Why We Must Not Shoot The Abortionists

America has seen more clearly than any the essential pro-life principles of yes to God, yes to Christian marriage, yes to chastity, yes to one more child, yes to natural fertility awareness, yes to rescuing the babies on their way to the slaughter house, yes to prayer (led by their bishops) on the babies' Calvary, no to contraception, no to compromise. America has given the world hope that the abortion monster can be defeated, yet America is now sullied with the worst of actions to protect the unborn.

Of course America is also a country where guns are commonly available and often used, and it is perhaps not too surprising that some there should imagine that the gun provides a short-cut for ending the abortion holocaust. Their argument is simple and must be carefully and accurately rebutted. The argument is - if self defence by force is legitimate (see the Catholic Catechism, para. 2264), if defence of one's neighbour is legitimate (and even compulsory, see the Catholic Catechism para. 2265), then surely the defence of the millions of babies threatened with abortion is also legitimate by force. How can we justify using force when necessary to defend those born alive but refuse to do so in defence of those still to be born? Are pro-lifers themselves not discriminating against the unborn baby?

Response: Two strands of the above argument must be disentangled and answered separately. The first strand (A) concerns using force as a means of driving the pro-death forces of USA (and afterwards by implication the rest of the world) into subjection. It is an argument for an IRA type sniper campaign to force a pro-death government to acquiesce in pro-life demands. The second strand (B) is an attempt to justify force to save a particular baby or babies from execution.

Concerning Strand (A): The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays down five essential conditions (given below in italics) which must be fulfilled to justify armed resistance against unjust and despotic civil authority. (Cath. Cat. para. 2243)

The first condition requires that there be certain, grave, prolonged violation of fundamental rights. In the case of abortion this condition has certainly been met.

The second condition requires that all other means of redress have been exhausted. In fact there are means of redress which will be noted below which have scarcely been attempted let alone exhausted.

The third condition requires that armed resistance will not be likely to provoke worse disorders. It is impossible to forsee a satisfactory outcome to armed resistance but the argument is much clearer from

the fourth condition which is that there must be well founded hope of success. It seems absurd to think that there could be success by the route of violence with the pro-life leaders and active supporters easily arrestable and detainable. It is not reasonable to suppose that the armed might of American civil power would be overcome by those few pro-lifers prepared to take to the gun.

The fifth condition requires that no better solution be reasonably foreseeable. A better solution will in fact be described below.

Concerning Strand (B): (Violence to protect a particular baby or babies) Let us deal with the situation of a particular mother going to the abortuary to have her baby slaughtered. Whom do you shoot? The mother? Objectively she is the key aggressor whatever her subjective dispositions. Dead her baby dies with her, alive her baby is in the gravest danger so long as she is of the same pro-abortion dispositions To protect her baby we must either succeed in changing her dispositions or restrict her freedom of choice. The latter is precisely what public authorities would do if enforcing pro-life legislation as in the past. The Church attempts to change her dispositions by imposing the considerable deterrent of excommunication but this is useless for non-Catholics and sadly many Catholics tempted to abortion are equally heedless.

One could try shooting the mother's doctor, but the impact on the mother herself must always be uncertain. The child in her womb is her protection against any "pro-life" killer and she can seek another doctor. Furthermore, even on normal principles of self defence one does not use a hand grenade if something less drastic will do. Shooting the doctor is a hand grenade compared with the solution below.

The Solution: One readily available means of immediately influencing the mother even at the eleventh hour is to speak to her as soon as her intentions can be discovered, and even at the abortuary gates. Besides speaking and offering help one can, and should, barricade the doors of the abortuary and thereby prevent abortions at least for a time. This system is of course no more fool-proof than shooting the abortionist as a means of changing the mother's mind, but it does have many successes without the turmoil of attempting to declare civil war. With such a rescue attempt the rescuers themselves may face some danger, thereby sharing the lot of the baby, but they by no means provoke this. They harm no-one else, delay the execution, give time for repentance, and challenge the consciences of all who support abortion on the spot, in the mass media, in the police and courts, in the prison service, and in the government's corridors of power.

Note also that it is never in fact, strictly speaking, possible to save someone's life! We can only postpone his death! On this criterion every rescue blockade is necessarily a success

Many unsound arguments are given in the attempt to rebut the temptation of force. Arguments - most recently from MP's and pro-life leaders - that force is wrong intrinsically would logically invite the abolition of army, navy, airforce, police, prisons and courts, all of which are entitled to use force as a last resort. People often forget that the police are using force nearly all the time but as their force is so overwhelming they rarely meet active resistance from, say, offending motorists or petty thieves.

To the above it will be argued that force can be used legitimately by the civil authorities only. This is rubbish. Very few would deny themselves the use of available force to protect them and theirs even if the police were not available or - on a parallel with abortion - were refusing to do their duty.

The worst argument of all for rejecting force is the one which abandons some unborn children to their fate on the grounds that attempting to help them will make it more difficult later to protect others. We pro-lifers must not play God. We do not abandon any of the babies when as I have argued above we have legitimate means at our disposal for attempting to protect them. We do not categorise some unborn children as second class citizens to be expended for the benefit of others.

Conclusion: We are not justified in killing the abortionists but are fully justified and entitled to the wholesale support and co-operation of all Christians and pro-lifers when we go to the abortuaries, pray there, counsel there, sit in there and peacefully impede the abortionist from proceeding.