Killer Betrays Ends with Abortion Attack

On the morning of Friday, December 30, two people were killed and five wounded when an armed assailant went on a shooting rampage at two Brookline abortion clinics. John C. Salvi 3d, the suspect in these attacks, has become the center of national attention. The deeds Salvi allegedly committed have led to a heated debate within the anti-abortion movement over what means can be employed in the fight against abortion.

The deaths of the two clinic receptionists killed in the attacks are great tragedies. The actions that resulted in these deaths deserve the strongest condemnation--from people on both sides of the abortion debate.

It might appear at first that one's reaction to the case of Salvi would simply reflect one's position on abortion. Demonstrators in Norfolk, where Salvi was apprehended, expressed support or condemnation of him depending on their views on abortion.

Certain members of the anti-abortion camp have supported Salvi's actions. They argue that defending innocent lives in danger through the use of force, even deadly force, is morally justified because of the greater harm that it prevents. For example, they reason, if we knew that an individual was about to shoot into a crowd and kill many people, murdering him would be justified if it were the only way of preventing these deaths.

Even if this argument holds, the killings of Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols are still not defensible; the two women were clinic receptionists, and were not involved directly with the actual medical procedure of abortion. But the argument does not hold, for a very simple reason: activists must not only have a morally justified goal, but they must pursue that goal through methods that are also just. The well-worn adage holds true: the end does not justify the means.

Regrettably, there is a fringe of the anti-abortion movement that does not draw this distinction, harassing and threatening women entering abortion clinics, as well as clinic personnel. While these activists may have the right to protest, their actions must not encroach on other legal rights.

These radicals are also unfair to the mainstream of the anti-abortion movement, since so many of the movement's leaders, such as Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, have condemned attacks on abortion clinics.

A movement must be morally justified not only in the end it seeks, but also in the means that it employs in achieving that end. If pro-lifers hope to avoid hypocrisy and retain their legitimacy as protectors of "life," they must forswear violence and employ only non-violent means in their struggle against abortion.