A Logic-Based Pro-Life Argument Against Anti-Abortion Violence: Would clinic bombers have killed America’s Founding Fathers for owning slaves? What if PETA follows the example of violent anti-abortionists--would they want animal rights activists to put the "meat is murder" motto into violent action?

The media disproportionately focus on anti-abortion violence to unfairly paint the entire pro-life movement with the same blackened brush; it is a classic example of liberal bias noted by media critic and former newsman Bernard Goldberg. But no matter how infinitesimally small a percentage of anti-abortionists actually practice violence, those of us active in the pro-life movement must seek to persuade them to renounce such methods. In our response, we must be precise in refuting the specific arguments with which they attempt to justify their actions. We can do this effectively by showing them that slavery, not Nazism, is the proper parallel to abortion--and that they have seriously erred in only selectively applying the slavery analogy to the current situation with abortion. If they consistently used slavery as a parallel they would see their argument for violence fails--for surely no one among us believes abolitionists should have killed slave owners like Presidents Washington and Jefferson for their participation in what is now regarded as a great crime against humanity. This counterargument is explained in more detail in the text of a letter (included below) sent to ABC's Nightline in 1998 responding to their broadcast on violent anti-abortion activities. Other similarly useful arguments are included in a letter to Alan Keyes on the related subject of how we can best criticize morally questionable but non-violent anti-abortion methods (harshly condemned by the pro-life Keyes on a 2002 segment of his cable news show) without driving them even farther away from the pro-life mainstream, potentially into violent radicalism. (The letter to Keyes utilizes and explores another aspect of the Founding Fathers/slavery analogy, and counters the charge made by violent abortion opponents that we in the mainstream pro-life movement are inconsistent in claiming to regard the unborn as equals, while we condemn violence against clinics and label certain antiabortion strategies unethical; it clearly enunciates our guiding principle: We are making a distinction not in the value of the victim, but in the culpability of the perpetrator.) The letter to Nightline elicited a rather rare personal response to me from Adam Ollendorff of ABC in which he thanked me for raising an "extremely important issue." However, it was not clear whether my letter was passed on to the production staff, as he said is done when similar comments are made by many viewers.

One pro-life strategy to prevent retaliation against abortionists is to point out that some former abortionists have become pro-life activists whose compelling testimony and witness is uniquely valuable in saving the unborn. Although this is true, and an interesting aside, it's only a supporting argument--it can't stand on its own as a refutation of the use of violence. The comparison between those who participate in abortion and those who participated in slavery (including some illustrious Americans) is the best foundation for rejecting violent activism. It reveals that it is not the mainstream pro-lifers, but the violent anti-abortionists who are inconsistent in claiming to use the conflict over slavery as their guide. They ignore the fact that although modern Americans recognize slavery as a wholesale trampling of human rights, this was not universally recognized in past centuries, and many people of good will and gifted intellect had grown up on plantations with slaves, believing it to be a normal social and economic institution, just as present day Americans have been raised in a culture of legal abortion as a common practice hailed as a right and an advance for women. It is true that slavery led Americans into a civil war in which Northerners and Southerners killed each other in astonishing numbers (costing more than 600,000 lives). But it was the Southern states secession and seizure of federal forts (particularly Ft. Sumter) that was the direct cause of the war, though slavery was central as an underlying cause and no other issue of the time had the moral imperative of abolitionism. Nevertheless, until the pro-abortion states secede and take over military instillations, the "we fought a war over slavery" analogy fails to justify a violent "war" against abortion.

