Pro-Life Inconsistency – Abortion Clinic Bombed

(IBTimes) — A Planned Parenthood clinic in Appleton, Wisconsin was set aflame briefly by a homemade bomb around 7:40 p.m. Sunday.

Authorities affirmed that someone had set the small device on a windowsill of the Appleton North Health Center. When it exploded, a small fire began. The flame set off the health center’s fire alarm but quickly extinguished on its own, causing slight damage to one of the exam rooms. No staff or patients were present at the time.

Events like this always make me cringe.  Fortunately no one was hurt in the bombing of this abortion clinic.  But in addition to more lives being potentially lost, it puts pro-lifers on the defense.  What inevitably arises is abortion advocates and defenders race to see who can point out the apparent pro-lifer’s inconsistency first: They protest and advocate for the yet-to-be-born on the one hand, and on the other they bomb and murder medical staff (George Tiller), apparently they are not really pro-life.

Sure, I agree this is an inconsistency.  But this is all it is.  In other words, it doesn’t undermine or refute pro-life arguments (For more posts on abortion CLICK HERE).

Whether a pro-lifer is consistent or not, a unique human life begins at the moment of conception (See: Get A Life, Part 1).  Whether a pro-lifer is consistent or not, it is morally wrong to intentionally take the life of a human being without proper justification.

I think if we are honest with ourselves, we all hold opinions somewhere which are in opposition to our overall worldview.  We all make an exception in regards to some things, but it doesn’t invalidate our broader system of beliefs.

The person who bombed this clinic was wrong and will be justly prosecuted, luckily no one was injured.


  1. rautakyy says:

    @John Barron, I realize that you are a good and law abiding citizen. I respect your intent to change what you percieve as immoral through the proper channels of society, without unnecessary violence. Good for you!

    I on the other hand, would propably take up arms against my government, if I truly held the belief, that they are killing innocent babies by the thousands, and the legal system, and even public opinion were against me. So, even though I totally disagree with this “terrorist” who attacked the abortion clinic, I think I somewhat understand his line of thinking.

    After all, was it not “pro-life” to wage a devastating war against the nazi regime. I mean it was the nazies who started the violence. The war against them was in defence of the innocents they were enslaving and even murdering in millions.

    • rautakyy

      I absolutely get what you’re saying and I have thought about this issue before — to the point where I had formulated an argument in favor of taking lethal action against abortion providers. However, I have chosen not to publish it for a few reasons. First, I dont want people coming at me claiming that I am arguing for violence when all I am doing is formulating a defense for such action, even though it may be a fine line. Second, I dont want someone inclined to take that kind of action to be tipped over the edge by reading my thoughts and being tangentially responsible.

      But, I see your point. if a pro-lifer truly though abortion were murder, and multiple abortions take plave every day, by eliminating an abortion provider you kind of save lives after a fashion. But, I dont think it actually works out that way because there will be someone to take their place and the mother would simply take her business elsewhere and now the terrorist is in jail unable to get the pro-life message out.

      I don’t think violence actually helps prevent abortion. It only serves as a distraction and does not help the cause. What is needed is changed hearts.

  2. Marshall Art says:

    Indeed. The actions of those who target abortion centers, and this appears to have sought to merely interrupt the process, as opposed to actually kill the participants, serves to give ammunition to the defenders of abortion, who claim others wish to force their opinions/theology on others, or to oppress women in their pursuit of the deceitfully named “reproductive rights”.

    But I do not argue against violence, as I do not equate violence itself with evil. Too many legal actions are violent in nature for that to be the case. But here, as stated, it doesn’t serve to help the cause of protecting innocent life. Of course, one must ask, how many abortion providers would be keen to continue their service, while others of their ilk fall all around them?

    These actions are clearly taken with the intention of preventing any further killing of innocent life. Who else would be the target but those who are doing the killing? Some would give Rautakyy a hard time for merely daring to bring up nazism in the same discussion, but the parallel is stark and obvious. Yet, I oppose this course of action, at least at this time. Despite what some may say, killing bad guys intent on killing innocent people is not returning evil with evil. My opposition is based on reasons of practicality.

  3. rautakyy says:

    This is a serious matter. In my country it is illegal to seriously suggest people to take illegal action. Is that the same in the US? I am basicly against violence, but I also think there are certain situations when violence can be ethically excused. An attack on an abortion clinic is not such a situation in my opinion.

    Now, just to be more precise. When I said I would take up arms against my government, if I would deem it was systematically murdering its citizens, I did not mean that such installations as the abortion clinics would be a reasonable target. I am strongly against supporting any terrorist action, especially towards unarmed civillians. I can only speak for myself in such a matter. To me it is obvious, that the methods of armed resistance would be very difficult to determine. Wich only goes to show, how delicate and non absolute this particular issue actually is. In that sense the nazi government was a rather extreme example, but I hope you get my meaning.

    However, to those readers (as this blog seems to be very popular) who do not know my take on this issue, I would add (without any desire to discuss here why or to go on any tangents to the topic) I think abortion should be legal, and I think it is all about the right of the woman to make the choise, about her own body. This here just so you can put my comments in perspective.

  4. First of all, destruction of property is not as morally rephrehensible as killing innocent life. It appears to me that the bomber deliberately placed the bomb at the clinic when “No staff or patients were present at the time.” However, carelessly setting a fire has the potential of putting lives at risk even if no one is present at the time. Was the bomber sure there was no one inside? What about the fire fighters called to put out the fire? Once the fire is set, it has a will of its own. It would have been better had the person broke in and smashed the instruments that are used to kill children.

    I have long struggled with whether it is morally justifiable to destroy property in order to preserve the life of someone. Private property is a biblical right and so is the right to life. Does someone lose his right to that property because he uses it to kill children? Does the average Joe Q. Citizen have the authority to make that determination and then carry out execution of it? Does self-defense of others excuse the destruction instruments of murder even though the murder isn’t imminent?

    This issue is not as clear cut as denouncing an abortion clinic bomber.

  5. TerranceH says:


    People who kill or try to kill abortion providers are not pro-life; they’re pro-choice. Choosing. who lives and who dies without due process is the pro-choice philosophy exactly. I said it on my blog and I’ll say it now.

    • But T

      choosing who lives and who dies isn’t really the issue, after all, innocense or guilt of the one being killed is really central. If you happen upon a scene where someone is trying to kill someone else and you must use deadly force to stoop them, you are essentially choosing who lives and who dies.

      My main point of this post was that even if the guy was wrong, and is — as you say — prochoice, it doesnt negate the arguments against abortion. If I went on a rampage killing abortion doctors, do all my posts on abortion become defeated?

  6. TerranceH says:


    I think it is if you’re talking about someone with no authority whatsoever killing for his own selfish reasons. Someone with no government or moral authority killing to satisfy his needs — that is the pro-choice position entirely!

    If you happen upon a scene where someone is trying to kill someone else and you must use deadly force to stoop them, you are essentially choosing who lives and who dies.

    If you really believe this then you have no problem with violence against abortion providers, since they are killing innocent people. And to say you’ll make an exception to protect the integrity of your argument is an ends justifies the means position; quite liberal to boot.

    This whole issue is complex, and that’s why I didn’t take the route you took. I turned it around on the pro-choicers.

  7. Marshall Art says:

    Certainly no number of attacks on abortion providers can make any difference regarding the legitimacy of the pro-choice position. That position itself merely contends and defends the notion that from conception, one is entitled to protection, that one has the right to life. That any might take that to the extent that they take it upon themselves to commit illegal acts, even violence, to protect those innocent lives is irrelevant.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: