Well, not the word "hero," but up in the first paragraph you said,
>    'These were applauded by those who saw these people as evil killers of the 
>     helpless."  Perhaps I'm painted with too wide of a brush here, but most of 
>     the world saw Hitler and the others mentioned as evil killers.

Bingo, which is why the world applauded their murders.  Murdering Mussolini
or Lee Harvey Oswald was not condemned now was it?  If this vigilante saw
an abortion doctor as a killer, then he simply killed the killer to 
prevent more killing.

>you>     Not if he repented.
>
>>And what if this vigilante repents?  Would you still like to see him punished 
>>to the "full extent of the law" (minus capital punishment because of your view).
>>Should he not be punished if he repents of his murder?
>
>     Yes, he should still do time in Jail.

Then so should an abortionist be punished, even if s/he repents.

Mark

re:98

>  The Lord said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, Any man of the people of
>  Israel, or of the stranges that sojourn in Israel, who gives any of his 
>  children to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone 
>  him with stones.  I myself will set my face against that man, and will cut him
>  off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech,
>  defiling my sanctuary and profaning my Holy name.  And if the people of the 
>  land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives one of his 
>  children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set my face 
>  against that man and against his family, and will cut them off from among 
>  their people, him and all who follow him in playing the harlot after Molech."
>
>						  Lev 20:1-5 (RSV)

>As far as I've been able to find, this is the only place where God says that if
>we see other people sinning and do nothing about it, He will consider that as
>sin against Him.  **That** is how much God abhorrs the practice of sacrificing
>children to the gods of the surrounding cultures.  And what is abortion, but the
>sacrificing of children to our culture's gods of feminist "emancipation,"
>sexual license, and convenience?

     I agree, we cannot stand by and do nothing. However, should we take up
     arms against the abortionist ? How far are you willing to go ?

>I'm coming to believe that we will all have to answer for what we did about
>abortion.  And I don't think that "well, I disagreed with it, and had nothing to
>do with it" will be accepted as a very good answer.

     I also, believe that one who take's the life of an abortionist will
     be held accountable for their actions before God. 
     
     Jim

    We agree on .100, Jim.  Are you surprised?  If so, then you have not
    been reading my notes carefully.
    
>     I agree, we cannot stand by and do nothing. However, should we take up
>     arms against the abortionist ? How far are you willing to go ?

    No, we should not take up arms.  We should make it illegal and 
    punish offenders.
    
>     I also, believe that one who take's the life of an abortionist will
>     be held accountable for their actions before God. 
    
   Absolutely.
    
    Mark

    RE:48

    Well it all it took was moving the notes for us to come to an
    agreement.;)


    Bottom line is that I've made the comparison of abortionist=Hitler type
    thing myself when debating pro-choicers. It never dawned on me that
    there are those who listen to what is said that are on the verge of
    going off the deep end and will carry out what is presumed acceptable
    by pro-life people. 

    We live in complex times and things are gonna get worse before they get 
    better. The actions of the murderer may be telling us that we've lost
    the political battle and those who have lost hope for political
    solutions are acting out of feeling of desperation. My hope is that
    people will not resort to violence and behave in a manner that is reflective
    of our faith in Christ. Society has a poor impression of Christianity
    with all the sins many of our leaders have been caught at in the past
    few years.  Lets continue to try and be a beacon of Christ light that 
    shines through us.



     Peace
    Jim

    Getting back to note .0:
    
    Is the "Choice" of the vigilante different than that of a woman who 
    "chooses" to abort her unborn child?
    
    

Sorry, I didn't make clear where I was coming from when I posted that note.

No, I'm not endorsing the shooting of the abortionist.  But I understand the
point that Mark is trying to make - that I at least have some understanding of
where the person was coming from who did this.

I understand that the issue has become very confused, with all the conflicting
messages and propaganda that has been put forth in our current culture.  And I 
know that some people who really do have good hearts and are actually seeking 
the truth have been deceived on this issue.  Even some people who are really 
seeking to know the Lord and His will have been deceived.  So I really am in a 
hate the sin - love the sinner position on this issue.

Yet I think that many people have focused so much on not hating the sinner that
they've lost the focus on hating the sin.  God ABHORRS the sacrificial killing
of children - so much so that it was the only thing He told us He would hold 
*US* accountable for, if we saw it happening and did nothing to stop it.

I think Mark keeps trying to portray situations which are in essence identical 
to an abortion clinic, but where the killing of people could not so easily be 
shrugged off, so we can get a better perspective on the motivation of the person
who killed the abortionist.  He's used historical examples, let's try a 
ficticious one.

Suppose this were not an abortion clinic, but an infanticide clinic?  A place
where you could take your unwanted children AFTER they are born to be killed.
Add in the other parallels that a large segment of the populace had become
convinced that this was perfectly OK, and was the parent's "right," and the law
has been rewritten to protect this "right."  There is *NO* difference between 
this situation and an abortion clinic, except that in an abortion clinic it is 
possible to pretend that it is something else - just a medical procedure.  

Would we consider it enough to petition our lawmakers for change, and peaceably
block the doors to the clinic?  Could we stand by peaceably as children were led
through the doors, as their parents claimed the "right" to dispose of them?  I 
suspect we would not, and while I wouldn't advocate killing the doctors at the 
clinic, I might very well advocate more active measures than are undertaken 
today against abortion clinics.

Paul

  >Is the "Choice" of the vigilante different than that of a woman who 
  >"chooses" to abort her unborn child?
   
Yes, one is legally protected in the U.S.A. and the other is
illegal.

Other than that, there's not a whole lot of difference.

Collis 
    

    Thank you, Collis.  My point is made and I believe this vigilante's
    defense will be made {and lost} based on that premise.

    If we believe that both the vigilante's choice and the choice to abort
    is wrong, then wrong is wrong no matter where and when it occurs.
    
    And those who see abortion as right must also see that this vigilante's
    actions are "right" by virtue of definition UNLESS the definition of
    human life is skewed.
    
    Back to the origin: what constitutes a human life?
    
    MM

      <<< Note 62.54 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>    Back to the origin: what constitutes a human life?

Well, if you want to get down to the basics the thing that makes a human
a human is it's genes, it's DNA. If we had the genes of a monkey, then
we would be a monkey. If we had the genes of a whale, we'd be a whale.
The genes of a human are unique. Since the genes determine what we are,
and how we develop, then this is what constitites human life (at least,
to me it does.)

During our life we go thru many different stages:  at first, we are only
1 cell. Then many. Then we are a fetus. A new born baby. A child. An
adolescent. A young adult. An elderly adult. Actually, there are many more
stages in the human life - in fact, you could make a case that there really
are no stages in human life, rather that human life is a stream of changes,
which overlap each other.

The only thing that remains consistant through life is our genes. They do
not change. Our body size changes, our hair changes, our voice changes, etc.
Only the genes stay the same. They are the only constant in our life.
If we don't have hair, or eyes, or a voice, or the sense of smell, or the
ability to walk, etc., we are still human. BUT if we don't have our genes,
then we can't be human.

So, even when we start as 1 cell, we have all our genes, which makes us human.
And when we are one cell, that one cell is alive. 
So, we have a human cell which is alive, therefore, we have human life.

/Scott

    
    There is a legal precedent for breaking a law, when the consequences
    of abiding by that law can be proved to be greater. This is the
    basis for civil disobedience as well as justifiable homicide. 
    I will try to find the legal term, but it has been tested and found
    to be a bona fide legal defense by the Supreme Court.
    
    							Jim

Re: .56 and today's news:

Prediction number one is come to pass.  There is a group called
"The Defenders of the Defenders of Life" who are collecting money
for this man's/vigilante/murderer/choose_another_term_if_you_must
defense.

My final prediction is that the country is so entrenched in the
mentality that an adult life is worth more than numbers of fetus' 
[non]lives that this man will stand no chance of his arguments being 
heard and the issue of "justifiable homicide" will be laughed,
(or shouted), out of hand and out of court.

He's going to fry for premeditated murder; shooting this doctor in 
the back in ambush.  I hope pro-choice lynch mobs don't exercise their
choice in this matter but that rational minds will hear both sides.

Mark

 re: <<< Note 62.41 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Bluegrass,Music Aged To Perfekchun" >>>


     > But I do see Hitler and abortionist as killers of a different
     > magnitude. 

     How does the humanly perceived magnitude of a sin effect its perception
     in the eyes of Almighty G_d? 

     > I see the abortionist as misguided especially due to the social
     > acceptance of abortion. 

     Killing of Jews, Poles, Gypsies and Catholics was both decriminalized
     (note that I did *NOT* say "legal" - you can *NOT* legalize crimes
     against humanity, no matter *how* many statutes you legislate into
     existence) and socially acceptable in the German sphere of influence
     circa 1936-1945. Social acceptance and lack of criminal constraints do
     *not* a justification make! 

     Brian

         re: <<< Note 62.56 by CRISTA::MAYNARD "Late For The Sky" >>>

     Jim,

     > There is a legal precedent for breaking a law, when the consequences
     > of abiding by that law can be proved to be greater. This is the basis
     > for civil disobedience as well as justifiable homicide. I will try to
     > find the legal term, but it has been tested and found to be a bona
     > fide legal defense by the Supreme Court. 

     It is known as the doctrine of competing harms. I have used it more
     than once in my own defense. It is an *extremely* difficult defense to
     use, as the burden on the defendant is *much* greater than normal.
     Briefly, you (may) stipulate to the facts of the matter, but postulate
     to the court that the circumstances were *extraordinarily* extenuating
     and mitigating. That is, while what you did *looked* contrary to the
     law on the face of it, the circumstances surrounding what you did made
     the seeming violation of the law the least harmful course of action.

     Such is the situation when a firefighter or police officer, acting in
     due course of his/her responsibilities, breaks down your door to
     respond to an immediate and clearly observable emergency. This does
     *not* give the police the authority to break down your door any time
     they choose - there *must* be a "clear and present danger" to which
     they are responding. 

     "Competing harms" is *not*, however,  likely the defense I would use in
     this circumstance, however. I would be *much* more likely to attempt
     the "defense of a third party from imminent danger" approach, which is
     *much* less burdensome (insofar as proof) on the defendant, and *much*
     more applicable, IMHO, to this situation. 

     The "competing harms" defense requires that you have "clear knowledge"
     that there is a "specific harm" either taking place or about to take
     place. That means that you must *prove* that you *knew* first hand that
     a baby was about to be killed (remember, hearsay doesn't count!).
     Second, you must show that what you did was very likely to either
     prevent or stop the perceived harm (not likely a problem here!).
     Finally, (this is where I believe this defense would completely fall
     apart in this matter) you must show that you did the least harmful
     thing possible that would be effective in preventing the first harm. 

     Conversely, in the defense of a third party (which arises out of *very*
     old English Common Law, BTW), you must show that a third party was in
     imminent danger (again, based on first hand knowledge). Second, you
     must show that the third party was somehow unable to adequately defend
     themselves (not any problem here). Thirdly, you must show that you took
     only action(s) to which the third party would have been within their
     rights to assert, had they been able (self-defense against imminent
     deadly force has *long* been accepted). The major problem in this
     defense is getting the court to acknowledge the mere *existence* of a
     third party. This is very little criminal precedent for the treatment
     of a preborn human as a person with standing before the court. There
     *is* significant civil precedent, but criminal courts have been
     reluctant to allow its usage as precedent, per se.

     Well, there you have it. Any way that you look at it, at *very* tough
     criminal defense. 

     Brian

     PS - Thanks for bringing this up! 

    re: .59
    
    Phew!  It's hard to get the words out, but thanks for the legal
    approach.  (being thankful for lawyers is difficult....)
    
    Isn't there a Biblical approach which justifies killing in the defense
    of life?  I've heard justification of abortion to save the life of the
    mother (whose life is clearly over if the baby is carried to term),
    based on Biblical evidence.  Not having a Bible here, I can't point to
    it.  Can anyone?  I'm not going to justify this guy's actions, because
    his case may not fit.  However, it appears that the death rate in
    abortions is high and predictable (100%), and you could make a Biblical
    argument that actions, including killing, to prevent a certain death
    are justified.  Scholars, help me out!
    
    By the way, today's  (3/16) Wall Street Journal echos the substance of
    this note in an editorial.
    
    Don Randall

re.59

	Well I dunno if Phaneuf, Judd, or Matlock could pull this one out.
	This guy's gonna pay a price. Example and all.

	But Perry, now there's a real lawyer. He could do it I'm sure. I'd
put my money on Perry anyday. Yessirie. Yup.

8*)

p.s. That was quite informative Brian. Thanks. Ever consider any legal defense
moonlighting other than for yourself?

>	But Perry, now there's a real lawyer. He could do it I'm sure. I'd
>put my money on Perry anyday. Yessirie. Yup.

Where would he get someone to break down in the courtroom and admit that they
really did it?  :-)

Paul

RE:58

     >> But I do see Hitler and abortionist as killers of a different
     >> magnitude. 

>     How does the humanly perceived magnitude of a sin effect its perception
>     in the eyes of Almighty G_d? 

     Being that God can see the heart of the sinner, I believe the difference
     between an abortionist who doesn't perceive the immorality of what
     s/he is doing verses a murderer who commits the act knowing its wrong.
     
     A discussion on venial and mortal sins could probably be discussed on
     this.

     >> I see the abortionist as misguided especially due to the social
     >> acceptance of abortion. 

         
>     Killing of Jews, Poles, Gypsies and Catholics was both decriminalized
>     (note that I did *NOT* say "legal" - you can *NOT* legalize crimes
>     against humanity, no matter *how* many statutes you legislate into
>     existence) and socially acceptable in the German sphere of influence
>     circa 1936-1945. Social acceptance and lack of criminal constraints do
>     *not* a justification make! 

    Not the same and you know it. First off, the issue of whether abortion
    is immoral or moral is not clearly understood in the minds and hearts 
    of many people. Nazi atrocities were done out of hate with the general 
    populace understanding that it was wrong, but didn't have the means or 
    courage to stop it. 
    