The "respect for law and order" argument is also important. But in taking that approach I recommend using the PETA analogy below, because without concrete examples the "rule of law" position may seem dry and unconvincing, especially if we give the false impression of elevating the law to a status above the fundamental principles the law is designed to uphold. However, though blind obedience to the law may hinder advancement of human rights when that law is clearly unjust, it is also true that adherence to laws against violence does prevent society from backsliding into mob rule that threatens the safety of everyone, including those who are trying to advance those same human rights by peaceful, legal means. The need to respect laws against violent retribution becomes obvious if one considers the frightening prospect of all the PETA activists appointing themselves judge, jury and executioner. What if these animal-rights activists really believe in their "meat is murder" motto implying animal personhood, and decided to put that belief into violent action, following the rationale of the abortion clinic bombers? If the PETA extremists were to rely only on their own beliefs and conscience in acting outside the law, anyone involved at any level of the meat industry from ranchers to restaurateurs (not to mention recreational hunters) could be targeted for death (and one wonders what sentence they'd pass on the rest of us for eating these non-human "murder" victims creating demand for more dead meat). Some may object to this comparison by pointing out that PETA's position is inconsistent and logically untenable (PETA's support and widespread practice of killing and sterilization of shelter animals would be horrific crimes if animals were persons and meat was "murder"), while anti-abortionists can fully substantiate logically and biologically the claim that abortion should be recognized as murder. This is true, but until we can bring the rest of the nation to see this truth and pass right-to-life legislation that will obviate vigilante violence, expressing support for the criminal acts of anti-abortion bombers and gunmen could be construed as giving a rationale for violence to every rebel with a cause, especially those with an unselfish cause. We don't need any loose cannons or self-appointed avenging angels. The strength and future of the pro-life movement has always been found in taking the high road--in behaving better than our opponents--in being willing to make the self-sacrifices that the pro-choice position was designed to avoid. We have logic on our side; we already use it to expose the invalidity of arguments in favor of the violence known as legal abortion--now we must use it to reveal the invalidity of arguments in favor of combating legal abortion with violence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Text of letter to ABC's Nightline (mailed April 5, 1998 in response to its 3/9/98 broadcast “The Army of God” with Forrest Sawyer as host):

A recent broadcast concerned the violent strategies of some antiabortion activists and focused on one group in particular--I believe they were called "The Army Of God." An apologist for the group defended their actions by asserting that abortion is as serious an offense as was slavery. I have been troubled by his argument, which on the surface may have a certain appeal.

I should state that I am a supporting member of the National Right to Life Committee and I fully accept the slavery/abortion analogy. However, although I agree with his premise that slavery and abortion are comparable crimes against humanity, I {along with the vast majority of pro-lifers] do not agree with his conclusion that anti-abortion activists are therefore justified in dispensing their own form of justice by killing or injuring those involved in abortion.

The spokesman for the group claims they are only trying to stop abortion. One wonders how far he would have gone to stop slavery. Someone should ask him if he would have been willing to countenance the murder of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? Why not? After all, they were both slaveholders. They were prominent men of their time who had great power to influence legislation. They were privileged and well educated and should have been able to see the evil of slavery. But I think civil rights activists would shudder at the thought of gunning down these founding fathers for their tragic yet condemnable blindness to the patent injustice of slavery. In this instance, they were not able to rise above the prejudices of their day. But these men did not turn back the clock on human rights as happened in Nazi Germany. They did not strip those who were already considered citizens of their civil rights. The idea of slaves as full human persons equal to white men was a revolutionary idea to them, as the idea of the fetus as a full human person is a revolutionary idea to so many in our time; and in both cases, their acceptance of this new idea would cause them great inconvenience which they would regard as sacrifice, making them even more reluctant to do so.

Even though we now recognize slavery for the unspeakable evil it was, we haven't exactly canonized John Brown for his 1856 massacre of pro-slavery supporters [in retribution for the murder of abolitionists] and his later seizure of the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry. Brown, like many in violent anti-abortion groups, claimed to be carrying out God's plan. History books seem to regard him as a well-intentioned but misguided extremist. We may debate whether he was mentally unbalanced, but the consensus seems to be that he did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Even though in some instances, history may decide that an individual act of vigilantism was justified, the danger of any group appointing itself judge, jury, and executioner is so great that we must hold to the rule of law, even though it does allow even great crimes against humanity, like slaveholding and abortion, to go unpunished for a time.

But even in the normal operation of our justice system, legal technicalities can allow murderers to go free, sometimes in the face of overwhelming evidence that points toward guilt. And often those criminals do go on to commit murder again. We must earnestly try to prevent such tragedies, but we must do so within the law. Otherwise we are all at the mercy of the ignorance of the mob, the extremism of the minority, and the potential violence of both.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Text of E-mail to Alan Keyes at MSNBC (sent 6/02 in response to a segment on the 5/29/02 “Alan Keyes Is Making Sense”):

