system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People that bomb abortion clinics are more ideologically consistent than their peaceful pro-life counterparts

 

Pro life people believe that abortion is bad because you are ending a human life without it's consent.  
Most people would agree that it is okay to use violent force to save innocent lives.

Let me pose a thought experiment.

1. You see a man beating up a kid, to the point you're worried for the kid's life. You're too far to physically intervene, but you have a gun. There is nobody else around. Is it morally okay to use the gun to safe the kid's life?
2. You see an abortionist walking down an alleyway. You **know** that he's about to perform 10 abortions the next day - as a pro-lifer that's 10 innocent lives that he's going to take. Is it morally okay to do some property damage (bomb his clinic when nobody's around) to save them?

1.2 million abortions are performed per year in the US. From a pro-life stance, that's 1.2 million innocent lives being arbitrarily ended without their consent, just because they weren't born yet. Pro-lifers view being un-born as an irrelevant factor in your right to end it.

Let's say the US people democratically elected politicians who decide that it's okay to murder 1.2 million minorities every year. Ethnicity should be an irrelevant factor in your right to end another's life, the same way being un-born is, from a pro-life point of view. Would it be morally unjust to use **violent force** to end that practice?  


If the US was committing genocide against  a subset of its citizens, it would be absurd to say its immoral to use violent force to stop the genocide. If there was an ongoing genocide, would it be moral to sit aside and wait for the next election?  


I don't see how pro-lifers can believe:

1. Abortion is murder (and that 1.2 million persons are being murdered each year)
2. Anti-abortion violence is immoral (they distance themselves as much as they can as possible)
3. It is moral to use violent force to stop genocide (and rebel violently against a government that's aiding a genocide)
gpt
There's practical aspects to this yiu are missing. For one, a bombed abortion clinic is unlikely to stop abortions; the pregnant women will likely go elsewhere. For another, the building could be used for more than just abortions, so that's ancillary damage. For another, bombing could catch some innocent people. And on a larger scale, if the goal is to make abortions illegal then becoming a domestic terrorist does not help (its essentially trading short term benefits at the cost of long term ones).