    If abortions are the same as the atrocities you stated, why aren't you 
    advocating taking up arms against abortionist ? Would you have taken
    up arms against the Nazi's ?

    Jim

>Would you have taken up arms against the Nazi's ?

You mean, inside Germany during this era.  Those who did were summarily
rejected from society (and usually killed).  They turned to other means
at their disposal.

As for outside the country, the world DID take up arms against the Nazi's
and Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy.

          re: <<< Note 62.61 by LEDS::LOPEZ "A River.. proceeding!" >>>

     > This guy's gonna pay a price. Example and all. 

     I do not know him, but I am rather certain that he was aware of this
     before he decided to intervene in this manner. 

     > p.s. That was quite informative Brian. Thanks. 

     {BLUSH} 'Twernt nothin' 

     > Ever consider any legal defense moonlighting other than for yourself? 

     It is usually not permitted for another, except an attorney at bar, to
     speak in your behalf. While I have been and would be willing to be
     counsel-at-table, this is the most help I could be in court. However, I
     *love* drafting prosecutor-boggelling motions and briefs!

     Brian 

    RE:64

    Mark, 
          are you gonna take up arms against abortionist ?  If the world
    rightly did so against Nazi's, who are equal to abortionist and all,
    shouldn't you ? Heck, in many states, if your caught they won't
    put you to death, so your risk isn't as great as those who fought the
    Nazi's in Germany.

     Jim

     Paul, 

     > Where would he get someone to break down in the courtroom and admit
     > that they really did it?

     But, if you stipulate to the facts of the matter, that is a given -
     you've already admitted *doing it*, it's purely a matter of *why*, and
     was that why *strong enough* a reason to compel a decent and prudent
     person to do the same thing where s/he in your place.

     On second thought, send in F Lee Bailey, instead. he's better at this
     sort of thing than even Perry Mason.

     Brian 

>          are you gonna take up arms against abortionist ? 

Weapons come in many forms, Richard, and arms to suit the battle are indeed
what I intend to take up.  Now, how about you?

You KNOW that abortion takes a life.  Are you content to simply say that
they don't know enough about it?

America had a Civil War over the personhood of slaves.  They took up 
guns and cannons and we killed more Americans than in all other wars
combined.

I would prefer to avoid the bloodshed of a Civil War, but the issue
is quite the same: the sanctity of human life.

On which side of the fence will you stand, or will you fall off it
by default?

Mark

     re: <<< Note 62.63 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Getting Good At Getting By" >>>

     Jim,
     
     > A discussion on venial and mortal sins could probably be discussed on
     > this. 

     Could you possibly provide Biblical definitions of those (types of)
     sin, and a Biblical contrast and comparison between the two? 

    >� I see the abortionist as misguided especially due to the social
    >� acceptance of abortion. 

     � Killing of Jews, Poles, Gypsies and Catholics was both decriminalized
     � (note that I did *NOT* say "legal" - you can *NOT* legalize crimes
     � against humanity, no matter *how* many statutes you legislate into
     � existence) and socially acceptable in the German sphere of influence
     � circa 1936-1945. Social acceptance and lack of criminal constraints
     � do *not* a justification make! 

     > Not the same and you know it. 

     I know no such thing, and I abjure your implication that I am being any
     less than honest and forthright in this discussion. Shame on you. 

     > First off, the issue of whether abortion is immoral or moral is not
     > clearly understood in the minds and hearts of many people. 

     The nature and implications of abortion are understood by the adult
     population of the United States today, *at least* as well as were the
     goals of the National Socialist Party understood by the adult German
     population some sixty years ago. However, their relative moral
     condition is also comparable, which is the very reason for the
     tragedies impending in both countries at comparable times in their
     histories. If you doubt what I say, read "The Nazi Doctors," a
     compilation of the writings of members the German equivalent of the
     American Medical Association during the period 1920-1940. The
     similitude to the writings of contemporary US and Canadian "doctors" is
     absolutely terrifying! 

     > Nazi atrocities were done out of hate with the general populace
     > understanding that it was wrong, but didn't have the means or courage
     > to stop it. 

     More the latter than the former. Witness the effectiveness of Deitrich
     Bonhoeffer and his companions. BTW, Rev Bonhoeffer was involved in more
     than one plot to assassinate Hitler. Was he sinful in doing so? Again,
     the adult population of the US has a more than sufficient understanding
     of what is going on and that it would previously been thought as
     completely morally reprehensible, but choose to sell their souls for
     the sake of convenience and sexual licensiousness. 
    
     > If abortions are the same as the atrocities you stated, why aren't
     > you advocating taking up arms against abortionist?

     I thought that I presented a rather succinct defense for the young man
     having done so. The time will come when this may be necessary. Or do
     you think that the Valley of Meggido will be filled with blood up to
     the horses' bridles because you stood up and preached to the crowd? 

     > Would you have taken up arms against the Nazi's? 

     Certainly, yes. I did against the North Vietnamese Communists, and
     would have, given the opportunity, done so against the Nazis. 

RE:68

>Weapons come in many forms, Richard, and arms to suit the battle are indeed
>what I intend to take up.  Now, how about you?

     That's a cop out. Your comparing abortionist to Nazi's, which took a
     war to bring down so  you must be thinking a war of arms against
     abortionist. Like I said before, the political battle against abortion
     has been lost, especially with Slick as president.

>You KNOW that abortion takes a life.  Are you content to simply say that
>they don't know enough about it?
  
      I'm not content. I'm just not going to compare them to Nazi war
      criminals which would likewise require taking up arms to bring
      down.

>America had a Civil War over the personhood of slaves.  They took up 
>guns and cannons and we killed more Americans than in all other wars
>combined.

     America had a war over the economics of slavery and the division of
     the Union, but its not a good comparison.

    >I would prefer to avoid the bloodshed of a Civil War, but the issue
>is quite the same: the sanctity of human life.

    Then again, are you looking to fight a civil war over it ?

>On which side of the fence will you stand, or will you fall off it
>by default?

    I'll be on the side of peace for one, but then I'm not comparing
    abortionist to Nazi's or slave owners.

     Jim

How does the following apply (or does it apply at all) to your understanding 
of what you, as an individual, need to do regarding abortion:

Titus 3:9-11 (NIV)
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels
about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive
person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to
do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinfull; he is
self-condemned.

/Scott

     re: <<< Note 62.70 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Getting Good At Getting By" >>>

     Jim,

     > Like I said before, the political battle against abortion has been
     > lost, especially with Slick as president. 

     It's never been a political battle you know, not really. From day one,
     it's been a *spiritual* battle. Fighting Satan with politics is like
     battling a hurricane with a blow-dryer - totally pointless - you just
     get blown away. 

     > America had a war over the economics of slavery and the division of
     > the Union, but its not a good comparison. 

     If you think for *one second* that *ANY* abortionist is anything
     *resembling* an altruistic idealist, ask him/her when the last time was
     that the performed an abortion, EVEN FOR A MOTHER WHOSE LIFE WAS IN
     IMMINENT DANGER, pro bono. Never, that's when. They are *all* in it for
     the money, damn the morality! 

     � I would prefer to avoid the bloodshed of a Civil War, but the issue
     � is quite the same: the sanctity of human life. 

     > Then again, are you looking to fight a civil war over it ? 

     There *will* be one fought over it - in the Valley of Meggido.
     Which side will you be fighting on? 

     � On which side of the fence will you stand, or will you fall off it by
     � default? 

     > I'll be on the side of peace for one, but then I'm not comparing
     > abortionist to Nazi's or slave owners. 

     Very similar words and sentiments were used by Sir Neville Chamberlain
     in the European conference regarding Poland and Czeckoslovakia, in
     1939, I believe. 

>>Weapons come in many forms, Richard, and arms to suit the battle are indeed
>>what I intend to take up.  Now, how about you?
>
>     That's a cop out.

No.  A cop out is knowing that abortion is murder, not being content with
that knowledge, but saying that these people don't fully understand what 
they're doing, admiting that the political battle is lost because of a
Clinton presidency and then doing NOTHING.

>     America had a war over the economics of slavery and the division of
>     the Union, but its not a good comparison.

Division of the union based on the right to ownership of slavery which
ran the South's economy.  BUT THE BASIC ISSUE WAS HUMAN RIGHTS.
It's what the violence in South Africa is about today!  It is a VERY GOOD
comparison because who will speak for the nigger slave?  Who will speak
for the Jewish pestilence?  Who will speak for the inconvenient blobs
of tissue inside a woman?  It is the SAME!

>    >I would prefer to avoid the bloodshed of a Civil War, but the issue
>>is quite the same: the sanctity of human life.
>
>    Then again, are you looking to fight a civil war over it ?

No more than wanting to fight to save the union over an issue of slavery.
There comes a time, and that time is coming, when it will come to another
Civil War, and perhaps in physical battle.  I predict though, that it will
not be like 1860 because the issue fit neatly into state line for
there to be a ceding from the Union.  Instead it will BE TERRIFYINGLY like
fascism and the opposition will be put down with government-sponsored
oppression.

>>On which side of the fence will you stand, or will you fall off it
>>by default?
>
>    I'll be on the side of peace for one, but then I'm not comparing
>    abortionist to Nazi's or slave owners.

Then my opinion is that (1) this is as much or more a cop out than you
thought my answer to be, (2) you have blinded yourself by accepting media
swill about abortionists not know their taking a life, (3) do not
consider abortion really murder, but something a kin to telling a
lie.  So how close am I in my opinion to the truth?

             re: <<< Note 62.71 by STAR::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>

     Thank you, Scott. I'll quit giving singing lessons, and go back to
     read-only mode.

     Brian 

re:73
>
>No.  A cop out is knowing that abortion is murder, not being content with
>that knowledge, but saying that these people don't fully understand what 
>they're doing, admiting that the political battle is lost because of a
>Clinton presidency and then doing NOTHING.

    Who says I'm doing nothing ? I'm just not ready to start blowing
    abortion doctors away on their way home from work.

>>     America had a war over the economics of slavery and the division of
>>     the Union, but its not a good comparison.

>Division of the union based on the right to ownership of slavery which
>ran the South's economy.  BUT THE BASIC ISSUE WAS HUMAN RIGHTS.
     
    No it wasn't, it was economics. If the southern slave owners thought
    they could run their plantations without owning slaves they wouldn't have
    have bothered to own slaves and they sure wouldn't have gone to war
    over it. 
    But this is a different topic.

>It's what the violence in South Africa is about today!  It is a VERY GOOD
>comparison because who will speak for the nigger slave?  Who will speak
>for the Jewish pestilence?  Who will speak for the inconvenient blobs
>of tissue inside a woman?  It is the SAME!

    We're not talking about speaking out against injustice, I'm asking about
    taking up arms and violence against abortionist. What's stopping you ?

>>    Then again, are you looking to fight a civil war over it ?

>No more than wanting to fight to save the union over an issue of slavery.
>There comes a time, and that time is coming, when it will come to another
>Civil War, and perhaps in physical battle.  I predict though, that it will
>not be like 1860 because the issue fit neatly into state line for
>there to be a ceding from the Union.  Instead it will BE TERRIFYINGLY like
>fascism and the opposition will be put down with government-sponsored
>oppression.
  
    Your probably right. I feel the same is coming. Those who use violence
    to fight  abortion will bring it on faster.

>>>On which side of the fence will you stand, or will you fall off it
>>>by default?
>>
> >   I'll be on the side of peace for one, but then I'm not comparing
>  >  abortionist to Nazi's or slave owners.

>Then my opinion is that (1) this is as much or more a cop out than you
>thought my answer to be, 

    How's it a cop out ? I'm not justifying violence against abortionist. 
    Are you ?

    >(2) you have blinded yourself by accepting media
>swill about abortionists not know their taking a life, 

     I don't accept most of what the media writes on abortion. I talk with
     people who are for abortion or call themselves pro-choice. I try to
     show them the errors in their beliefs. All chance for dialog will end 
     as people  resort to violence.

    >(3) do not
    >consider abortion really murder, but something a kin to telling a
    >lie.  So how close am I in my opinion to the truth?

     I consider abortion the immoral killing innocent human life, which 
     unfortunately is legal and therefor not murder. 

     Jim

>>Division of the union based on the right to ownership of slavery which
>>ran the South's economy.  BUT THE BASIC ISSUE WAS HUMAN RIGHTS.
>     
>    No it wasn't, it was economics. If the southern slave owners thought
>    they could run their plantations without owning slaves they wouldn't have
>    have bothered to own slaves and they sure wouldn't have gone to war
>    over it. 

You're right that it was economics on the part of the slave owners, or more
generally, serious vested interest in not acknowledging the humanity of the
slaves.  But what was the north's reason for the war?  They wanted to outlaw
slavery, and the southern states insisted it was their "right" to continue
owning slaves.  The north had no economic or vested interest, it was simply
interested in the human rights of the slaves.  So it was really a war of human
rights vs. vested interests in ignoring the humanity of a class of people.
The parallel is quite striking.

>     I consider abortion the immoral killing innocent human life, which 
>     unfortunately is legal and therefor not murder. 

If the Supreme Court or Congress or any other body declared that PI was no
longer 3.14159..., but 3, would it change the value of PI?  Killing babies is
murder, regardless of who says it is right or who refuses to acknowledge the
humanity of the unborn.  

Now "Murder" usually implies some amount of malice on the part of the one 
committing the act, and I will agree that in many (most?) cases that malice is 
not present.  But there is legal precedent that "I didn't mean it" is not 
sufficient.  There is a category of crime called "Negligent Homicide."  In this 
case, the person did not mean to kill anyone, but through failing to do 
something that they really should have done, (such as checking to make sure no 
one was there in the direction you were going to shoot before discharging a 
firearm), they are still guilty of "homicide," though not in the same degree as
premeditated 1st degree homicide.

I think that "negligent homicide" would be the most applicible description of
abortion, with the negligence being the failure to examine (and accept the 
results after you make the examination) whether the thing you are disposing of
is in fact a human being.

Paul

    >I consider abortion the immoral killing innocent human life, which 
    >unfortunately is legal and therefor not murder. 
    
