In a very simplified manner of explaining it, yes. Obviously each individual situation is different, but the general moral philosophy that has guided western culture is that individuals do not have the right to kill each other based upon differences of opinion. This does not mean that killing is always wrong or that it always constitutes murder.

I've written and re-written a response several times; this is an incredibly complicated moral and philosophical issue. The right to life is certainly an inalienable one (as is liberty and property). However, there are circumstances where that right is forfeited...usually in war, but sometimes because of one's own actions.

It is forfeited in war either through participation in it (being a soldier) or by actions or inaction that support the country or faction (a civilian). While the casualties of war should be limited as much as possible (avoiding civilian areas, proper treatment of prisoners) the objective of war is to bring to bear as much force as possible so as to push the enemy into submission. The loss of life, while tragic, is not murder.

In a civil society, I fall back on my previous statement and maintain that it is important to differentiate between killing and murder.

I guess I am one whose views you are addressing.

I believe that any reasonable person can see the difference between the killing of a child or the execution of a murderer or casualties of war. I honestly view any attempt to try and equate a child and a murderer as the games played by freshman philosophy majors attempting to show their professor how "modern" they are. I think your specific question, how can you condemn abortion as well as the person who would kill an abortion doctor, is a little more complicated to explain but is completely rational.

The answer revolves around the legitimacy of the government. In the most basic terms, our government derives its power from the people and therefore the citizens of the government have the ability to affect the policies of the government. In this way, in accordance to the rule of law, we can debate the subject of whether abortion constitutes murder and use the power of government to create statutes and policy based upon the outcome of those debates.

The killing of Dr. Tiller occurred outside of this established process and contrary to the laws of our nation. As such, we can condemn abortion and work within our civic structure to end the practice yet still also condemn someone for acting outside of the law though we may agree with their reasons for doing so.

Now if you want to get into talking about the legitimacy of government or the legitimacy of its actions, that is a much longer and more complicated debate.

It is misleading to state it non-violence worked "whenever it was tried" simply because the consequence for it not working was death, and no account would have been available. The fact that upwards of 16 million died at the hands of the Nazis is a testament to the fact that while it may have worked in specific instances, it did not as a general strategy prevent even a fraction of the killings. The "non-violent" resistance groups cited to have been most effective in both Norway and Holland were in reality extremely violent as well as extremely effective; the Norwegian resistance prevented Hitler from obtaining an atom bomb before the United States.

I believe the key phrase to hone in on is "for the balance of the war". The examples used in the citation could not have been successful if the Nazis had obtained complete control of Europe, which they most assuredly would have if not for the destruction of the Nazis at the hands of the allies. Scores of civilians were saved not because of non-violent protest and resistance, but because they were smuggled out of sight of the Nazis long enough for their liberation by American and British soldiers.