Regarding Violence in the Name of the Pro-Life Cause...

Perhaps you have heard the story.  A somewhat deranged, middle-aged white man becomes obsessed with a massive human rights violation being perpetrated in America.  After an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement – resulting in the death of several people – he is finally captured.  His actions, in the end, did far more to discredit the cause he purportedly fought for.

I am, of course, referring to John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859.  John Brown was an abolitionist who sought to eliminate the scourge of slavery through violence.  His actions helped contribute to the tensions which gave rise to the Civil War.

Now, John Brown was very right about the injustice of slavery.  But he was very wrong about the use of violence.  People in 21st century America have the moral clarity to see these two facts simultaneously.



If You Really Believed….

With this in mind, we turn toward the case of Robert Lewis Dear.

He killed three people outside a Planned Parenthood before being captured.  He has since confirmed in court that his actions were done in the name of opposition to abortion, saying in court:

“I’m guilty. There’s no trial. I’m a warrior for the babies!”

Looking back, his actions were immediately condemned by every major Pro-Life group in the nation.  But the reaction of some people on the other side was to look at those condemnations and ask, “Why?”

One example is Damon Linker at the Week online magazine.  His response was:

“If this were how you saw the United States, would you not consider the country to be a morally obscene place deserving of denunciation? And would you not also be tempted to act out in violence to stop the senseless killing? And admire those with the courage to do so? I know I would.”

His argument is one I’ve had posed to me in the past.  It might also be stated like this:

“If you really believed what you say you do; wouldn’t you be willing to defend an unborn baby in the same way you’d defend a born baby?  If you saw a child being attacked, wouldn’t you be willing to use force to defend him/her?  Doesn’t your inaction reveal a certain cognitive dissonance?”   

To put it bluntly… if our own worldview is correct, on what basis do we condemn the actions of anti-abortionist assassins?

To be honest, a Pro-Life person who isn’t somewhat troubled by the logic of that argument just isn’t paying attention.  The force of this objection should make a Pro-Life person sit down and think hard.  Having a good answer to that question is kinda important.

Why I'm Asking:

First, a caveat.

In a recent poll by Gallup, 55% of adults surveyed want abortion to be illegal in either all or most circumstances.  If you do the numbers, of 263,000,000 adults in the United States, that comes out to 144,640,000 people who are completely more mostly Pro-Life.

If there actually was something intrinsically violent in Pro-Life ideology, you'd think there would be more people who are taking to violence or supporting it.  But you don't see that.  Violence done in the name of the Pro-Life cause continues to be the purview of people with troubled histories and a record of mental illness.

So when I say it is important to have an answer to the "If you really believed...." argument, it is NOT because I think any significant number of Pro-Life people are an inch away from violence.  Rather, it is because I think there is a need to answer the question intellectually.

So the first two reasons are about the practical effects of the use of violence, then I’ll look at the act itself.


The Ring Has One Master:

Before a culture is willing to tolerate abortion, it must first accept a flawed understanding of humanity and the value of human life.  It has to accept the notion that you can kill your way out of a practical problem.  That ideology is the real enemy of the Pro-Life movement.

A person who commits violence in the name of being Pro-Life is basically conceding that point to the culture.  He is reinforcing the ideology by effectively saying:

 “I absolutely agree without about the worth of human life and the use of violence.  I just disagree with where you are directing it.”  

To use a nerdy analogy, such a person would be trying to combat Sauron with the power of the One Ring.  But the Ring serves only one master.

The proof of this is the second reason.



Turning Off Ears:

It would be nice if textbook biology and kindergarten ethics were the only two relevant aspects of the cultural debate abortion.  The matter would be settled within a fortnight.  But it’s not that simple.

Public image is a huge factor as well.  And each of these attacks – (even when done by an imbalanced nutcase with no affiliation to any major Pro-Life group) – tarnishes the image of the Pro-Life movement as a whole.

This means fewer people will want to publicly identify themselves as Pro-Life.  In addition, it gives people an excuse to not listen to Pro-Life arguments.  Because - let’s be honest – which is easier;

A) Refuting a Pro-Life argument based on sound reasoning and solid ethical principles.

or...

B) Screaming, “Why should I listen to you?!  You’re just like those people who bomb clinics!”  

Or, perhaps more frustratingly, you get people like Damon Linker saying:

“You know… all this rhetoric about abortion killing human beings can drive people over the edge.  You should really stop saying that.”  

In other words,

“Your core assertion is too dangerous for the public to handle.  So shut up.”

All this means the cause of basic universal human rights loses favor in the public sphere.  Extending legal protections to pre-birth humans becomes more difficult.  And the cost is more lives.

A Flawed Analogy:

As I said, the above reasons concern the extrinsic reasons why violence is wrong.  They show why violence is imprudent, but they don’t show why the deed itself is wrong.  So now let’s tackle that.

The analogy drawn by the argument refers to the defense of innocent child against a determined aggressor.  It is true that one could licitly use force – (even violence, if necessary) – to stop such an attack.  It is also true that in abortion you do have a determined aggressor assaulting an innocent child.

But now you have to deal with a crucial dissimilarity.

Here is the key distinction: You would be justified in using force against an attacker if you stumbled upon him while he was in the middle of committing his attack.  But you would not be justified in doing the same if you encountered him the next day while he’s making breakfast… or at church. In those cases you are not defending the innocent.  Then it would be plain ol’ revenge killing. (which would be wrong)

Let’s take this a step further.  Say (somehow) you were in the operating room.  Now what?

Even when considering that unlikely scenario, you have to remember violence can only be used as a last resort to stop an attacker.  Only if it is necessary and proportionate.  So you have to ask… is there a nonviolent way to stop the attack?  Is violence really the only way in this situation?

Well, no.  One can imagine various non-violent options for halting the assault in progress.  So once again you’re left with a situation where violence is not justified.



The Facts Don’t Change:

Any movement which proposes itself as a matter of grave importance runs the risk of people using violence to advance it.  If one wanted to find instances of violence done against Pro-Lifers, you wouldn't have to search very hard.  If you wanted to find people using violence in while protesting police brutality, you are only a Google search away.  If you wanted to find violence done in the name of "marriage equality" you could find that as well.

But if we have the presence of mind to not judge the slavery abolition movement on John Brown’s actions at Harper's Ferry, we can hopefully do the same for other causes which themselves denounce the use of violence.  The truth of a position should be judged by the relevant facts.

So here are the facts:  Abortion remains an unjust act of violence against a human being.

And so is any violence done in the name of the Pro-Life cause.