    I thought murder was defined by God, not man's law.
    
    Dave

>    Who says I'm doing nothing ? I'm just not ready to start blowing
>    abortion doctors away on their way home from work.

And who says that I'm ready to blow abortion doctors away!?  I am saying that
this will be another catalyst for people to choose their sides, and
given the arguments presented, action may be forthcoming.

>    No it wasn't, it was economics. If the southern slave owners thought
>    they could run their plantations without owning slaves they wouldn't have
>    have bothered to own slaves and they sure wouldn't have gone to war
>    over it. 

Gee, and they were unwilling to listen to how this might be done, eh?
Did this excuse the ownership of another human life?  Absolutley not!
Brian makes the apt comparision that abortion is done for economic 
reasons.  Do you think the American public would believe that if abortion
was made unprofitable, it would nearly completely DRY UP?

Abortionists are no different than slave owners, either in the sanctity
of human life, nor the greed for the almighty dollar.

>>No more than wanting to fight to save the union over an issue of slavery.
>>There comes a time, and that time is coming, when it will come to another
>>Civil War, and perhaps in physical battle.  I predict though, that it will
>>not be like 1860 because the issue fit neatly into state line for
>>there to be a ceding from the Union.  Instead it will BE TERRIFYINGLY like
>>fascism and the opposition will be put down with government-sponsored
>>oppression.
>  
>    Your probably right. I feel the same is coming. Those who use violence
>    to fight  abortion will bring it on faster.

And those who don't perpetuate the slaughter of millions, just as those who
didn't perpetuated slavery, lynchings, and Nazi death camps.

>>   I'll be on the side of peace for one, but then I'm not comparing
>>  abortionist to Nazi's or slave owners.
>>    How's it a cop out ? I'm not justifying violence against abortionist. 
>>    Are you ?

I am saying that life should be preserved and protected.  Your question 
is leading and is like saying, "I'm for Peace and cannot justify killing
Nazi's to save the Jews."

>    >(3) do not
>    >consider abortion really murder, but something a kin to telling a
>    >lie.  So how close am I in my opinion to the truth?
>
>     I consider abortion the immoral killing innocent human life, which 
>     unfortunately is legal and therefor not murder. 

Well, I got one right.  re-examine your definition.  Then Hitler did not murder
millions of Jews, by your definition.

Mark

<<< Note 62.76 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>

>The north had no economic or vested interest, it was simply
>interested in the human rights of the slaves.  So it was really a war of human
>rights vs. vested interests in ignoring the humanity of a class of people.
>The parallel is quite striking.

Well - maybe this is a nit-pick, but the real reason the North went to 
war wasn't so much over human rights. The real reason was because the south
left the union, to form their own union. The north (all that was left of
the US) went to war with the south because the US wasn't about to loose half
of it's land mass.

Human rights for the slaves was the major issue which began to whole mess,
but once the south left the union, that's what started to civil war. 
History books, however, stressed the human rights side of the issue, to 
make the war look more justified and moral and righteous.

The north had a much more economic and vested interest then you make out
to be. They didn't go to war for the slaves to be free. They went to war to
keep the entire U.S. united and strong (without the south, the U.S. would've
been a much weaker country...)

/Scott

True, the North really did go to war to preserve the union.  But the reason the
South wanted to secede in the first place, was because the North wanted to 
outlaw slavery.  Human rights was the driving issue that got the ball rolling,
it was when the fighting over that human rights issue expanded to include other
economic and political issues that things really got nasty.

Which is exactly what we see right now.  In this case, the person who did this
has taken a step in escalating the situation beyond disagreement over the
humanity of the unborn.  And the newly Clinton-appointed attorney general has
stated that one of her top priorities is a serious crackdown on "Pro Life
Terrorists," including long jail terms for peaceful protestors at abortion 
clinics (and this incident will just fuel that determination).  It is when
peaceful means are exhausted on both sides to resolve the issue, and both sides
begin to feel the need for more drastic measures, that things begin to get
really ugly.

It happened with slavery then, it's happening with abortion now.  The parallels
keep getting stronger and stronger.

Paul

>     I consider abortion the immoral killing innocent human life, which 
>     unfortunately is legal and therefor not murder. 

Unfortunately, this line of thinking gives creedance to moral relativism 
and throws moral absolutes out the window!

-Jack

Re: .80

>And the newly Clinton-appointed attorney general has stated that one of her top
>priorities is a serious crackdown on "Pro Life Terrorists," including long jail
>terms for peaceful protestors at abortion clinics (and this incident will just f
>uel that determination).  

Well, our determined A.G. will put herself in one fantastic bind.  The jails 
will be full of good tax paying citizens and at $140.00 per day per person with
a lesser tax base to support this effort, I think it will only bring further
frustration to the left!

-Jack

    I doubt that "Slick Willy" and his new A.G. will be in a bind.  They
    will point to the lunatic fringe that the Fundamentalist groups are
    comprised of and point out that they warned us of this evil.  A woman
    has a right to chose and post-persons have a right to chose death and
    whoever is left will pay the tax.  It does not matter how much - we
    must support our programs, because it is right.
    
    They make me sad, but I know that they do not do this to me personally,
    but rather they defy God.  They will stand in judgement.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Daryl

           re: .80 
           
>It happened with slavery then, it's happening with abortion now.  The parallels
>keep getting stronger and stronger.

           ... history repeat itself???  It wouldn't surprise me.  For
           when will the Supreme Court reverse Roe vs. Wade?  It seemed
           close a year ago... Now, it seams an eternity away.  Something
           has got to break the "stalemate", and it won't be peaceful or
           a compromise that everyone will live with, either.  F.O.C.A.
           and RU486 are steps in the direction that will make R v W a
           non-issue and convenience will again be the way of life AND
           death.
           
           Steve

    From "The American Heritage Dictionary."

     Murder - The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially
     with malice and afterthought. 

     An abortionist does not kill with malice and after thought. They don't 
     even consider the fetus a human being. So to me the word "murder," doesn't
     apply.

     Manslaughter does and perhaps other words I'm not privy to. I see
     a difference from the crimes of Hitler and the crimes of the
     abortionist in this regard.  

     My argument here is that those who see the abortionist as equivalent
     to a tyrant like Hitler or slave owners, appear to be implicitly saying 
     that the use of violence like the actions of the abortionist murderer, 
     is justified.

     The use of violence is condemned by all the mainstream pro-life movements 
     like Operation Rescue, The National Right to Life movements, and most 
     mainstream Christian churches.

    Peace
     Jim

	Daryl,

	Just an observation from an outsider, Christians are to be in
	subjection to there superior authorities and should show honor to 
	the king (Prime Minster or President) (1 Peter 2:17). To me using 
	the term "Slick Willy" is derogatory and not showing honor, however 
	this is from a British viewpoint and understanding of the term.

;    They make me sad, but I know that they do not do this to me personally,
;    but rather they defy God.  They will stand in judgement.

	The rulers of all nations will stand in judgment, as well as those
	who profess to be Christians. Hence, this my reasoning for highlighting
	your note. 

	Phil.

    I have a question. If we want to kill a murderer, where does
    forgiveness fit? There was an example in the forgiveness topic
    of a young lady that was imprisioned during WW2. She had the
    opportunity to meet her tormentor, years later, she and her tormentor
    parted at peace, not friends, not happy, but simply forgiven.
    
    Now as for murder, or killing, it is a hideous act. But we can not
    judge the person any more than we would judge the person who
    speeds on the highway. Why? Because one sin is no greater than another
    IN THE EYES OF THE LORD. Ahh..but in our eyes, our sinful, "morally
    challenged, (note PC ;^) ), eyes, we see variants in sin, yes?.!
    
    I tell you then, take me to arms! For in the service of military duty,
    I took life. I am not just talking of the occational lucky shot, but of
    carefully planned operations to target a specific individual. To
    literally terminate WITH extreme prejudice, - in the name of
    Democracy none the less. A good cause, RIGHT?!
    
    Take me to task, because at that time I thought I was saving humanity
    from evils such as "Hitler". - So my dear brothers and sisters, be
    careful not to judge too harshly or quickly, be JUDGING, but not
    judgemental.  Yes, what the young man did in taking the life of the
    abortion doctor was very bad. He must pay the price of it IN THE
    CONTEXT OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH HE LIVES. - For me and others, our
    context was different, and therefore the "punishment" was different.
    For me, it is the torment of remembering people that no longer walk,
    talk and tell jokes to thier children.
    
    
    God has forgiven me, I am forgiving me, You can NOT JUDGE me, the price
    of my sin is forgiven as is the price of this young man's sin.
                                   BUT,
    the consquences of sin must be fullfilled. This man must stand trial
    for that which he has done! And if the courts of this corrupt world
    find it fitting that he be executed, then let it be so! Only the young
    man will know where he is going,( heaven, Hell), even in light of his sin.
    
    - The wages of sin is death. Who will save us from our wretched selves?
       Thanks be to Christ Jesus!
    
    PDM

      RE: 87 PDM	
	
  >>  I tell you then, take me to arms! For in the service of military duty,
  >>  I took life. I am not just talking of the occational lucky shot, but of
  >>  carefully planned operations to target a specific individual. To
  >>  literally terminate WITH extreme prejudice, - in the name of
  >>  Democracy none the less. A good cause, RIGHT?!
    
  >>  Take me to task, because at that time I thought I was saving humanity
  >>  from evils such as "Hitler". - So my dear brothers and sisters, be
  >>  careful not to judge too harshly or quickly, be JUDGING, but not
  >>  judgemental. 
    
Under the Mosaic law, I was under the belief that when a murderer was executed,
his blood was on his own head.  In other words, if I broke into a home to steal
and destroy, and the owner hit me with a club and I died, then the blood is 
not on the owner, but rather on myself.  That is why for example, the cities of
refuge were set up in the book of Joshua, to protect yourself from the blood
avenger if it was unpremeditated.

Hitler and his ilk caused their own demise and his blood is not on our hands,
but on his own.  Now with that in mind, is the blood of the Florida doctor on 
the killers hands, or on his own?  

Jack (Who by the way feels the killing of the doctor was wrong and a poor 
      testimony to an unsaved world!)

Judges 3:12-30 tells the story of Ehud.  Verse 15 says:

  But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised 
  them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamenite, a man left-handed:
  And by him the children of Israel send a present unto Eglon the king of
  Moab.

The story goes that Moab were in sujection (or oppression) to Moab,
because of Israel's sin (verse 12).  Verse 15 is Israel's repentance
and the pasage writer says that Ehud was given as a deliverer by God.

In verse 21, Ehud assassinates the King of Moab, escapes, sounds the trumpet
and leads the Israelites out fromthe bondage to Moab.

Phil has a point about CONTEXT.  A question arises: "At what point does
a vigilante (or covert) act constitute a political context that is viewed 
as a necessary thing to do?"

In the case of the vigilante, he's caught on the wrong side of the
political context.

Mark

    |                  <<< Note 62.88 by MSBCS::JMARTIN >>>
    |                        -< On There Own Heads? >-
    
    
    |Jack (Who by the way feels the killing of the doctor was wrong and a poor 
    |      testimony to an unsaved world!)

    	You are correct insaying it was wrong and a poor testimony. Where
    is the blood, (the wrong), well, I believe it is on each and every one
    of us. I feel badly for all the killing in this world, God surely does
    not want it, we are told this. We are also living in a world that God
    no longer calls to himself, for cursed is the ground on the sake of
    man.  So when considering the fault, consider it in the Light of the
    Word. What would Christ have said? Have done? I remember reading
    something about casting stones?.!
    
    This issue of to sentence or not to sentence is a manifestation of THIS
    world, not God's. The conflict is introduced by Satan and His dominion,
    which unfortunately for us, we are caught up in.
    
    But through God's devine Love and Might, he has provided us ways of
    dealing with such issues, and has told us that indeed the wages of sin
    is death. Here God is talking about the spirit not the flesh. The flesh
    is inconsequental! Whether this man is put to death for his alledged
    crime or whether he gets off is of no consequence to GOD, only man.
    God knows the heart of this individual and that is all that is really
    important, yes?.!  Again who are we to judge. Why were there cities of
    refuge???  Becaus of man not God!  We must protect ourselves FROM
    ourselves each day! How? With the full Armor of the Lord!
    
    As a poor analogy, but one none the less, Would Jesus have Yelled,
    Kill Peter!; for cutting off the ear of a Roman Guard?! No but look
    at what he said, there is enough violence, let's do what we must do
    in a civil fashion. (Matt 26:52 "'Put your sword back in its place,'
    Jesus said to him, "'for all who draw the sword willl die by the
    sword.'"  // Luke 22:51 "But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And
    he touched the man's ear and healed him" and John 18:10-11)
    
    So brothers, and sisters, let us be civil in our dealings with one
    another, so that God may be Glorified. Let us not judge, but rather
    let us be judicious.                           
    
      PDM
    

Phil,
  In Warsaw, there was a resistance to the Nazi program of deporting 
the Jews to the concentration camps.  It was an armed resistance.
Some felt to go passively was the right thing to do.  So found it
utterly deplorable that people would move like cattle onto cattle
cars to be carted as cattle to the slaughter house without so much
of a peep of dissent.
  I would like to see every possible legal and diplomatic recourse
followed.  But what then?
  I pray that the Lord returns soon and that for the sake of the elect,
he will cut the days short...  REAL short.
  When it comes down to it, would I passively get onto the train car?
Or would I go underground?  Just to hide?  Or to help others, possibly
by hindering the enemy?  
  We are the church of 1937-1945.  The unborn are the Jews of that era,
except they cannot go underground and resist.  Corrie Ten Boom's family
hid Jews for a time before paying the consequences; they did not do any
voilence (perhaps worthy of note).  So how do we respond?

Jim, 
  Did you answer me my question that if this vigilante repented of his
murder, should he be free from punishment?

Mark

       <<< Note 62.85 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Getting Good At Getting By" >>>

    >From "The American Heritage Dictionary."

     >Murder - The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially
     >with malice and afterthought. 


