Some have objected that Greg's argument against killing abortionists is pragmatic rather than moral, and I guess therefore being weaker than it should be. But this is wrong. It is a moral argument. Remember first that is a response to the challenge that the pro-life logic inevitably leads to killing abortionists. We strongly deny this, and this article is a reasoned response to that claim. Second, it's a moral argument because the principles is and remains to end the unjustified killing of unborn children.
This is the moral argument, not a practical one. If an action such as killing an abortionist leads to the death of more innocent children, that is an immoral thing. If more children die, it's immoral. Killing abortionists doesn't do anything to end abortion and innocent babies dying - it actually extends it by damaging the moral force of the pro-life argument to bring a final and legal end to abortion.
Those who kill abortionists (there have been eight such killings in the U.S.) probably think they are saving some lives of unborn children. One person compared killing an abortionist to shooting a sniper at a playground. Isn't it justified to take out the sniper? These are very different circumstances and killing an abortionist cannot be justified in the same way.
One difference in the circumstances is that in the playground comparison there is only a specific group of children on the playground to save and one sniper who isn't likely to be replaced by another; it's not comparable to the industry of legalized abortion. There are other "snipers" operating, and many more children now and in the future are in danger, not just those on that "playground." Shooting this "sniper" doesn't prevent more snipers from continuing to work long into the future. It's all of those threatened lives we have to keep in view, and any action that extends legalized abortion and thus sacrifices more lives of innocent children is immoral and cannot be justified on pro-life logic.
Another serious difference in this analogy is that someone taking out a sniper would be operating under the law to stop someone from operating outside of the law. The reverse is true for killing an abortionist, so it's the law that has to be changed, not just individual "snipers." Otherwise abortionists keep operating under protection of the law. We live in a country of laws and are morally obligated to work within those to change a legal but immoral circumstances.
Our system of laws is a fabric that protects our citizens, though inadequately and imperfectly. But we have the freedom and obligation to work within our system of laws to challenge, lobby, argue, with the goal of changing the law to protect each and every person. This system of laws is also at stake when vigilantes take matters into their own hands. Our actions should not undermine and weaken the system so that we possibly lose our freedoms to change the law and also undermines a system that protects us. We have an obligation to God to obey the laws and work within the system of laws to include unborn children under that protection.
Of course, killing a person without proper legal authority is flatly wrong. In addition, anything that extends the unjust system of legalized abortion is immoral because more children will die in the long run. It's not a pragmatic argument, but a moral one with the innocent lives of the unborn at the heart of the concern to the challenge that this is a consequence of the pro-life logic. Killing abortionists is not a logical conclusion to the pro-life position and is wrong in and of itself, and because it means more unborn children will be unprotected for a longer time until the law is changed, and because it undermines a moral obligation we have to obey the law.