I am not so certain that reactions shouldn't be varied. I believe there is an obvious moral dilemma. Should you allow someone who you believe is a mass murderer to continue to murder innocents, or do you try to save the lives of some innocents by murdering the mass murderer?

 

It seems to me that there are times where some people believe that what is legal is also greviously immoral and feel that it is more important to do what is moral rather than do what is legal. Remember, in the days prior to the civil war, those who hid slaves in the underground railroad were breaking the law. Also, in Germany hiding a Jew from the Nazi's was also illegal. Were those people right to do what they did?

 

It also seems to me that a government can not allow any citizen to take the law into their own hands particularly when it results in the death of someone who has not broken any law. So I believe that the proper action for the government is to put him on trial, and if convicted, he should go to jail for a very long time if not for the rest of his life.

 

It seems to me that what side an individual will chose to come down on depends upon how much weight one puts on doing what is legal versus how immoral one views the current legal conditions. It seems to me that throughout history people have came down on both sides so it seems only reasonable that people would continue to come down on both sides on issues where people feel very strongly.

 

For the record, I don't think the doctor should have been murdered-- mostly because I don't believe Jesus would have murdered the doctor. That said, if I had the choice between being the doctor or the guy who shot the doctor when I had to explain my actions to God on Judgement day, I would not choose to be the doctor.

 

Good post.

 

It seems to me that there are times where some people believe that what is legal is also greviously immoral and feel that it is more important to do what is moral rather than do what is legal. Remember, in the days prior to the civil war, those who hid slaves in the underground railroad were breaking the law. Also, in Germany hiding a Jew from the Nazi's was also illegal. Were those people right to do what they did?

 

.

 

While its a nuance you do see the difference in the illegal actions you list and this one, correct?

Predestined murder, should recieve the death penalty. You do not pass judgement by killing someone. Both the Doctor and his killer will be judged. I feel for the doctor and his loved ones even though what he was doing was 100% wrong in my view.

I am against this: the murder of abortion doctors.

 

However, my views stem from my religious beliefs: "Thou shalt not murder". And I am hesitant to push my religious views on others.

 

So in this case, I would have to say that I am guardedly "pro-choice"...

 

Pro-choice? You are against the murder of abortion doctors but not against the murder of unborn babies? What happened to your religious beliefs "thou shall not murder"? I just bring these questions up because I am confused by your post I am not judging what you said. I believe every one is intitled to their opinions and personal beliefs and in the end everyone has to face God for what they do or don't do in life. I am just truely confused because your post seams to contridict itself and I was hoping you could elaborate inorder to help me better understand.

With today's hate-filled airwaves its a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

Those among the crowd who dismiss this murder as simple relativity (one death is less than many abortions) seem to ignore other effects. The pro-life movement took a step back yesterday in its fight to make abortion illegal. This murder revives the rhetoric from the other extreme of “abortion bombers” and “Christian terrorists” that was previously dismissible. This murder will garner zealous pro-lifers’ positions an association with irrationality and madness. While this doctor will no longer be performing abortions, he may have become a quasi-martyr for the supporters of abortion. In other words, you can’t so easily applaud his murder, no matter how quietly.

Those among the crowd who dismiss this murder as simple relativity (one death is less than many abortions) seem to ignore other effects. The pro-life movement took a step back yesterday in its fight to make abortion illegal. This murder revives the rhetoric from the other extreme of “abortion bombers” and “Christian terrorists” that was previously dismissible. This murder will garner zealous pro-lifers’ positions an association with irrationality and madness. While this doctor will no longer be performing abortions, he may have become a quasi-martyr for the supporters of abortion. In other words, you can’t so easily applaud his murder, no matter how quietly.

Perhaps it's a conspiracy and it was a hit placed by pro choicer's

Perhaps it's a conspiracy and it was a hit placed by pro choicer's

And the chances of that are ... ?

And the chances of that are ... ?

About the same as if I were serious.

While its a nuance you do see the difference in the illegal actions you list and this one, correct?

 

Sure, but I probably could find an instance where somebody killed a Nazi to keep a Jew in hiding if I looked hard enough.

About the same as if I were serious.

Good ... I was hoping you weren't.

Several years ago I was debating with a pastor on people going to hell. He claimed that all gays and abortion doctors are going, but people who bomb those clinics and killed workers are not. His reason was they're doing it for god. My reply was, so was the terrorist on 9/11, so are they going to hell. He answered yes, because they killed innocent people. I said ok, but all people sin, so they killed a bunch of sinners...ect. This debate went back and forth. What I got from this debate, is Christians who do this are the same as the Muslims on 9/11.

 

If this doctor is in the wrong, then he will be judged by God.

Good ... I was hoping you weren't.

I will say this however,,,he had been shot once before. I would venture a guess that this had to be something he surely supposed could happen again as long as he continued in this practice. Not condoning the murder, just sayin'....

The person that did this is no better than the mob guy who does a hit .

I've used the "he needed 'killin'" defense many times before without a sleepless night.

 

Murder does not bother me in some instances. For instance, if you rape my wife or my daughter, I am going to find you and I am going to kill you. I will wipe my blade on your cold, dead carcass and leave it for the wolves to eat, while I unwind by enjoying a steak and martini. I will not apologize, not shed a tear, and I am not even sure if a jury would convict me. In that case, I'm not guilty of murder because a jury has not convicted me of such. If they do convict me, I will serve my jail time.

 

I don't know anything about this case. Was the person who killed him the husband or boyfriend of a woman whom he had convinced to abort a child? Who knows what story there may be here. If it turns out to be some distant religious zealot, then if I'm sitting on the jury I'm probably going to convict him of murder. Like me, the zealot will probably happily serve his jail time. But neither of us will probably shed a tear over the death of a monster, and it won't upset my steak or martini regimen, either.

 

Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in jail. Child molesters become sex toys for other prisoners. Other bad men have gotten just desserts, though the manner in which dessert was served broke the law.

 

Habib is correct that the public cause of the pro-life movement took a hit.