    Not a valid argument here, Jim.  Especially doesn't mean always.  
Just because an abortionist doesn't kill maliciously doesn't mean it's 
not murder.  I would guess that professional killers kil without malice 
and afterthought and their deeds are no less murderous.


Sandy
     

     <<< Note 62.87 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>
                   -< Are we so blind that we can not see? >-

Thanks for your note Philip.  Lots to think about there.

Leslie

  >>  	You are correct insaying it was wrong and a poor testimony. Where
  >>  is the blood, (the wrong), well, I believe it is on each and every one
  >>  of us. 
      I agree in the sense that apathy and indifference is equally criminal. 
      Through silence, we condone their actions!

  >>  I remember reading something about casting stones?.!
      
      True, but can we let sin continue on?  At least the harlot repented!
    
  >>  Whether this man is put to death for his alledged
  >>  crime or whether he gets off is of no consequence to GOD, only man.
    
      I agree in the sense that Jonah faced the same struggle.  God wanted
      repentance.  Jonah wanted judgement.  Note: Ninevah did repent however
      slipped back into sin and was destroyed 100 years later.

  >>  Why were there cities of refuge???  Becaus of man not God!  We must 
  >>  protect ourselves FROM ourselves each day! How? With the full Armor of the 
  >>  Lord!
    
      God commanded Israel to set these cities up for purposes of justice to the
      defendant.  To be sure that civil laws were meted out properly.  You will
      recall God initiated capital punishment for many broken laws.  (By the
      way, I would've been executed a few times over!)

   >> As a poor analogy, but one none the less, Would Jesus have Yelled,
   >> Kill Peter!; for cutting off the ear of a Roman Guard?! No but look
   >> at what he said, there is enough violence, let's do what we must do
   >> in a civil fashion. 

      Well put!

  >>  So brothers, and sisters, let us be civil in our dealings with one
  >>  another, so that God may be Glorified. Let us not judge, but rather
  >>  let us be judicious.                           
    
      What about the revolutionary war, would you say that was rebellious or
      judicious?  George Washington believed God was on his side and yet many
      British were killed (as were many colonials).  Remember, Jesus also said
      I did not come to bring peace, but a sword!  Sometimes the way to peace
      is through the sword.

  -Jack
    

    RE:91
     Mark, 
           yes I did say that the murderer should be punished by society.  
           God will give his own judgment on the matter.

      
    RE:92

     Its all matter of definition then. Of course if we're gonna
    communicate we'd better clarify our definitions. I used the
    dictionary definition because that's what "murder" means to me.

    BTW, a hit man has afterthought when he kills.  He knows he what he
    doing is wrong.

    Jim

    |<<< Note 62.91 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>
    
    
      Mark, your thoughts ring all too clear. I agree with you.
    
    
    | I would like to see every possible legal and diplomatic recourse
    | followed.  But what then?
    	Yes, but what then. Unfortunate for us, we fall under the
    immediate control of unsaved persons, wielding ungodly wisdom.
    God's will be done.
    
    
    
    |When it comes down to it, would I passively get onto the train car?
    |Or would I go underground?  Just to hide?  Or to help others, possibly
    |   by hindering the enemy?  
    
      There is much trueth to the addage different strokes for different
    folks. The war that you and I are going to engage against though has
    providential meaning. Each of us will be called upon to use our God
    given talents during the tribulation to continue to proclaim the Lord's
    Glory. If to some that means being cattled, as testimony to thier Faith
    then so be it. For me, I suspect I will go in battle, on the front
    lines, why? Oh I don't know, call it macho-ism, (hopefully not pride),
    but I want to clearly proclaim the good news to the crowd that is to
    execute the body. (what rings in my mind is, Fear not he that can kill
    the body, no, more, Fear the One that can take both body and soul.)
    
    PDM

PDM,
  I'd like to be there with you.  Guess I'll have to tone up a bit, eh?  ;-)

MM

                      <<< Note 62.94 by MSBCS::JMARTIN >>>
    
  |>>  I remember reading something about casting stones?.!
      
  |    True, but can we let sin continue on?  At least the harlot repented!
    
       Ahhh, yes, but must this man repent to you? Must you be made aware
       of the state of his heart? WHO ARE YOU?
    
       When I commit sins should I call you up and say, "BTW, just calling
       YOU to let you know I have repented.!"
    
  |>>  another, so that God may be Glorified. Let us not judge, but rather
  |>>  let us be judicious.                           
    
  |    What about the revolutionary war, would you say that was rebellious or
  |    judicious?  George Washington believed God was on his side and yet many
    
        I am not the one to ask for justification. I suggest you speak with
         old Georgy boy should you find him within the pearly gates.
        History tells us one thing, but I for one know how many times
        history has been re-written, at least in my life experiences. ;^) 
    
    
        Jack, I think for the most part we are in agreement. A murder must
    stand the test of the courts, but I again contend, CONTEXT is VERY
    important.
    
    
      And to another point that jim made about "hit men". I was not going
     to speak to it, but I feel compelled to ask, Jim, How do you KNOW
     a hit man knows he is doing wrong? Oh, and what kind of hit man are
     you speaking of, - the kind we ALL know from the movies - Al Capone
     types, or are you speaking more generally - like military and
     government assasins that work under the auspices of a ruling body?
    
      As one who once held a license to kill, I know what I thought!
    PDM
    

     re: <<< Note 62.75 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Getting Good At Getting By" >>>

     Jim,

     > I consider abortion the immoral killing innocent human life, 

     Good definition. A classic definition of murder. 

     > ...which unfortunately is legal... 

     Incorrect! It has been decxriminalized. There is a *huge* difference
     between decriminalizing and legalizing something! Decriminalization
     means that society will no longer prosecute someone for doing
     something. Legalization, means that, in addition, it is acknowledged to
     be within the bounds of ethical social behavior. To quote the War
     Crimes Tribunal of Nuremberg, "Crimes against humanity can *never* be
     legalized, regardless of the number of statutes decriminalizing them." 

     > ...and therefor not murder. 

     Even if the clause regarding legalization were true, the leap of
     (il)logic here boggles my mind! How did you *ever* reach this
     conclusion, based upon the premises you postulate? 

     Brian

    As an outsider, I would just like to interject something that may help
    to broaden this discussion.  By outsider, I mean that I am an atheist
    and that the Bible has no more meaning for me than any other "holy"
    book.  While maybe not a majority, there are undoubtedly several
    million atheists that are citizens of the United States, not to mention
    Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, etc.
    
    According to the Constitution, the Fundamental Law of the Land, we are
    guaranteed certain rights of which one is freedom of religion, or non-
    religion.  It is going to, therefore, take more than the Bible, one
    holy book from one religion representing one group of citizens to
    justify depriving another citizen of his or her rights.  Nothing in
    the Bible could possibly stand up in a court of law to justify taking
    the life of another person who wasn't even breaking the law.
    
    Even if the Supreme Court, in the future, changed the law to support
    the view that life begins at conception, it would not apply in this
    case.  This is a clear case of premeditated murder in the first degree
    and the perpetrator MUST be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
    law.
    
    Personally, I believe that as long as a fetus is attached to a woman's
    body; until the umbilical chord is cut, noone has a right to tell her
    that she cannot abort it.  If she chooses to abort it, as long as
    abortion is legal, it can't be called murder.  Even if some religious
    fundamentalists are inclined to believe it is murder, the murderer in
    this case is the woman that solicited the abortion and not the doctor
    who performs it. If RU45 were readily available, this discussion would
    probably not even involve the doctor.
    

    RE:99
    OK Brian, is abortion illegal in the U.S. ?
 
    Is something that has no law against it, legal or just decriminalized ?
     
    My definition of what constitutes murder, still goes along with the 
    dictionary. 

    Jim

    .100
    
    Bartlett [didn't see a first name],
    
    Thanks for coming forward with your point of view and for your honesty
    in declaring your atheism.
    
    You may find this hard to believe but I agree with you. :-)  Well, sort
    of...
    
    Without God, meaning in our own human wisdom and power, the Bible is
    not sufficient to change the attitude towards abortion.
    
    However, [from my point of view and belief in God], "For with God all
    things are possible."  
    
    That is the difference between believers and unbelievers, hope versus
    no hope.  
    
    Glad to see your reading CHRISTIAN...
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

Re:  .101

Brian has quoted from a high court which clearly shows
a distinction between decriminilized and legal.  It
appears that you do not wish to accept this primarily
so that you can continue to view the killing of a
fetus as "not murder".

If you do accept this definition (a "legal" definition,
by the way) and you accept that a fetus is a person,
then I see no way for you to logically believe that the
intentional killing of a fetus without an overriding
concern (self-defense, for example) is not murder.

However, I expect you'll come up with something.  Please
continue.

Collis

Re:  .100

Indeed, if we are to rely only on ourselves to determine
such important matters as when a human life begins,
then self-interest may well play a critical role in
this determination.

It hardly seems in the fetus' interest to kill it.  From
my knowledge (still in an embryonic stage) of women in
crisis pregnancies, I believe that it is not in the
mother's or society's best interest to kill it either.

We've been fed the lie that indiscriminate sex is freeing
and that the same is true for abortion.  In actuality,
both just keep us in slavery (to sin).

Collis

Re:100

If you look over these notes, you'll see that people are not really using
a Biblical basis for determining that the fetus is a person.  There does exist
that biblical basis, but that's not what people are using here, mostly.  Most 
participants have agreed that the fetus is a human being, so we haven't debated
it much.  But the main definition that I remember was biological, not bibilical.

And I agree with you - I think people hurt the pro-life cause when they use
biblical or God-justified reasons for prohibiting abortions.  That's precisely
what the first amendment is for - to prohibit people from making laws based on
what they believe God is telling them.  And while I personally believe that we'd
all be better off if we made our countries laws according to God's laws as I
understand them, unless I'm willing to subject myself to the laws that other
religious groups might make should they become the majority, I can't go making
laws on that basis just because I'm in the majority.  People in history have
been too notoriously bad at interpreting what God wants for me to endorse giving
any group - including my own - the ability to use force to make others comply
with their understanding of God.

But one need not use the Bible or a religious basis of any kind to utterly
condemn and prohibit abortion.  All remotely civilized societies have long
determined that it is not acceptable to kill other people.  If the fetus is in
fact a human being, then it is not acceptable to kill it.

Religious people can use their own religious convictions as a reason to become
involved in prohibiting things such as abortion, but in our secular society, we
should not use those convictions as part of the prohibition itself.  For 
example, I quoted a scripture where God says he will judge people who see others
sacrificing children and not stop it.  That scripture is having an effect on me,
and I may share it with other christians so that it may have an effect on them, 
but I would never try to use that as a basis for legal prohibitions against 
abortion.

If you want to discuss further the secular reasons for prohibiting abortion,
I'd be glad to do so in another note devoted to that purpose, or offline.

Paul

    Well if abortion isn't illegal, then it can't be murder which 
    is the illegal taking of a human life by another. 

    Let me make something clear. Because I don't believe abortion is
    murder,  doesn't mean I don't believe it to be evil. Because I do.
    However, just because I believe it to be evil, doesn't give me the
    justification to declare an armed war against those who provide or
    have abortions.

    Jim 

    re:103

    Gee Collis, you sound like your getting upset over this. No need to
    get upset, we're only chewing the cud over this topic.;)

    Seriously, if people are getting upset, I'll back off from this
    conference. I'd rather not be a participant if what I write is 
    too upsetting for the folks here. And I deeply apologize to those
    that may have been offended.

    May The Peace Of Christ Be With You All
     Jim

     re: <<< Note 62.101 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Getting Good At Getting By" >>>

     Jim,

     > OK Brian, is abortion illegal in the U.S. ? 

     No, it has been decriminalized. 
 
     > Is something that has no law against it, legal or just
     > decriminalized? 

     That depends upon whether or not the action contraverts basic human
     rights (of *all* parties involved), and whether or not it contraverts
     normal ethical standards. 

     > My definition of what constitutes murder, still goes along with the
     > dictionary. 

     Posh. The basic definition of murder is the termination of human life
     without benefit of the protection of due process of law.

     Brian

.100 (also)

The doctor vs. woman cupability in the death of the unborn.
If one chooses to solicit another, one abets the act (crime).
See legal recourse for abetting.

Mark

    For what it's worth in the context of this discussion, God defines
    (by example) murder as the taking of any life apart from His explicit
    command to do so.  In the Old Testament, He had occasion to give such
    commands -- to Joshua, for example.  In the New Testament, the only
    occasion that comes to mind where the Lord directly put someone to
    death as a witness to others occurred when Ananias and Sapphira lied
    in Acts 5; note that Peter himself did nothing more than to proclaim
    God's judgment upon them.

    It is not the act of killing which constitutes murder but rather the
    spirit behind the killing.  If the spirit behind the killing is not
    the Holy Spirit, then the killing is murder, and man is usurping
    God's authority by the taking of a life.  My conviction is that, if
    the Holy Spirit were to put someone to death in this present time, it
    would be done without any contact in the physical realm, just as it
    was done in Acts 5.  But I hasten to add that I've never heard of any
    occasion where God has done except for the Acts 5 account.

    In His love,

				*** Daryl ***

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like this discussion has been 
going around in circles for the past, oh, 110 replies?

/Scott

                     <<< Note 62.100 by GUIDUK::BARTLETT >>>
                          -< An outside viewpoint... >-

    
    
    >Personally, I believe that as long as a fetus is attached to a woman's
    >body; until the umbilical chord is cut, noone has a right to tell her
    >that she cannot abort it.  If she chooses to abort it, as long as
    

Interesting perspective.  I don't want to misunderstand what you're 
saying here.  My children drew their first breath while still attached 
to me.  I heard the sound of their voices (well, wails actually) before 
the umbilical chord was cut.  Are you saying that morally I still has a 
right to abort that child?  Legally, I probably would be in serious 
trouble.  What if I decided a month earlier that this wasn't convenient 
for me?  Twenty years ago a child delivered at less than six months 
probably would not survive.  Today, infants born at less than six months 
are not only surviving, but their delivery is almost routine.  Imagine 
what another 20 years of medicine will bring us.  I wouldn't be 
surprised to see a time when women are no longer needed to "incubate" 
babies.  A two week old baby is no less dependent on it's mother than 
one 38 weeks in utero.  Which is more viable?  Why does dependence give 
the right to destroy?

