It's even less clear that Bonhoeffer would have been justified had he tried to take out an unarmed S.S. officer in his church (which would be much more analogous to what Scott Roeder did).
I think an important line to draw is between condemning an unjust practice, and using dehumanizing or demonizing language against the people engaged in the practice. As pro-lifers, we know that some kinds of language make it easier to persuade people that it's acceptable to kill this or that group of human beings. We should never use that kind of language ourselves, and should challenge other purported pro-lifers who do use it.
Interesting read. I think what's missing for me is context. I have talked with people whom I would accurately describe as pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Most fence sitters I would call pro-choice. I think it's unwise and inaccurate to call abortion advocates anything for what they are. I also would not concede abortionist for the reason. I will not put those who make a living killing in the same category as a practioner whose profession it is healing for the sake of politeness. It is inaccurate and unfair to real medical practioners. So I'll definitely give you some softer terminology in the right context, but it has to be that and not sacrifice the truth on feel good vibes. :(
What terms would you use, then? Because I don't want to cause unnecessary offence when I'm trying to reach out to or have a civil conversation with someone but at the same time I can't call it a choice, or even soften the language. I presently use "advocates for legal abortion" but do you personally think that's too soft?
Anytime you add syllables in the English language, you soften your tone and make it more formal. I'd use the word that fit the context, really. If article was for general publication/audience I'd probably use pro-choice. If it were either address to abortion advocates or a pro-life site, I might use pro-abortion or abortion advocate. In comments like this, I would use pro-abort or pro-abortion because those conversations are a bit strange and tinged from my point of view. On the hand, I do my level best to avoid them, too.
One of CMP's board members said that he thinks abortion should be a capital crime. He has repeatedly condemned vigilantism, and nobody associated with CMP has ever advocated for it. I don't see how this is relevant though, because he made that statement in a book most people have never heard of (not in any of the widely circulated videos that people are trying to blame for this rampage).
Thinking abortion should be a capital crime (presumably in which abortionists would be given due process of law) =/= justifying the vigilante killing of abortion doctors.
I want to thank you for taking me up on my offer. I know we haven't spoken much to each other but I would consider us friends despite that and I hope you feel the same way. I have been giving serious thought to Bair's questions and I am going to give her the same answer I will give you, as I believe you would have read our back-and-forth on this question: The PL movement isn't the only movement that prefers peace to violence. Let's take a look at a few other movements in history. William Wilberforce: WW sought to abolish slavery in England. Because he was a politician he had a serious advantage in ensuring that the laws would be passed that he wanted. He fought for years to make the slave trade, then slavery illegal. Never once did he or his fellow abolitionists advocate for violence in the form of blowing up the slave ships or shooting all the slave traders throughout England. Because of his efforts England peacefully outlawed slavery in the early part of the 19th century. Watch Amazing Grace and other documentaries to learn more about his work. Alice Paul: AP was a feminist who fought for the right of women to vote throughout all of America. She and her fellow suffragettes were more radical than the older ones but both sets of suffragettes condemned the kind of violence that some in England were committing. She said "I don't consider myself above the law in any circumstance". As she felt that the older suffragettes were too weak and incremental she and her fellow suffragettes broke away to form a new group, which stood campaigning peacefully with signs outside President Wilson's office. They were falsely charged and put in prison, one by one, but none because of violence AFAIK. Eventually the President pardoned them and they were released, and women got the vote. Not once did I see AP and her friends committing violence, or campaigning for its use. If you want to watch a drama about AP's work you can view Iron-Jawed Angels or several documentaries dealing with the subject. Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK was an Afro-American pastor who lived during the 1960s. He himself had suffered the disgrace of segregation, the KKK, and other such indignities. He rose to prominence in the Afro Civil Rights Movement and nearly single-handedly led the charge to defeat discrimination against nonwhite people. He organised his followers onto peaceful marches and they held rallies fighting for their rights. Although he recognised that rioting was the language of the oppressed he did not condone the black people using violence to fight against white privilege and oppression. He was shot dead by an attacker using the racial atmosphere to justify his violent hatred. To learn more about MLK Jr I recommend Selma and Boycott, plus documentaries. These three people and their friends helped make slavery, suppression against women, and anti-nonwhite discrimination illegal in England and the United States. None of them advocated for violence but rather for peace. They sought legal means to ensure that they would get what they wanted, and refused to demonise their opponents, yet were not willing to compromise on what they wanted and therefore achieved their goals. We have people like them to thank for this world being a better place to live. If people who believe that prolifers are inconsistent by fighting for peace and would therefore be silently condoning nazism and slavery, think again. Because history has proved that peace in a democratic society is the best means of achieving help for the oppressed. Yet if such people are right, WW was pro-slavery through not shooting slave traders; AP was anti-feminist by refusing to barge into the President's office, hold a gun to his head, and demand the vote for women; and MLK Jr's words about peace and tolerance were just a bunch of hogwash because deep down he wanted blacks to stay "in their place". Such assertions are insulting on the characters of those who fought peacefully for what was right. I agree that the PL movement needs significant reform in language in that we shouldn't demonise our opponents, and in violence, but at the same time being peaceful does not mean we are being best buddies with Hitler and Jefferson Davis. People lie about abortion and what it is. We are doing it somewhat right in this way - we are changing people's minds, exposing wickedness to the public mind, and changing hearts and minds through stirring up public outrage which will eventually pass into laws and moral reforms. What I have described is one good way among many nonviolent ways to handle the situation while we are living in a free, peaceful society. Just my two cents.
