In the wake of the Robert Dear shootings at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado, the tendency from pro-choice writers has been to get the pro-life movement coming and going — on the one hand accusing pro-lifers of at least semi-deliberately fomenting violence, on the other accusing them of being inconsistent for abjuring the violence that their own premises seem (to pro-choice eyes) to inevitably justify.

…

So let’s dig in to the question. Given anti-abortion premises, why is it not obviously reasonable to take up arms against abortion providers? Why isn’t the pro-lifer who shoots an abortionist just like a man or woman who uses deadly force against a would-be child murderer — a vigilante, yes, but also a heroic one?

…

I basically agree with my fellow pro-life Catholic, John Zmirak,when he argues that abortion might meet the first test for insurrection but clearly, clearly fails on counts 2, 3, and 4. Indeed, I’d add that Zmirak (or the pro-lifer in his fictional dialogue) understates the gains pro-lifers have already made through the political process even without Roe being overturned, and overstates the odds that a pro-lifer insurrection would actually accomplish anything at all beyond misery and destruction — so the case against anti-abortion violence is even stronger than he suggests. And one can add variations on these points as well: The Southern Baptists’ 1994 statement repudiating anti-abortion violence, for instance, covers similar territory to the Catechism, but also ropes in some other important arguments about democratic legitimacy, premeditation and more.

Read the article “Why the Pro-Life Movement Opposes Violence” on douthat.blogs.nytimes.com.