I echo Nancy's welcome to you.  It wasn't so long ago that I was a 
devout atheist myself. :^)

Sandy

    

    I'm not sure, but I believe that it is a sin to kill a cow according
    to the Hindu religion.  To those who consider it morally right to
    kill an abortionist, if I were a Hindu, would I not likewise be
    morally obliged to kill anyone who slaughters or eats cattle?
    
    This may seem to be a facetious analogy to you, but the idea that a
    Hindu would be willing to starve before he or she would eat cow flesh
    is just as ridiculous to me as bringing a severely deformed child into
    the a world of pain and suffering when it may be aborted before it is
    conciously aware of the meaning of life.  Personal morality is just
    that, personal, and not to be imposed on society as a whole.
    
    I don't condemn the mother who continues to bear children with severe
    spinal abnormalities because that is her personal choice.  Likewise,
    I refuse to allow anyone to condemn a woman who chooses to terminate
    a pregnancy.  That's how I feel about the moral issue:  you can't
    argue morality because it is subjective.
    
    The legal issue is quite another thing.  Whether abortion is legal
    or decriminalized is just a question of semantics.  With regard to
    the topic of this discussion, abortion can hardly be called murder in
    the legal sense.  I think the murder of Dr. Gunn may eventually force
    a Supreme Court decision deciding whether aborting is murder or not.
    If this should happen and the Supreme Court decides, again, that it
    is not murder, any citizen of the United States must abide by that
    decision.  If, however, the Supreme Court decides that it is murder
    to abort a fetus, instead of being a sore loser and picketing
    religious fundamentalist organizations, I'd be more inclined to
    renounce my citizenship and become a citizen of a more enlightened
    society.

Jim,

My words and my logic do not sway you because you
have not heard.  You choose to call this "legal"
and yet have not given anyone any reason to question
the Tribunal's definition of legality which clearly
indicates your use of the word "legal" is wrong.

Either you don't understand what I'm saying, or
your position is entrenched and you don't want to
change.  I'm assuming the latter because the logic
is so clear to me.

Either accept the definition of legal given by the
Tribunal or show just cause why we shouldn't use
this definition.  Ignoring their definition and
stubbornly insisting on your own definition of legal
without justification leads to the impasse you now
see.

Collis

    RE: 112
    
    I didn't mean that it is immoral or not immoral to terminate a
    pregnancy, even in the third trimester.  Personally, I don't think
    moral issues can really be debated rationally.  What I intended
    to say is that if a woman decides to abort a fetus that is still
    part of her body it is her decision and the morality or immorality
    of the action depends on her PERSONAL beliefs regardless of what
    anybody else believes.
    
    By the same token, if I decided that I wanted to commit suicide, I
    don't think anyone besides me would have the right to decide whether
    any action should be taken based on what their personal moral
    beliefs are.  You have every right to you personal moral beliefs,
    and to even state your beliefs and say that abortion is immoral, but
    your rights don't include imposition of your personal moral beliefs
    on other people.

    >your rights don't include imposition of your personal moral beliefs
    >on other people.
              ******
    I think that what it boils down to is a definition of a person.  If, as
    I believe, a fetus is a person, then the woman's decision to abort is
    an imposition of her personal belief on another person.  
    
    Dave

                   Re: <<< Note 62.100 by GUIDUK::BARTLETT >>>

     Mr(?) Bartlett,

     (Sorry for the impersonal salutation, but I did not see any more
     indicative identification or closing on your reply...) 
    
     > Personally, I believe that as long as a fetus is attached to a
     > woman's body; until the umbilical chord is cut, no one has a right to
     > tell her that she cannot abort it. 

     What is an umbilical, other than temporary life support? Let us extend
     the situation to other circumstances for the sake of discussion.

     Is the situation any different if the person is on an operating table
     and the anethesiologist has to stop their cardio-pulminary functions
     and replace them temporarily with artificial means? 

     Is the situation any different if the person is a quadrapelegic and
     requires constant attendance for basic body functions, but is fully
     coherent? 

     Is the situation any different if the person is 85 years old, suffers
     from emphysema(sp?) and requires 24-hour oxygen support? 

     Is the situation any different if the person is terminally ill,
     requires feeding intubation, and is barely coherent? 

     The bottom line is, at what point are you willing to kill a human being
     because they are not perceived to be a contributing member of society?
     In other words, at what point does Neitze's "non-productive eaters"
     postulation take hold?

     Brian 

RE: .115


                            -< Did I say moral??? >-

    No, I did, although I didn't mean to imply morality here.  My most 
humble apologies if I did.  What I meant to say that I personally 
question/take issue with a child in the womb being part of a woman's 
body.  Yes, the baby relies on the mother for nourishment and a safe and 
protective environment.  Why does this give her the right to abort that 
child?  I envision a future where women are no longer needed for this 
purpose.  Where does a "woman's choice" fit into that future?


GIUDUK::, huh.  I ate one of those once.  You must be from the 
Northwest. :^)


Sandy
 

                   re: <<< Note 62.113 by GUIDUK::BARTLETT >>>

     > ...is just as ridiculous to me as bringing a severely deformed child
     > into the a world of pain and suffering when it may be aborted before
     > it is conciously aware of the meaning of life. 

     By what standard and with what measure of proof do you declare a
     preborn human being not "conciously aware of the meaning of life,"
     beyond, of course, personal opinion. Is it possible that this statement
     is made primarily (though perhaps uncounsciously) as an axiom
     prerequisite to supporting abortion. After all, if a preborn human is
     sentient, would it not, ipso facto, be a person? 

     > Personal morality is just that, personal, and not to be imposed on
     > society as a whole. 

     Laws are little more than the codification of generally agreed upon
     morals and mores. By definition, laws *are* the imposition of the
     social morals of those with sufficient influence to impose legislation
     upon all of society. 

     > That's how I feel about the moral issue:  you can't argue morality
     > because it is subjective.

     This reveals a very basic disagreement between our two worldviews.
     Bible-Believing Christians adhere to the precept that morality is truly
     *objective*, based upon the external litmus of Scripture. Upon *that*
     basis, morality *can* be discussed. Apart from that basis, society is
     left with moral anarchy. Can you agree with what I have said (even
     though I understand that you reserve the right to decline to accept its
     implications or to recognize its authority in your own life)? 
    
     > The legal issue is quite another thing.  Whether abortion is legal or
     > decriminalized is just a question of semantics. 

     I disagree, rather vehemently. The distinction between that which is
     legal and that which is merely decriminalized is a significant point of
     social ethics. That which is unethical can *never* be legal, regardless
     of the number of statutes removing the criminal sanctions regarding its
     performance. 

     > With regard to the topic of this discussion, abortion can hardly be
     > called murder in the legal sense.

     I will allow for the distinction, for the sake of legal clarity. Most
     accurately, it should (and is still, in many states) defined as
     voluntary manslaughter. 

     Brian 

    Morality (personal and absolute) are discussed in another topic (30.*
    or 31.*, I forget which), but your reading will be short.  The
    if-then-else statement is brief for the atheist:
    
    If one's faith declares that there is no God, then self is the absolute
    authority.
    
    All morality is defined by an authority.  The greatest authority wins.
    If there is a God, and He is Absolute, then He defines morality and by
    His Authority, his morality declares opposing moralities to be immoral.
    
    Please see my discussion in thirty-mumble; I'd be happy to continue
    a discussion on morality there.  However, I suspect that the basis of
    authority will not be the same for you and for me.
    
    Mark

    I'd also define it as "voluntary manslaughter."

    RE: 116 and 117
    
    This is really what the issue boils down to it seems.  At what point
    is the fetus considered a human being, morally, and at what point
    is the fetus considered a citizen, legally.  I heard an orthodox Jew
    say on television the other day that the Jewish religion does not
    consider a fetus to become a human being until it exits the womb.
    Bill Clinton was asked whether he considered abortion to be murder
    and he replied that there is wide disagreement on whether life
    starts at conception or birth.  As long as there is disagreement, it
    is impossible to say whether abortion is morally wrong or right.
    
    As far as citizenship goes, is a fetus a citizen?  If it comes down
    to a decision between the rights of a mother and the rights of the
    unborn child, which takes precedence.  I know what I believe, but I
    can't say that I'm certain and, until I am certain, I can't impose
    a decision on the rest of the citizenry.
    
    There is definitely a consensus among the populace that it is murder
    to walk up to a person and kill them if they haven't done anything
    wrong.  There is still no consensus regarding the wrongness or
    rightness of aborting an unborn child or fetus.  If the citizenry as
    a whole cannot come to a concensus, how can we expect the government
    to do so.
    
    Maybe the case of the murder of Dr. Gunn will end up in the Supreme
    Court and a decision will come down deciding whether the fetus has
    rights.  Roe v. Wade decided in favor of the mother, until this
    decision is reversed, I see no reason to consider abortion to be
    murder.

                   RE: <<< Note 62.122 by GUIDUK::BARTLETT >>>
    
     > This is really what the issue boils down to it seems.  At what point
     > is the fetus considered a human being, morally, and at what point is
     > the fetus considered a citizen, legally. 

     You are absolutely correct! And, if there is to be, or has been a
     change in either status vis � vis the preborn, what is the *real* basis
     for that change? 

     > As long as there is disagreement, it is impossible to say whether
     > abortion is morally wrong or right. 

     Are you postulating that morality is simply a matter of consensus?
     Whatever the collective decides is moral, *is moral*? That is a very
     dangerous, reckless, and potentially anarchaic way to work a society,
     IMHO. Refer back to Plato's Republic and to the writings of Pliny the
     Elder regarding proper management of society. These pre-Christian
     writers *both* regarded the necessity of object moral bases for proper
     social order as absolutely *essential*. 
    
     > As far as citizenship goes, is a fetus a citizen?  If it comes down
     > to a decision between the rights of a mother and the rights of the
     > unborn child, which takes precedence? 

     Historically, from the time of English Common Law, society has had an
     implicit as well as explicit responsibility to insure the rights of
     those members of society least able to assert their rights over those
     stronger or more vocal members of society. 

     > I know what I believe, but I can't say that I'm certain and, until I
     > am certain,... 

     Unless and until you are able to base your opinion on an objective
     source (which is, by definition, external to yourself), you will remain
     unable to be certain regarding *any* moral issue, n'est pas? 
 
     > ...I can't impose a decision on the rest of the citizenry. 

     This is a simplistic copout, IMHO. Legislation *is* the imposition of
     *somebody's* moral decisions on the rest of the citizenry. For example,
     the Executive Order restoring Federal funding for abortion counseling
     *forces* me to subsidies the manslaughter of preborn human beings. The
     FOCA bill would impose upon me even more onerous decisions regarding
     this issue. 
    
     > Roe v. Wade decided in favor of the mother, until this decision is
     > reversed, I see no reason to consider abortion to be murder. 

     That is because your basis of morality is apparently come mixing of
     your own opinion and the collective consensus of society. From that
     viewpoint, you are correct and justified. *IF*, however, morality is
     (as it has been for untold centuries) view as something that is defined
     evernally to ourselves (individually and/or collectively) then the
     picture changes entirely, doesn't it? If morality is external, then it
     can be absolutely. If it is defined internally, then it is reduced to
     being an opinion, like armpits - everybody's got a couple.

     Brian 

    RE: 62.123
    
    I am trying to make a distinction between morally right and legally
    right.  What I meant by morality being subjective is that different
    people have different ideas of what is moral and what is immoral
    whereas what is legal and what is illegal is objective.  I do think
    that morality is nearly synonymous with opinion.  There are those
    that KNOW what they know based on fact; there are those that KNOW
    what they know based on opinion; and there are those that KNOW what
    they KNOW based on faith.  I only KNOW for sure what I know by fact.
    This doesn't mean that I don't have faith or opinion in anything.
    I have faith in the fundamental laws of nature and all kinds of
    opinion, but I won't deprive a woman of an abortion based on anything
    but fact.  If it is a fact that it is illegal to have an abortion
    then I can deal with a woman being punished for doing it or a doctor
    performing it, even though I don't agree with it.
    
    But, getting back to the point of the original subject, the person
    that walked up to Dr. Gunn and fired three shots point blank into
    his back was legally wrong.  I am personally of the opinion that he
    was morally wrong and have faith in the justice system that he will
    get what he deserves.
    
    Laws are not the imposition of *somebody's* morality over the
    morality of another, at least in this country.  The laws are created
    more as a dialectical attrition between opposing groups in society.
    The abortion issue may someday be decided by the Supreme Court
    declaring that a person becomes a human being and a citizen at the
    point of conception and making abortion illegal.  At that point, I
    don't forsee joining a group to practice civil disobedience.  I'd
    rather change my citizenship.
    
    Roger.
    

.124 (Roger Bartlett)

>One mans morality is another's immorality...

Roger, you are correct - IF there is no God, or as Brian says, no
external or absolute morality.

>I am personally of the opinion that he was morally wrong...

We agree in opinion; he should not have killed the Doctor.

>    At that point, I
>    don't forsee joining a group to practice civil disobedience.  I'd
>    rather change my citizenship.

This is an opinion and stance people choose.  The Revolutionary War was
fought because people chose BOTh to disobey the ruling government and
to change their citizenship.  Do you think maybe we can have a Left and
Right USA, and like the Roman Senate, people can move to the side of the 
Country they agree with?  (It would be interesting to see who fares better.)
No? 

Changing one's citizenship is easy to say, difficult to do.

Let's look at civil disobedience.  We'd be a British colony, we'd own slaves,
we'd still be in a war in Viet Nam and all of this would be [subjective]
moral states of life.  

You don't suggest that all civil disobedience is immoral?  I don't believe
our laws condem civil disobedience WHEN it is shown to bring about a greater
good.  But then good and bad are personally defined, no?  (Did you read 31.*?)