Thanks for all the thinking from both of you. I would like to say a few things, but I'm under a lot of time pressure right now, so you will be partially spared that word count. Here is what I can type (or copy and paste) in the time that I have:
It seems to me that similarly to the way you can argue, "Scott Roeder . . . may have intended to do good, but he was absolutely wrong," I could argue, "The US has an impressive-seeming constitution and yes, it is theoretically possible to change unjust laws, but all the workings of power and money, and the molding of public opinion -- the 'manufacture of consent' -- are a much deeper subject, and those glittery democratic institutions are of little comfort to the babies."
Under the earlier blog post you have linked to, I had commented -- "Thanks for your post.
As long as America is not [led] by a despot who changes our entire system of government, there are other ways to save lives and end abortion without using violence or other illegal or fear-inducing tactics like kidnapping. And that matters. If we can end abortion by non-violent means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means. "If many unborn lives could be saved without violence by the pro-life American states seceding from the Union, shouldn't they do that?" -- and Josh Brahm had replied --
Interesting question. I would need to be convinced that the pro-life states seceding would actually save more lives. It seems to me that it would have been easier to end slavery without the Southern states seceding. That's partially why they seceded. I think it would be easier to abolish abortion without seceding, but I'm open to a good argument -- and I had offered what seemed to me to be a good argument -- "I don't think of secession first and foremost in terms of lives saved in the short term. I think of it first and foremost in terms of moral integrity. If Kansans, for example, are pro-life and would be free to live, if they wished, under laws that protect unborn life, and opted not to do so, how much of their moral integrity on that issue would they preserve, and what message would they send to others?" I might also have raised a question about the "without the Southern states seceding" analogy, since at that time it was the states with the institution we consider wrong (slavery) that seceded, whereas I was not proposing that in the present the states with the institution we consider wrong (abortion) should secede. Anyway, I would still love a response about moral integrity.
If under a despotic political structure there is a horrible outcome such that every day we are face to face with person A and see that he is about to kill innocent persons B, C, D, E, F, G . . . , and under a nominally democratic or even genuinely democratic political structure there is a horrible outcome such that every day we are face to face with person A and see that he is about to kill innocent persons B, C, D, E, F, G . . . , I'm not convinced that it is morally permissible to kill person A in the one situation and not in the other. At least I wouldn't say that that is "clearly" so. Certainly the difference in regime would be little consolation to persons B, C, D, E, F and G (though I don't say that the lives of those people are the only factor to consider). Framed just in this simple way, it might even be morally obligatory to kill A in both situations. I think better arguments for not killing abortionists might be these:
Your pragmatic argument -- under the present situation, it [Edit: (killing abortionists)] backfires as a tactic.
I don't think that abortion in the US is as horrible as was the Holocaust in Europe, even though the numbers have been bigger. a) The mindset has not been as evil. Some of the 60 million abortions have been totally justified. Some have been morally murky. The desperation of many women has reduced their culpability, and even that of some abortionists, far below that of the Nazis. And b) due to women's bodily autonomy, the case for society's right to intervene forcibly on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is not overwhelming but near the borderline in the first place; so the case for a vigilante's right to intervene violently on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is still less strong.
The political structure that doesn't allow for peaceful means of reform is not pragmatic for social change. So I think the point about political structure and pragmatism basically go hand-in-hand.
Sorry, I don't quite understand. What you appear to be saying is: My point killing abortionists backfires (my point about pragmatism) -- and -- my point any kind of political structure may possibly produce a horrible outcome that will justify drastic actions (my point about political structure) -- basically go hand-in-hand. Is that what you're saying?