As a committed supporter of the pro-life movement I would like to comment on the recent segment concerning an anti-abortion website that featured photos of women entering abortion clinics. While I agree with your condemnation of this practice, I think we need to make more of an effort to patiently explain our objections to those who employ such tactics. It is not enough to say that we must show Christian love to these women, for, although this is a valid point and loving correction is certainly essential to effecting pro-life conversions, the fact remains that Christian beliefs have never prevented us from publishing photos of wanted criminals in the media--indeed it is a common, everyday practice not just for murder suspects but those accused of far lesser crimes. Therefore radical anti-abortionists accuse us of inconsistency--they say our compassionate response sends a mixed message and implies that the killing of the unborn is not as serious as the murder of born children and adults to which we respond with justice rather than compassion. This charge made against mainstream pro-lifers seems reasonable on the surface and we must answer it fully in a way that will help well-intentioned but misguided anti-abortionists to understand the difference. Our objection is based on more than the obligation to show Christian love and more than a desire to avoid vigilantism. The distinction we are making is in the culpability of the offender, not the value of the victim. Our young women have been raised in a culture in which most of the authority figures tolerate or actively support legalized abortion and deny the humanity of the fetus. This includes most of those in the medical and legal professions, the judiciary including the Supreme Court, government officials and elected representatives, those in higher education, and nearly all of the entertainers and journalists in the popular media. In our culture the false value of "choice" has been elevated to a sacred status. These women have had pro-abortion propaganda poured into them since grammar school and many of them have not had families who've taught them that abortion is wrong--that it is in fact murder. Their only exposure to the pro-life movement may have been the negative coverage in the news media portraying us as intolerant religious fanatics. Do we really believe that this has had no effect on the girls who've grown up in such an atmosphere? The very fact of the legality of abortion puts a stamp of approval on it in the minds of Americans who've come of age since Roe v. Wade--and the attitudes we grow up with can be very hard to overcome, especially when we find them convenient. This difficulty in overcoming the ignorance and prejudices of the day does play a part in determining how much blame we assign to those who participated in the various horrors of history.

Distinctions between the genocide and slavery analogies are particularly important in the dialogue between extreme and mainline pro-lifers. I think we all would agree that both genocide and slavery are horrific crimes against humanity. And yet, we revile the Nazis but not the slaveholding Founding Fathers of this nation. In fact, we still show great respect for men like Washington and Jefferson. In doing so, are we guilty of inconsistency--are we saying that Jews are persons and African slaves are not? Are we sending a mixed message that genocide is a serious crime but not slavery? Of course not. We abhor the Nazis not only for their extreme cruelty, but also because they were raised in a culture in which Jews were citizens with recognized rights--the German people should have seen the evil in stripping them of basic human rights and certainly must have seen the evil in putting innocent men, women, and children to death. The Nazis and those who supported them have no excuse whatsoever for their actions. But slaveholders were born and raised in a culture in which slaves were not considered as equals with inherent rights. In the South slavery was legal and had long been accepted, even praised as beneficent--white Southerners could not be expected to see the evil of slavery as clearly as those raised in other cultures. And yet, our Founding Fathers were intelligent and educated men who studied and defended liberty--we might have expected them to see beyond the conventions of their time. If we can give a brilliant, learned, and progressive man like Jefferson the benefit of the doubt for his failings, surely we can do the same for the average American woman. This I believe is the best counterargument we can make to those anti-abortionists who use questionable or objectionable methods. And we must always remind ourselves and others that the end does not justify the means. Your guest who defended the site claimed these women "know what they're doing." But how can anyone say that considering the pervasiveness of the pro-abortion rhetoric in the culture? I suspect most of these women do not fully realize what they are doing. And those who do are not likely to be "shamed" into changing their ways. I don't recall the name of the guest who was responsible for the website, but if you could forward this to him I would be most obliged.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In sum: It is important that all those in the pro-life movement learn to logically dissuade the small number of abortion opponents who've tragically fallen into the end-justifies-the-means philosophy practiced by pro-abortionists. It may be that these few resort to vigilantism because of an error in logic rather than moral error; it seems they have chosen correct analogies for the unborn victims of abortion, but are using and acting on a faulty analogy for the perpetrators of abortion. This problem must be specifically addressed in order to correct it--we use logic to persuade our pro-abortion opponents, we must also use logic to deter anti-abortionists who in their frustration are tempted to act as a law unto themselves. I hope that the anti-violence arguments included in the letters above, will serve that end.