Mark

|Note 62.95
|PCCAD::RICHARDJ

    |BTW, a hit man has afterthought when he kills.  He knows he what he
    |doing is wrong.

    |Jim
    
    Jim, you have not answered my question. Given what Mr. Bartlett has
    shared, your statment is not withstanding the non-moral, legalistic
    view.  I again put the following question to you; given that there
    are those that do not follow the Word of God.
    
    
    >  Note 62.98
    > CIVIC::MORANO
    > And to another point that jim made about "hit men". I was not going
    > to speak to it, but I feel compelled to ask, Jim, How do you KNOW
    > a hit man knows he is doing wrong? Oh, and what kind of hit man are
    > you speaking of, - the kind we ALL know from the movies - Al Capone
    > types, or are you speaking more generally - like military and
    > government assasins that work under the auspices of a ruling body?
    
    >  As one who once held a license to kill, I know what I thought!
    
    I do not make light of the seriousness of taking life, but I affirm
    that non Christians DO NOT FEEL the power of LIFE as do CHRISTIANS!
    Life, whether it is defined by government or not is not the point. It
    is the state of mind (ones own mind, not a Godly one either might I be
    so presumptuous to add.) Again as Mr. Bartlett was willing to share and
    I paraphrase, - If the government told him abortion was illegal, he would
    LEAVE!
    
    Think about it, that is conviction to "I" not God. Do not concern
    yourself with the morality or leagality, save the sinner first!
    Then ALLOW the Lord God to heal the mind of the "newly reborn".
    
    !PC

    I've been thinking and praying an awful lot on this. In Scripture, the
    commandment that "thou shall not kill" was always my guide for opposing
    abortion. In a debate with  pro-choicers they pointed out to me that
    the commandment was originally "thou shall not murder," and pointing to
    the dictionary definition of murder I had to agree that it was not
    murder. Different Scripture studies do point out that "thou shall not
    kill was originally thou shall not murder," but from other commandments
    in the Scripture "thou shall not kill" was the real intention and there
    for changed.

    Brian gave a good legal definition of to which I'm in agreement
    and my original position that abortion is equivalent to murder has 
    re-surfaced. My reason for debating this issue, as I have, was not to
    be an arrogant pain in the butt, but to settle in my mind that all 
    the bases are covered in my understanding on what this issue once and
    for all. In doing so I've upset some people and I apologize. It was
    not my intent.

    Being that abortion has merely been decriminalized like Brian has
    shown, leaves doors open for political action to create laws making
    abortion illegal and in this I see hope. So there ain't no reason to 
    go to arms in the battle yet.;)

    Jim

                   RE: <<< Note 62.124 by GUIDUK::BARTLETT >>>
    
     Roger,

     (Thank you for sharing you first name with us! It makes discourse *so*
     much easier and more personal!) 
    
     > I am trying to make a distinction between morally right and legally
     > right.

     Understood. Please understand that I make no such distinction. That
     which is immoral, according to both historical jurisprudence and
     traditional societal norms and mores, can *not*, ipso facto, be legal.
     Legality, by its very nature, implies societal moral acceptance of the
     action and the intention(s) of the actor. Criminality, conversely,
     merely indicates the presence (or absence) of specific staturorial
     limitations upon members of society and their actions. 

     > What I meant by morality being subjective is that different people
     > have different ideas of what is moral and what is immoral whereas
     > what is legal and what is illegal is objective.

     I understand what you intend to say, but can not accept it, because of
     what I have expressed above. From my perspective, *both* should have an
     objective basis, legality being the application of societal morality to
     a specific act. Now if you were willing to allow the use of the term
     "criminality" in place of "legality" in the above statement, I might be
     mor inclined to agree with you, insofar as you statement of position
     goes. I would still not agree with you, that morality is properly found
     in any subjective basis. 

     > I do think that morality is nearly synonymous with opinion.  There
     > are those that KNOW what they know based on fact; there are those
     > that KNOW what they know based on opinion; and there are those that
     > KNOW what they KNOW based on faith. 

     If opinion and faith are not firmly based on fact, of what value are
     they? Therefore, all morality that is not based on objectively
     establishable fact is baseless, and therefore, socially valuless, is it
     not? 

     > I only KNOW for sure what I know by fact. This doesn't mean that I
     > don't have faith or opinion in anything. I have faith in the
     > fundamental laws of nature and all kinds of opinion, but I won't
     > deprive a woman of an abortion based on anything but fact. 

     I find myself in violent agreement with the statement, insofar as it
     goes. 

     > If it is a fact that it is illegal to have an abortion then I can
     > deal with a woman being punished for doing it or a doctor performing
     > it, even though I don't agree with it. 

     Your intellectual honesty and willingness to carry it through to its
     logical conclusion, and to deal with the necessary consequences thereor
     is both highly admirable and greatly refreshing! 
    
     > But, getting back to the point of the original subject, the person
     > that walked up to Dr. Gunn and fired three shots point blank into his
     > back was legally wrong. 

     I would agree with this statement, as well. 

     > I am personally of the opinion that he was morally wrong... 

     I am find myself on the horns of a dilema, and am still weighing the
     relative evil of allowing a mass-murderer (or manslaughterer, if you
     will) to continue his/her serial assassinations versus the evil
     presuming to take justice into your own hands (recall the earlier
     discussion regarding the ethics of killing Hitler or Stalin). 

     > ...and have faith in the justice system that he will get what he
     > deserves. 

     Having been in the same crucible, for similar reasons, I have no such
     faith. Rather, I have a firm belief that he will receive the results of
     the amoral pro-abortion political agenda prevelant in society. For
     those of you who have never been in court (traffic court hardly
     counts), you should know that the *judge* decides what does and does
     not happen in his/her courtroom. Abstract principles and precedents
     have little to do with it. S/he can choose to ignore or apply any
     principle you bring up, merely by ruling on its applicability to the
     current case. This is as close to "the Divine Right of Kings" and "Lex
     Rex" as you will find in the Western Civilization today. Sure, you can
     appeal, but if the sentence is shorter than twelve to eighteen months
     (the average time required to be heard on appeal), it is pointless to
     appeal, as the trial judge will not (in my personal experience) stay
     execution of the sentence pending appeal (s/he really wants to punish
     you for your politially incorrect views and actions), and post sentence
     completion, the appeals court will not hear you, as the point has been
     rendered moot. Can you say Catch-22? I thought you could. Welcome to
     the real world, friends! 
    
     > Laws are not the imposition of *somebody's* morality over the
     > morality of another, at least in this country.  The laws are created
     > more as a dialectical attrition between opposing groups in society. 

     Please forgive the spelling error. Please substitute "somebodies'" for
     "somebody's", and you will see that we are essentially in agreement. At
     the conclusion of the dialectic, the group whose views are not
     ensconsed in law *has* effectively had anothers' morality imposed upon
     them. 

     > The abortion issue may someday be decided by the Supreme Court
     > declaring that a person becomes a human being and a citizen at the
     > point of conception and making abortion illegal.  At that point, I
     > don't foresee joining a group to practice civil disobedience.  I'd
     > rather change my citizenship. 
    
     Pardon me if I perceive a certain amount of cowardice and lack of
     willingness to stand up for you convictions in the last statement. I
     perceive this response to be very similar to those who dropped out in
     the '60's rather than work to change society. Am I wrong?

     Brian 

    Personally speaking, Jim - I don't find you a "pain in the butt".  It's
    good to poke at things from many sides of an issue.  For some reason -
    debates tend to get somewhat heated on occassion, and while that has
    its downside, it has some benefit as well.
    
    I've learned some things in this (and other) string(s) and am glad you
    hung in there so everyone could test his/her thoughts.
    
    Besides - anyone who can pull a groaner like you did somewhere in here
    about just chewing the cud on the issue is ok w/me ;-)
    
    
    Steve

Roger,

Thank you for taking the time to enter into conversation in this note string. 
I commend your honesty and clear thinking regarding a consistant application
of your basic philosophy to the issue at hand.  Further I find you to be
refreshingly tolerant (allowing freedom of thought and expression) of 
disenting opinion.

Though I differ with your basic worldview (i.e. God does not exist), I
appreciate your attitute.  


Thanks for conversing with us.

David

.127 (Jim Richard)

>In doing so I've upset some people and I apologize. It was
>not my intent

Jim,
  Don't mistundertand the passion of those who hoep to communicate
what they {we} perceive as the Truth of the matter as getting us
"upset."
  Murder and voluntary manslaughter, whatever you want to call the
killing in just plan WRONG.  Manslaughter (even *involuntary*
manslaughter due to negligence carries penalties!) is wrong!

>    Being that abortion has merely been decriminalized like Brian has
>    shown, leaves doors open for political action to create laws making
>    abortion illegal and in this I see hope. So there ain't no reason to 
>    go to arms in the battle yet.;)

And NO ONE has advocates a call to arms, "yet" either. 

Mark

.130 (David)

>Though I differ with your basic worldview (i.e. God does not exist), I
>appreciate your attitute.  

David,
  Who is God to you?  And does He have authority to dictate morals for
you?  
  If God exists, and He has Absolute Authority, then He dictates what
is moral (good and bad).  SO, if we believe that [a] God exists, it is
important that we find out what God is like and whether He has authority
to countermand our personal moralities.

Mark

    
    I would like to respond to the statements earlier that 'in some states
    abortion is considered involuntary manslaughter'.  Up until civil
    rights legislation was enacted in the fifties and sixties, in some
    states it was considered legal to hang blacks for what most people
    would now agree were hardly capital offenses.  These 'Jim Crow' laws
    were outlawed by Supreme Court decisions.  I'm not saying that the
    Jim Crow laws and abortion rights are the same thing, but the analogy
    holds for the sake of this discussion.
    
    Whether you believe that abortion is murder or not is irrelevant as
    far as the legal issue is concerned, and I contend that just because
    some states have laws against it that, as long as other states have
    contrary laws, the jury is still out on the legality or illegality
    as far as I'm concerned.
    
    I refuse to debate the morality or immorality of abortion since this
    depends on personal hypotheses and since my hypotheses are completely
    contrary to the Christian beliefs, we have no basis for agreement or
    disagreement.  Personally, I believe that all animals and, indeed,
    inanimate objects and substance are all part of an inextricably linked
    and multidimensional universe composed of matter and energy that can
    neither be created nor destroyed.  In the grand scheme of things, we
    are all connected and when a life is destroyed, part of each of us is
    destroyed with it.  However, I don't think that a killing a person and
    separating his or her energy from his or her surrounding matter
    destroys the person.  I think that we are all One and each of us is
    eternal so dying is not an end but a transmigration.  Anyway, so much
    for the basis for moral viewpoint.
    
    What I would like to concentrate on is the legal issue.  Something that
    occured to me last night that I would be interested in finding out is
    whether the Supreme Court has ever used the Bible as support for a
    judicial decision.  If so, is it appropriate that the Supreme Court
    use the Bible as a justification, or is this a violation of separation
    of Church and State?  If the Supreme Court cannot or should not use
    the Bible as a justification, the illegality or legality of abortion
    will probably ultimately be decided based on other justification.
    
    Roger. :^?
    

     re: <<< Note 62.127 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Getting Good At Getting By" >>>

     Jim,

     > I've been thinking and praying an awful lot on this. 

     I praise G_d for you willingness to submit to the Holy Spirit and to
     seek His counsel. 

     > In Scripture, the commandment that "thou shall not kill" was always
     > my guide for opposing abortion. In a debate with  pro-choicers they
     > pointed out to me that the commandment was originally "thou shall not
     > murder," ...

     A valid guide, and an accurate interpretation of the guidance... 

     > ...and pointing to the dictionary definition of murder I had to agree
     > that it was not murder. 

     Now this, I do not understand. The Biblical position vis � vis abortion
     is not only morally defensible, but is logically defensible. Moreover,
     the pro-abortion position is not so. 

     > Brian gave a good legal definition of to which I'm in agreement and
     > my original position that abortion is equivalent to murder has
     > re-surfaced. 

     I am very blessed to have been able to contribute to your growing
     understanding of Scripture and G_d's nature. 

     > My reason for debating this issue, as I have, was not to be an
     > arrogant pain in the butt, but to settle in my mind that all the
     > bases are covered in my understanding on what this issue once and for
     > all. In doing so I've upset some people and I apologize. It was not
     > my intent. 

     I did not view you as at all arrogant, Jim. Remember my perceivable
     antagonism towards Mark Metcalfe in the previous version of this
     conference regarding the issue of Sanctification? Through the written
     ministry of the late Andrew Murray (in his book, The Master's
     Indwelling), I have come to further understand and to agree with Mark's
     position entirely. You did never upset me, sir, though if the stridency
     of my replies gave you cause to believe otherwise, I beg your
     forgiveness. 

     > Being that abortion has merely been decriminalized like Brian has
     > shown, leaves doors open for political action to create laws making
     > abortion illegal and in this I see hope. 

     You have far more faith in the political process than do I. I sincerely
     hope that your faith is not shown to have been misplaced. 

     > So there ain't no reason to go to arms in the battle yet.;) 

     No, not yet. Maranatha! 

     Brian

                   re: <<< Note 62.133 by GUIDUK::BARTLETT >>>
    
     Roger,

     >            -< State Laws don't mean that much to me. >-

     Intersting title, care to elaborate a bit on its implications? 
    
     > I would like to respond to the statements earlier that 'in some
     > states abortion is considered involuntary manslaughter'.  Up until
     > civil rights legislation was enacted in the fifties and sixties, in
     > some states it was considered legal to hang blacks for what most
     > people would now agree were hardly capital offenses.  These 'Jim
     > Crow' laws were outlawed by Supreme Court decisions.  I'm not saying
     > that the Jim Crow laws and abortion rights are the same thing, but
     > the analogy holds for the sake of this discussion. 

     For the sake of not rat-holing the discussion, I will aceed to this.
     But, don't try to carry the analogy too far (like trying to compare
     pro-life activists to Ku Klux Klanners) or you would find me "getting
     in your face" rather abruptly. 
    