The reason violent reform is not pragmatic is because the political structure hasn't closed down avenues of peaceful reform. If we were in a world where a regime has closed down all avenues of peaceful reform, then there is no alternative but to be violent. Pragmatism.
Now I understand you, thanks. I would agree that the formal structure has not closed down all avenues of peaceful reform of Roe v. Wade. But is structure the only consideration in regard to possible justification for violent reform? No structure is infallible. What if the individuals on the Supreme Court are incorrigible cases and clearly destined to remain that way for another 40 years or more? And then let's imagine that those individuals not only sanction unrestricted abortion, but sanction Auschwitz all over again -- all within the formal structure. It's not impossible. The only thing that might make Auschwitz impossible would be the goodness of the citizenry, not any structure. Or if I've misunderstood your "closed down all avenues of peaceful reform" and you're referring not only to the formal structure narrowly, but to the whole reigning situation, well, how soon do you see that situation improving? Please remember that I oppose violent reform, in relation to abortion, for my own reasons, mentioned earlier.
I never meant to say that political structure is the only justification for violent or peaceful reform. I agree with your points about pragmatism. I partly agree with your point about the holocaust being worse but I think in a different way. My concern with your reasons is this from another comment I made to you which you asked me to post here:
I would say the abortion is fundamentally as bad as the holocaust.
If you're saying it's not because of the intent on the part of the perpetrators then I would ask if the badness of the holocaust really turns on that by imagining a counterfactual where it's true that the eradication of the "undesirables" in the holocaust would lead to a great many goods equal in worth to women's reproductive freedom, and the Nazis intended that.
I don't see how that makes a difference.
First a clarification. Your writing -- "a great many goods equal in worth to women's reproductive freedom" -- makes me think that this clarification may be necessary. When I wrote -- "due to women's bodily autonomy, the case for society's right to intervene forcibly on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is not overwhelming but near the borderline in the first place; so the case for a vigilante's right to intervene violently on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is still less strong" -- did you understand me to mean -- "the value/worth of women's liberty gained through abortion (enabling them to do this or that with their lives) helps to offset morally the harm done by their killing their unborn children B, C, D, E, F and G" -- ? That's not what I meant. I meant more or less: "Though I advocate unborn child-protection laws, I do not do so without feeling seriously disturbed by the fact that preventing abortion forces a woman to undergo at least some temporary loss of physical well-being, some pain and some risk, all of which her bodily rights, on the one hand, tend to entitle her to avoid. I think that the case for society's right to enact such laws (i.e., prevent abortion and save lives on the other hand) is not overwhelming but near the borderline. Moreover, it would be understandable, at least, if a doctor sympathized with a woman and wanted to perform an abortion. For all these reasons I think people should be much more reluctant to bump off numerous abortionists than they should have been to bump off Hitler. While killing anyone is problematic, in some circumstances it's necessary; I think evil persons doing wrong are more easily expendable than good persons doing wrong." And then, as I mentioned, there is the fact that under the present situation, killing abortionists backfires as a tactic. But, as also mentioned, I would NOT be completely, absolutely dissuaded from considering countenancing violence simply by the thought "On paper, the voters of the US (who nobody believes are right all the time in the first place) can elect a president and a Senate who, after waiting enough years for a certain justice or two to die off, can give us a pro-life Supreme Court." One reason that even that possibility is only "on paper" is that we might find that a pro-life presidential candidate would also be a candidate likely to get us into World War 3 or ignore science in some disastrous way. But that would be another big topic of discussion that I don't propose here. You have contended that "the intent on the part of the perpetrators" doesn't make a difference;" now I have said, "While killing anyone is problematic, in some circumstances it's necessary; I think evil persons doing wrong are more easily expendable than good persons doing wrong." So maybe you would be right that it doesn't make a difference in some ways, but when we're proposing necessary assassinations, according to my moral intuitions it does make a difference. This is as regards moral principle. Now as to how that principle would be applied in your counterfactual situation, I would say that those Nazis whose motivation was more selfish would have been more easily expendable than those whose motivation was less selfish, whether that relative altruism of some was based on a correct estimation of "a great many goods" or even a sincerely deluded estimation. [Edit: Not to mention that if "it's true that [performing certain evils] would lead to a great many goods [more goods than evils]," then on a utilitarian or consequentialist view, if I understand those views correctly, we would not even be comparing the degrees of two badnesses, we would be comparing the bad of abortion with the positive good (in your counterfactual) of the Holocaust. You may not be a utilitarian or consequentialist, but do all those goods not make any difference at all to you?] (Regarding "society's right to intervene . . . is not overwhelming," by the way -- my thinking about bodily rights, as in a blog post of mine that you know about, leads me to depart from some pro-life thinking and to say that in the case of any pregnancy expected to be significantly rougher than a best-case pregnancy, a woman should have a right to abort -- though I would usually think better of her if she did not.)
