Although I see destroying abortion clinics problematic for a few reasons explained earlier, I do understand the sentiment. I used to think the same way 25 years ago. But the principle of nonviolent revolution has demonstrated that nonviolence is a more affective weapon than violence because violence loses you support and gives the authorities justification to squash you. But as I said earlier, the greater reasons not to destroy clinics are explained in an earlier post. But finally, you destroy an idea with a better idea. Jesus didn't teach us to force people into submission; he taught us to show them a better way and then they will follow of their own free will.
Other than the theological issues I have with free will as a Calvinist, I mostly agree with you. I wasn't trying to say we should go out and blow up abortion clinics (I'd also say that we potentially have more non-violent weapons at our disposal in the US than the victims of the Nazis had.) I mostly think most Christians are way too callous about this: "Well, we want to ban abortion but we'd NEVER support THOSE radical nutjobs." If denying the unborn personhood is really as bad as denying black people personhood in the 19th century was (and I believe that it is) its hard to really condemn people who do stuff like this. That doesn't mean I'm saying its a good strategy or that you should go out and do it.
As to Crowns & Laurels' assertion that destroying clinics isn't terrorism unless someone gets injured or killed, part of the reason people destroy clinics is to scare those working there out of business. Creating terror in someone is the definition of terrorism.
I actually agree with him. Terrorism is typically where you kill noncombatants in order to incite terror. By that definition, US drone bombings in Pakistan would count, the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki would count, and the terrorist attacks on 9/11 would count (most people, through a fictitious belief in magic, deny that governments engage in terrorism.) Abortion doctors are murderers, thus combatants, I'd say by normative definitions it isn't "terrorism", even if abortion doctors were killed.
You blow up a building, it's terrorism. Any pro-life person combating abortion by an action which has the inherent capacity to terminate life isn't really pro-life at all.
Again, only terrorism if noncombatants are targeted. Blowing up empty buildings may be wrong (though I don't think it is in this case) but its not terrorism.
Why do you suppose it's illegal to go around blowing up buildings even if one believes they are empty?
[/QUOTE]
Well, it shouldn't be illegal to blow up human-murdering factories, or to kill their owners. Those who murder children should not have any rights.
What? What does that have to do with how you kill an abortionist?
Because it's about the institution, not the people, it's preferable to shoot an abortionist in a church than to blow up an abortionist in a clinic?
Are you for real?
Well, I'd say that an abortion doctor even being in church is doubly bad. Unless he's repenting, its blasphemous.