     > Whether you believe that abortion is murder or not is irrelevant as
     > far as the legal issue is concerned, and I contend that just because
     > some states have laws against it that, as long as other states have
     > contrary laws, the jury is still out on the legality or illegality as
     > far as I'm concerned. 

     Insofar as you are willing to substitute the word "criminality" for
     "legality", I would agree with your proposition. 
    
     > I refuse to debate the morality or immorality of abortion since this
     > depends on personal hypotheses and since my hypotheses are completely
     > contrary to the Christian beliefs, we have no basis for agreement or
     > disagreement.

     Honestly, upon what verifiable basis would you have for agreement or
     disagreement with *anyone*, even another atheist? 

     > Personally, I believe that all animals and, indeed, inanimate objects
     > and substance are all part of an inextricably linked and
     > multidimensional universe composed of matter and energy that can
     > neither be created nor destroyed.  In the grand scheme of things, we
     > are all connected and when a life is destroyed, part of each of us is
     > destroyed with it. 

     An interesting presentation of animism, this is... 

     > However, I don't think that a killing a person and separating his or
     > her energy from his or her surrounding matter destroys the person. 

     Would you be surprised to find that out that this position is in
     essential agreement with the Bible and traditional Christian doctrine? 

     > I think that we are all One...

     Here, we part company. Universalism is clearly contrary to Scripture. 

     > ...each of us is eternal so dying is not an end but a transmigration. 

     However, I am in violent agreement with you here. The interesting and
     most fundemental (pardon the pun) question is, to where are we each
     transmigrating? I know for a certainty. Do you (honestly) even have a
     clue? 
    
     > Something that occured to me last night that I would be interested in
     > finding out is whether the Supreme Court has ever used the Bible as
     > support for a judicial decision. 

     Chief Justice Samuel Greenleaf (sp?) wrote literal volumes on this
     subject in the mid and late 19th century. He pointed out the Biblical
     foundation of English Common Law, US Constitutional Law and the US
     Code, as well as US Civil Law. Moreover, he expressed a sincere belief
     that jurisprudence, indeed government itself, devolves into little more
     than despotism or anarchy in the absence thereof. Also, he was far from
     alone in his opinion. He was joined therein by his predecessors, peers,
     and successors, almost unanymously, through the mid-20th century. 

     > If so, is it appropriate that the Supreme Court use the Bible as a
     > justification, or is this a violation of separation of Church and
     > State? 

     The entire proposition of the "Separation of Church and State" is, at
     best a mis-understanding of the clear test of the First Amendment to
     the US Constitution, and, at worst, a blatant attempt to disenfranchise
     an entire class of people who happen to hold real religious beliefs,
     and believe that it is appropriate to allow their convicts to have an
     effect upon the way that they live their lives in society. 

     The Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law...regarding *AN*
     establishment of religion..." Please note carefully that it does *NOT*
     say "THE establishment of religion", implying that government should
     have no hand in establishing religion in society, but rather that the
     government should keep its hands *off of* any estalishment of a
     religious nature. The intention, if read with any intellectual honesty,
     was to keep government our of the Meeting House, not the Church out of
     government. 

     > If the Supreme Court cannot or should not use the Bible as a
     > justification, the illegality or legality of abortion will probably
     > ultimately be decided based on other justification. 

     Not trying to bait you, Roger, but upon what other justification do you
     suppose the Court could reasonably base its decision? 

     Brian

     Not really trying to be pushy, but thought that you might pursue
     the discussion a bit further...

     Brian

re:98
    
>      And to another point that jim made about "hit men". I was not going
>     to speak to it, but I feel compelled to ask, Jim, How do you KNOW
>     a hit man knows he is doing wrong? Oh, and what kind of hit man are
>     you speaking of, - the kind we ALL know from the movies - Al Capone
>     types, or are you speaking more generally - like military and
>     government assasins that work under the auspices of a ruling body?
    
    I was speaking of wise-guy type. Adults living in the U.S. have been
    taught that killing is wrong. Granted, we can't know the level of
    consciousness of every killer, but its a pretty good bet that most
    know that what they are doing isn't acceptable.


     Jim

    |   <<< Note 62.137 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Getting Good At Getting By" >>>
    
    
    
    |I was speaking of wise-guy type. Adults living in the U.S. have been
    |taught that killing is wrong.
    
    	Are they, really? Look at the media. Killing is fast becoming a way
    of life, (no pun intended). Youths now carry guns to school, having no
    aforethought, or afterthought for that matter, that what they are
    potentially capable of doing is wrong - (IN THEIR MINDS).  Sure society
    as a whole may still *feel* that killing is inappropriate behaviour but
    the punishment does not fit the crime, in some cases killers go free on
    FOOLISH technicalities, - WHAT does this tell our youths? The  belief I
    see is that killing is OK UNLESS you get caught by someone who holds to
    the 'old' ways of thinking, or, another gang.
    
    
    
    |                               Granted, we can't know the level of
    |consciousness of every killer, but its a pretty good bet that most
    |know that what they are doing isn't acceptable.
    
    	I disagree on the word acceptable. I would contend that "hit-men"
    feel it is their job, just like some guy who works at McDonald's,
    person X gets up in the morning and says, well ok what do I have on
    my busy schedule today - Oh yes, the so-and-so job. I would further
    contend that hit-men do not consider their job wrong - but rather a
    chosen profession. I use the word profession here because I strongly
    believe that to a hit man "he/she" considers themself a professional
    "problem" disposal engineer.  
    
    Jim, I am trying to get you to see the manifest absurdity of the 
    "other" extreme. Those that believe all that is important is the
    here and now. To them, death has no meaning other than a "problem"
    is rectified. I contend that they see themselves as doing GOOD not
    EVIL.
    
     So where am I going with this? --
    
    I put this to you. How do you get a person like this to come to Christ?
    Because that is the true answer to the equation of life. We should not
    so much concern ourselves with the crime - (I.e. abortion, killing, any
    other sin), rather we should say, hmm, given the person and his/her
    actions, how can I best expose him/her to the Word such that THEY
    recognize God and come to Him.  I for one will not stand out in front
    of an abortion clinic screaming murders, because that accomplishes
    nothing but hardening the hearts of those that do it.  For me, the
    answer to guidance to increase the kingdom of God one soul at a time
    in this case. Maybe make friends with an abortionalist and question
    him on his/her beliefs - Ask them the five "whys"?
    
    I figure by the time you have them answer the same question for the
    third "but why"?, they will be biting their lips trying to defend
    something they heard without questoning it. For me, it was science.
    I came to Christ because my brother kept asking me, but on what did
    the sciencentists base fact so-in-so?
    
    Your's in Christ,
        PDM
    

Well - I haven't been reading this note too closely lately, so if someone
has said this, then just ignore the following:

On listening to Rush today, he read from a paper (maybe the Times, not sure)
where the pro-choice put in an ad... it started out

"THEY shot him in the back"...

The rest went on like as THEY did this, THEY planned it, THEY are demented
twisted sick people...

I knew it was only gonna be a matter of time till this hit the fan...

On another topic:  if the pro-life is gonna have a chance, we have to keep
our religious beliefs out of our reason why abortion is wrong... only
because of the ideas this country is based upon. I think I was the only one
to answer the question "What is human life?", and I tried to use only
biological reasoning... what do you people think of this? I don't remember
many responses (if any) to my definition of human life in this note...

The note (for reference) is 62.55

Do you think this definition of "human life" is good/bad/so-so?

Would this definition of "human life" change pro-choice people?

What are the chances, if this definition of "human life" were pushed by the
right-to-life people, that abortion could once again become illegal?

As it stands, we will not win as long as we continue to include religious 
viewpoints of life in this debate... the U.S. doesn't work that way. The only
way we can win is to prove it is wrong w/o using religion. This country will
not have laws that are based in religion, rather they will have laws based
in non-religion. Therefore, to stop abortion as it is today (in some cases,
it might be needed, but that's another topic), we need to convince people
using non-religious arguments... (it's sad to have to admit this...)

just my 2� worth...

In Him,
Scott

(now back to our regularly scheduled note of murdering the murderer...)

I could spend hours responding to things in this note, but I'll stick with just
one poiont for now.

Regarding consciousness in the womb.  Several studies have conclusively shown
that babies in the womb can learn.  There is significant recognition of familiar
sounds immediately after birth - newborn babies can be shown to recognize their
mother's voice, and also their father's voice, or the voices of other family
members who were frequently present during the pregnancy.

They ***ARE*** alive in there.  They know what is going on around them, at least
to some extent.  They ***ARE*** people ***BEFORE*** they exit the womb, and we
need no religious basis, christian or otherwise, to establish that as 
***FACT***, not opinion.

That is what we've been able to learn so far.  Who knows what we will learn 
about the unborn's abilities in the future?  We have conclusively established
that at least some time before birth, they are conscious.  Who knows how far 
back we will be able to establish that?

The proof is there that they are alive.  If we were to drop all our preconceived 
notions, whether they be that abortion is murder or that abortion is an 
essential right for women's freedom, what would we decide about the issue?

Paul

Former notes 62.141 through 62.176 have been moved to 78.1 through 78.36
to continue a discussion that "evolved" into "the Tripartite Man."
(Can't resist a pun, sorry.)

If you find any in 78.something that really belongs back here, please 
let me know.

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-Mod.

    I have some trouble with what is being said here.  If the man alleged
    to have shot the abortion doctor, did so because the Lord told him to
    eliminate all abortionists, in my eyes, he is still wrong.  Did not
    Jesus command us to give Ceasar his due?  I agree with you Mark that
    there is great freedom in living as we are led, but what about those
    things like I mentioned that obviously on the wrong end of the scale?
    
    Are you saying that the killer of the abortionist is right or wrong?
    Are you saying in your judgement of him, he was not led by God?  I
    don't think that is  correct to judge how he was or was not led?  I
    just believe he did something on the wrong end of the scale, even
    though God leads me to hate what the abortionists do.
    
    Help me, your statements confuse me.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Daryl

>    Are you saying that the killer of the abortionist is right or wrong?

Actually, I was saying neither.  I believe he was wrong to shoot and kill
the abortionist, for the record.  And also for the record, it is my belief.

I raised the question for several reasons:

(1) To highlight that this man "exercised his choice" to kill
(2) And *if* abortion is killing, then was this man preventing harm
     ...that is, [justifiable] homicide for the purpose of preventing
     further homicide.
(3) To predict the arguments that will be used to heighten the debate
     of abortion to a new level of frenzy.
(4) To show that from a certain perspective, it is really no different,
     or at least not much different than the opposing perspective.
        (a) the vigilante killed
        (b) the abortionist killed (so percieved)
        (c) the vigilante (theoretically, symbollically) prevented more 
                 killing by (b)
        (d) the abortionist (theoretically) prevents killing of the woman's
                 life by an unwanted pregnancy/interruption by new life.
(5) To show that all the questions surrounding this case are distilled
      to "what constitutes human life?"

But especially in regards to (1), if one truly believes that life begins
somewhere in the womb, I wanted to show that such a person who believes
this is acting NO DIFFERENTLY than a woman who CHOOSE to terminate a
pregnancy.

If I had my druthers, I'd like to put all abortion arguments on hold, 
eliminate all "convenience abortions" (defined as those OUTside of 
rape, incest, or clear life or death situations for the mother).  I'm
told that statistics say that 95% of abortions would be eliminated.

THEN we discuss the sanctity of life and the philosophy and theology of
when life begins so that we can know what to do in regards to incidences
of rape, incest, and life-trheatening situations.

But my druthers are drowned out by both sides: ("'choice' no matter what..."
and "if we give in even a little, it is the slippery slope to all 'choice'.")

So while the debates rage, convenience abortion continues.

This vigilante (in my opinion) reasoned that the abortionist was murdering
helpless individuals, and even if other abortionists would take his place,
(in his mind, IMHO) it was a lesser evil to murder this one abortionist
to prevent this one abortionist from murdering more (again, even if and though
someone else would do it.)  Now, when I say, lesser evil, I believe that
both acts were evil.  By law, the vigilante will find that the law will
judge him to have comitted the greater evil: premeditated murder.
The law will not recognize his reasoning for committing his crime.

So my view, Daryl, is not in support of this man, but merely shining a light
on the [ir]rationale of this vigilante which has surprising similarities to 
the [ir]rational of abortion.  Pro-choice persons would be shocked to think
that they are being compared to this vigilante (because indeed there are
*dis*similarities as well).

have I confused you more or less?

Mark

| <<< Note 62.143 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



	Mark, a lot of what you have said makes a lot of sense. In both cases a
life is taken. In both cases it is wrong. But I think that the part that is
still confusing is whether you were implying that the killer of the abortionist
is a lesser evil than what the abortionist does for a living. Implying meaning
this is your viewpoint or a possible viewpoint held by some. To *me* anyway,
whether 1 or and infinite number of people get killed is of no concern to me.
The fact that a life was taken is what bothers me. True, in our own rational
someone who takes many lives is looked upon by some as committing a greater
crime, but I truly believe in God's eyes it's viewed the same as one life being
taken. In human terms there is a specified time to serve as punishment for a
crime. If the crime is a multiple, then in human terms the person gets the
punishment x the amount of crimes that were committed. In God's eyes it's the
same punishment for 1 or an infinate amount of murders. Would you agree with
this?


Glen

I have stated my opinion and imply nothing more or less than that which I have
stated.  What people infer is another story.

I believe that people will be punished and rewarded in degrees in the
afterlife.  Perhaps Dante dressed this concept up colorfully, but there
is an economy of scale at work, as shown by the Scriptures.

Yes, we view things in different (finite, time) perspective than
God (infinite, timeless), but people will receive different punishments
for their disbelief and crimes against God.  Ultimately, it is
the same: separation from God, or abiding with God.

We can be in the same restaurant and enjoy different meals in varying degrees
of satisfaction.

MM

Hi Glen,

The reason that there is no difference between 1 or multiple murders is 
because it its the ultimate crime, which carries the ultimate punishment, 
death.  Numbers 35 is very explicit about this, including protection of 
someone who kills accidentally.  And verse 31 explicitly prohibits 
ransoming a murderer's life.  Execution is so final that he isn't really 
eligible to commit the crime again.