Could the philosophers who read my blog create a thought-experiment that forces me to bite the bullet and say that maybe in a circumstance where X, Y and Z are true that it would be morally permissible to start a civil war over abortion? Perhaps, but that thought-experiment will by necessity look REALLY different than America in 2013 does. If I have understood your preceding argument correctly, you mean "REALLY different" in terms of only one variable -- the degree of despotism. I have understood your premise to be that as long as a society adheres to true democratic principles, it can NEVER produce a situation that would justify vigilante action. Have I misunderstood you? I think "never" would be too strong a word. Democracy is the sneaking suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half of the time. And even "more than half of the time" is just a sneaking suspicion.
In Case 1 (the Pastor) and Case 3 (the Blogger), the message did not encourage violence, so the pastor and blogger are not culpable. What if, without encouraging violence, the pastor or the blogger had misrepresented their targets as being more unpleasant persons than they really were? Misrepresentation is sure to be one of the charges that pro-choicers will make against the CMP. I hope that that charge will be baseless. But --
CMP denounced Planned Parenthood as a criminal enterprise -- suppose PP was not technically criminal --
Violence was a completely unreasonable (not to mention completely evil) response to their messages . . . You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to PP's being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not make the CMP culpable -- because even if PP is criminal, violence would be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?
I agree with much of your argument. However, please be cautious about throwing around the term "mentally ill." The vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. A lot of us are pro-life too!
I want to understand your concern better. Obviously we, and every other reasonable person, knows that not ALL mentally ill people are violent. Is your preference that nobody ever describes a mentally ill violent person as mentally ill?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/4-reasons-pro-lifers-need-to-stop-doing-this/
I think you would enjoy them. :)
I have talked with people whom I would accurately describe as pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Most fence sitters I would call pro-choice. I think it's unwise and inaccurate to call abortion advocates anything for what they are. I also would not concede abortionist for the reason. I will not put those who make a living killing in the same category as a practioner whose profession it is healing for the sake of politeness. It is inaccurate and unfair to real medical practioners.
So I'll definitely give you some softer terminology in the right context, but it has to be that and not sacrifice the truth on feel good vibes. :(
I have been giving serious thought to Bair's questions and I am going to give her the same answer I will give you, as I believe you would have read our back-and-forth on this question:
The PL movement isn't the only movement that prefers peace to violence.
Let's take a look at a few other movements in history.
William Wilberforce:
WW sought to abolish slavery in England. Because he was a politician he had a serious advantage in ensuring that the laws would be passed that he wanted. He fought for years to make the slave trade, then slavery illegal. Never once did he or his fellow abolitionists advocate for violence in the form of blowing up the slave ships or shooting all the slave traders throughout England. Because of his efforts England peacefully outlawed slavery in the early part of the 19th century. Watch Amazing Grace and other documentaries to learn more about his work.
Alice Paul:
AP was a feminist who fought for the right of women to vote throughout all of America. She and her fellow suffragettes were more radical than the older ones but both sets of suffragettes condemned the kind of violence that some in England were committing. She said "I don't consider myself above the law in any circumstance". As she felt that the older suffragettes were too weak and incremental she and her fellow suffragettes broke away to form a new group, which stood campaigning peacefully with signs outside President Wilson's office. They were falsely charged and put in prison, one by one, but none because of violence AFAIK. Eventually the President pardoned them and they were released, and women got the vote. Not once did I see AP and her friends committing violence, or campaigning for its use. If you want to watch a drama about AP's work you can view Iron-Jawed Angels or several documentaries dealing with the subject.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
MLK was an Afro-American pastor who lived during the 1960s. He himself had suffered the disgrace of segregation, the KKK, and other such indignities. He rose to prominence in the Afro Civil Rights Movement and nearly single-handedly led the charge to defeat discrimination against nonwhite people. He organised his followers onto peaceful marches and they held rallies fighting for their rights. Although he recognised that rioting was the language of the oppressed he did not condone the black people using violence to fight against white privilege and oppression. He was shot dead by an attacker using the racial atmosphere to justify his violent hatred. To learn more about MLK Jr I recommend Selma and Boycott, plus documentaries.
