[Long Cut]

"If you prefer to sugar-coat it, that's your prerogative - but that doesn't make someone else wrong..."

Actually, it does. The law has very clear definitions of crimes, including murder. No sugarcoating is needed.

I do find it interesting, that many of those who think that Rudolph was somewhat justified in his sick fantasies because they feel he "was stopping more murders" nonetheless fall right back on the same law they disagree with to protect his rights...the same rights, BTW, he took forever from his victims in a manner which TOTALLY fits the definition of murder.

[ApesForEvolution]

If you've read all of my posts tonight on this thread, you will clearly see that I do NOT condone the act, if indeed it was the intent (which you don't necessarily, by your posts, agree was his intent) of Eric or any aborticide clinic bomber to stop the murder of innocents.

Again, many laws are created to make unlawful acts legal.

In this case, I firmly and with unwavering fervor, personally believe that aborticide is indeed callous, calculated murder, regardless what a man-made law says it is.

I stop short, however, of condoning this form of civil disobedience (if indeed we ever truly find out intent) and prefer to work within a messed up system to make it better.