However, I presume (not having seen reliable reports over here) that the
killing of the abortionist was a matter of spiritual principle, rather than 
a personal or individual hatred.  An attempt to say "Though all the world 
deny the LORD God, *I* have to stand for His law....".  ie - recognition of 
the paucity of the law of the land to protect the helpless unborn, and 
such an abhorence of what is being done in the name of justice that there's 
a realisation that it's better to die with those murdered, than to stand 
with the murderers.  It's the ultimate statement of rejection of the world. 
Under civil law, it may demand execution in it's turn, but to resist such a 
heart burden is to live in permanent distress from the multiplication of 
sin around.  Rather break with the world, if the world is set on a course 
which violates your relationship with God.

We live as though this life were the important one.  It's not.  Its
primary importance is in how it is used to benefit from Jesus' Blood to
reconcile us to God.  Or otherwise.....  The life to come is of such great 
importance that it is worth any sacrifice in this life.  Including ending 
this life.  cf the two witnesses in Revelation 11:7, the records of martyrs 
through the ages, etc.  They didn't 'fail' - they put first things first, 
having the right priorities, as emphasised in Hebrews 11:13-16.

ie - maybe the individual has to make a choice to step outside the world's 
boundaries, to keep within those he perceives God has set him.  Jesus task 
of salvation involved the ultimate in this rejection.

But the example I think is most relevant is Phineas, in Numbers 25.  Israel
was in distress at a moral collapse which had resulted in idolatry.  This
was so serious that plague broke out.  The LORD decreed that the
responsible leaders should be executed.  While the people were in
repentance, another couple walked brazenly across in front of them.... 
Phineas was so incensed at this rebellion against the LORD that he went
after them with his spear and killed them both together - to preserve the
sanctity of the camp, where the LORD God, the Creator of heaven, earth, and
mankind had set His Name.  And the LORD honoured Phineas because of his
action.  Had the Israelites held court and decided to execute Phineas, his
honour in heaven would have been the greater, but judgement would have
been terrible on the remainder of Israel... 

On Saturday there was an article in the newspaper here, about the 
picketing of abortion clinics.  I don't think it has been done here - as I 
assumed this was carried out in hospitals rather than in specialised 
clinics.  The article mentioned a group coming over from the U.S., and 
gave the usual sort of lurid misrepresentation of the scene.  I must catch 
the essentials from the article before it is gone....


						God bless
							Andrew

| <<< Note 62.146 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>



| The reason that there is no difference between 1 or multiple murders is
| because it its the ultimate crime, which carries the ultimate punishment,
| death.  

	Agreed.

| However, I presume (not having seen reliable reports over here) that the
| killing of the abortionist was a matter of spiritual principle, rather than
| a personal or individual hatred.  

	Does God view these 2 differently? 



Glen

          re: <<< Note 62.146 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>

     > An attempt to say "Though all the world deny the LORD God, *I* have
     > to stand for His law....".  ie - recognition of the paucity of the
     > law of the land to protect the helpless unborn, and such an abhorence
     > of what is being done in the name of justice that there's a realisation 
     > that it's better to die with those murdered, than to stand with the
     > murderers.  It's the ultimate statement of rejection of the world.
     > Under civil law, it may demand execution in it's turn, but to resist
     > such a heart burden is to live in permanent distress from the
     > multiplication of sin around.  Rather break with the world, if the
     > world is set on a course which violates your relationship with God. 

     IMHO, this is a very apt and accurate of what happened in Pensacola,FL.

     > ...to preserve the sanctity of the camp, where the LORD God, the
     > Creator of heaven, earth, and mankind had set His Name.  And the LORD
     > honoured Phineas because of his action.  Had the Israelites held
     > court and decided to execute Phineas, his honour in heaven would have
     > been the greater, but judgement would have been terrible on the
     > remainder of Israel... 

     For which cause shall the judgement upon these United States be greater
     than on the rest of the world.

     Brian

             re: <<< Note 62.147 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

     Glen,

     � However, I presume (not having seen reliable reports over here) that
     � the killing of the abortionist was a matter of spiritual principle,
     � rather than a personal or individual hatred. 

     > Does God view these 2 differently? 

     You didn't bother reading Numbers 35 before responding, did you?

     Brian

�	Does God view these 2 differently? 

Glen, do you, in the light of what has been discussed?

Only God knows the heart.

What do you think God's response is to the vast numbers of helpless images
of Him, brutally slaughtered daily in the name of 'personal rights' and 
'freedom' (not theirs, anyway).  Does He care?  If His judgement were 
released for this, the day of grace would be at an end.  If someone is so 
torn in sprit as to make this ultimate expression of horror at what the 
human race has sunk to, is that a faint echo of God's heart?

If actually, there was some other motive, we are not told.

I have to leave it with you, Glen,
	Does God view these 2 differently? 

 - ask Him.

						love
							Andrew

    This topic has been inactive for some time now, but I'd like to share
    some thoughts I have on this issue...
    
    As I see it, the issue of abortion is a moral and spiritual one. Is
    it really possible to legislate morality?
    
    First off, the politicians who beat the drum about abortion are the
    same people who advocate passing out condoms and such to school aged
    children... Is this not hipocracy at its finest/worse...?
    
    Are we not sending a mixed message here?
    
    If we were to pass legislation, making abortion a crime (which it is a
    "moral/spiritual crime"), the ones who would have gotten abortions
    before the legislation, would still get abortions... They would just be
    unsafe abortions..!? Now we jeoperdize two lives...
    
    I guess what I'm getting at here is, instead of relying on legislation
    to curb abortions, we need to appeal to the moral/spiritual and the
    heart of the women having these abortions.
    
    An abortion happens as a result of unwanted pregnancy.. Unwanted
    pregnancy is a result of immorality (i.e. Sex out of wed-lock, rape,
    insest, etc.) Sex out of wed-lock has to be a decision of two people,
    therefore immorality is shared. Rape and insest on the other hand is as
    a result of the immorality of the agressor.. making the woman  a victom
    of an immoral act.... Correcting these immoral acts by committing
    another immoral act (abortion) is wrong..
    
    I've got to get back to work... But, my final (for now) comment here
    would be.... Mary's baby was a "surprise", at first... What would have
    happened, if this devine event had happened in today's society? Would a
    modern day Mary have aborted, without realizing her gift to the world?
    
    I do not aim to offend anyone! I am struggling with this issue, and
    these are my thoughts.. Mind you, I have never expressed these thoughts
    in such a forum before...!?
    
    Yours in the Lord!
    
    Bob G.
    

    I appologize! In reading my last, it does not really fit the topic.
    
    BUT, if I could just add this, to tie it in.....
    
    With the issue of "murdering the murderer"... If abortion is immoral,
    then an abortionist is also acting in an immoral manner, NO?
    
    If murdering (the taking of another human life) is both immoral and
    unlawful, then the act of murdering the murderer is immoral... I'm sure
    God does not approve of any of these acts of immorality..
    
    Thanks for listening! Thanks for your comments and understanding!
    
    Bob G. (now I really have to get back to work)
    

Hi Bob,
  To address some of your points, then a comment:

>Unwanted pregnancy is a result of immorality

  Not always.  Some married couples are surprized and traumatized by a
a pregnancy.  This muddies the water on this point, I know.

>   Correcting these immoral acts by committing
>   another immoral act (abortion) is wrong.

Agreed.  (See comment later)

>    Mary's baby was a "surprise", at first... What would have
>    happened, if this devine event had happened in today's society? Would a
>    modern day Mary have aborted, without realizing her gift to the world?

Mary knew beforehand that she would conceive - no surprize.  And while
I'm sure she couldnot fully comprehend the magnitude of her gift to the 
world, she knew full well that she was blessed among women because of her
selection to bear the Christ-child.

Comment:  When I started this note a long time ago, I gave it the title
"murdering a murderer" because I felt that what the vigilante did was 
wrong and considered it "murder."  The notes that ensued showed that 
people jumped to some conclusions, while I was trying to point out that
there were similarities between pulling the trigger on an unsuspecting
abortionist (wasn't he shot from behind?), and killing a yet-to-be born
child.  You are correct to say that two wrongs do not make a right.

However, I do not agree thatit is never right to kill a murderer.  
Society exercizes judgment (anyone see 48 Hours last night?  How would
you have voted on the Sentence Commutation board for Otey?) for crime 
and sometimes the judgment is the penalty of death.

You are also correct that we cannot legislate morality, but it has been said that
we can, we have, and we should legislate immorality.  We say, "it is wrong to
murder" and legislate penalties for those who do.

The argument rages over who sits in judgment over the guilty?  Should society
(or a vigilante, or posse) execute another person, and is this considered
"murder" or judgment?  I believe these arguments have been hashed out
(without conclusion) in this very string.

Mark

    RE.: .153

    >Not always.  Some married couples are surprised and traumatized by a
    >a pregnancy.  This muddies the water on this point, I know.

    Well, maybe they were "surprised and traumatized", but that wouldn't be
    a reason to abort... If for what ever reason, a couple was blessed with
    a pregnancy, this is God's will.. Even if it don't fit into what the
    couple would call their plan, it must be God's plan.

    >Mary knew beforehand that she would conceive - no surprise.  And while
    >I'm sure she could not fully comprehend the magnitude of her gift to the
    >world, she knew full well that she was blessed among women because of
    >her selection to bear the Christ-child.

    OK, so she knew, BUT, still.... what would a Mary of today do, in this
    situation.... My point is, how can anyone know (when they choose to
    abort) what that child would have become.... 

    On the other hand (I feel like a centipede) should society be allowed
    to take this decision away from the woman, who carries the child. The
    decision should be a woman's, with purhaps counciling from family,
    which should include moral/spiritual guidance.. I guess you would call
    this counciling by choice, not by force/law..... If given the
    opportunity to receive accurate information regarding this issue, the
    proper choice would be made.
    
    So, is my position a "fence walk"...? I am really torn between "freedom
    of choice" and the actual act of aborting a child...
    
    Maybe it is a matter of available information... This issue is so
    heated, now, that information is available only if you want to put up
    with the extremists on either side of the issue (it seems this way,
    anyway)... Let's face it..., it isn't easy to approach family and such
    with this problem.... 
    
    Like the woman soldier who aborted her baby, in her room, because she
    knew that she would have been in BIG trouble if the military found out. 
    Well, the military did find out, and see was in BIG trouble anyway.
    
    So, catch 22... She got pregnant, knew she'd get in trouble, tried to
    erase the mistake and got caught anyway, when they found the results of
    a real bad abortion, in the dumpster...
    
    If we give people what seems to be no options (pin them behind the 8
    ball), they will most often make the bad decision.
    
    Now, please, I am not talking about all woman here.... MOST (99%) would
    make the right choices.... A majority of "girls" (minors) would make
    the same right choices (with help/counciling)... 
    
    Well, time for wwwwwwwww...work...! 
    
    Bob
    

>    On the other hand (I feel like a centipede) should society be allowed
>    to take this decision away from the woman, who carries the child. The
>    decision should be a woman's, with purhaps counciling from family,
>    which should include moral/spiritual guidance.

Read Paul Weiss's arguments, Bob.  The answers to your question ALL hinge
on whether the child within the woman has any rights.  If the child does,
then at best, the woman and the child have conflicting rights, no?

The woman has the right to exist without complication; the baby has the
right to exist.  Which is worse?  To exist with complication, or to
terminate existence?

>    So, is my position a "fence walk"...? I am really torn between "freedom
>    of choice" and the actual act of aborting a child...
 
So was I.  I'm not now.  I am opposed to the idea of abortion because
it logically cannot be supported, let alone morally.

You see, sometimes society and people are faced with the choice of the
lesser of two [perceived] evils: in this case, existence with complication
versus existence at all.  Sharpshooters may kill a sniper to prevent the
sniper from killing others.  Killing the sniper is not a good thing, but
it prevents a greater evil being done.  Bearing an unwanted child is not a
good thing, but killing the unwanted child seems to be a greater evil.
(And you'll get arguments of kids growing up in abusive and poor homes,
but these are deflections from the truth of life.)

>    So, catch 22... She got pregnant, knew she'd get in trouble, tried to
>    erase the mistake and got caught anyway, when they found the results of
>    a real bad abortion, in the dumpster...
>    
>    If we give people what seems to be no options (pin them behind the 8
>    ball), they will most often make the bad decision.
    
Bob, what about the option to remain celebate outside of marriage?
If in marriage (or not), what about accepting the risks of sexual intercourse?
This female soldier held her career above the life of another.  How does
this weigh on your scale of balance?

Mark

    I haven't read all 155 replies, but I have read all since Bob's
    resurrection of the topic (.151).
    
    Bob, is it possible that you're making things too difficult? Seems like
    the issue is clouded in your mind. I propose the following axiom in an
    attempt to achieve a simple focus:
    
    	Axiom: Taking the life of an innocent person is both immoral
    	       and illegal.
    
    I suspect that virtually every civilized person would accept this
    axiom. If accepted, the only question is, "Is the pre-born entity (i.e.
    the fetus) an innocent person?" Most of us in the Christian community
    have gleaned from Scripture the belief that a "person" is created at
    the point when the baby is conceived. This person obviously cannot be
    guilty of a capital offense - s/he doesn't even have a formed brain
    yet. Killing him/her is therefore both immoral and illegal.
    
    In slight disagreement with Mark, society *does* legislate morality. We
    have laws on the books telling us it's illegal to steal, offer
    purjured testimony, kill, commit adultry (I think this is still
    illegal), etc. If it's wrong for my wife to kill me, then it's just as
    wrong for her to kill a person that is in her.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    	BD�

>    In slight disagreement with Mark, society *does* legislate morality. We
>    have laws on the books telling us it's illegal to steal, offer

Stealing is immoral.  Perhaps I should have said "legislate *against* 
immorality" rather than just "legislate immorality."  Thanks for the 
clarification; we are not in disagreement on this point.

Mark