These three people and their friends helped make slavery, suppression against women, and anti-nonwhite discrimination illegal in England and the United States. None of them advocated for violence but rather for peace. They sought legal means to ensure that they would get what they wanted, and refused to demonise their opponents, yet were not willing to compromise on what they wanted and therefore achieved their goals. We have people like them to thank for this world being a better place to live. If people who believe that prolifers are inconsistent by fighting for peace and would therefore be silently condoning nazism and slavery, think again. Because history has proved that peace in a democratic society is the best means of achieving help for the oppressed. Yet if such people are right, WW was pro-slavery through not shooting slave traders; AP was anti-feminist by refusing to barge into the President's office, hold a gun to his head, and demand the vote for women; and MLK Jr's words about peace and tolerance were just a bunch of hogwash because deep down he wanted blacks to stay "in their place". Such assertions are insulting on the characters of those who fought peacefully for what was right. I agree that the PL movement needs significant reform in language in that we shouldn't demonise our opponents, and in violence, but at the same time being peaceful does not mean we are being best buddies with Hitler and Jefferson Davis.
People lie about abortion and what it is. We are doing it somewhat right in this way - we are changing people's minds, exposing wickedness to the public mind, and changing hearts and minds through stirring up public outrage which will eventually pass into laws and moral reforms. What I have described is one good way among many nonviolent ways to handle the situation while we are living in a free, peaceful society.
Just my two cents.
I would like to say a few things, but I'm under a lot of time pressure right now, so you will be partially spared that word count. Here is what I can type (or copy and paste) in the time that I have:
- It seems to me that similarly to the way you can argue, "Scott Roeder . . . may have intended to do good, but he was absolutely wrong," I could argue, "The US has an impressive-seeming constitution and yes, it is theoretically possible to change unjust laws, but all the workings of power and money, and the molding of public opinion -- the 'manufacture of consent' -- are a much deeper subject, and those glittery democratic institutions are of little comfort to the babies."
- Under the earlier blog post you have linked to, I had commented --
As long as America is not [led] by a despot who changes our entire system of government, there are other ways to save lives and end abortion without using violence or other illegal or fear-inducing tactics like kidnapping. And that matters. If we can end abortion by non-violent means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means."Thanks for your post.
"If many unborn lives could be saved without violence by the pro-life American states seceding from the Union, shouldn't they do that?"
-- and Josh Brahm had replied -- Interesting question. I would need to be convinced that the pro-life states seceding would actually save more lives. It seems to me that it would have been easier to end slavery without the Southern states seceding. That's partially why they seceded. I think it would be easier to abolish abortion without seceding, but I'm open to a good argument
-- and I had offered what seemed to me to be a good argument --
"I don't think of secession first and foremost in terms of lives saved in the short term. I think of it first and foremost in terms of moral integrity. If Kansans, for example, are pro-life and would be free to live, if they wished, under laws that protect unborn life, and opted not to do so, how much of their moral integrity on that issue would they preserve, and what message would they send to others?"
I might also have raised a question about the "without the Southern states seceding" analogy, since at that time it was the states with the institution we consider wrong (slavery) that seceded, whereas I was not proposing that in the present the states with the institution we consider wrong (abortion) should secede.
Anyway, I would still love a response about moral integrity.
I think better arguments for not killing abortionists might be these:
So I think the point about political structure and pragmatism basically go hand-in-hand.
My point killing abortionists backfires (my point about pragmatism)
-- and --
my point any kind of political structure may possibly produce a horrible outcome that will justify drastic actions (my point about political structure)
-- basically go hand-in-hand.
Is that what you're saying?
If we were in a world where a regime has closed down all avenues of peaceful reform, then there is no alternative but to be violent. Pragmatism.
I would agree that the formal structure has not closed down all avenues of peaceful reform of Roe v. Wade. But is structure the only consideration in regard to possible justification for violent reform? No structure is infallible. What if the individuals on the Supreme Court are incorrigible cases and clearly destined to remain that way for another 40 years or more? And then let's imagine that those individuals not only sanction unrestricted abortion, but sanction Auschwitz all over again -- all within the formal structure. It's not impossible. The only thing that might make Auschwitz impossible would be the goodness of the citizenry, not any structure.
Or if I've misunderstood your "closed down all avenues of peaceful reform" and you're referring not only to the formal structure narrowly, but to the whole reigning situation, well, how soon do you see that situation improving?
Please remember that I oppose violent reform, in relation to abortion, for my own reasons, mentioned earlier.
I partly agree with your point about the holocaust being worse but I think in a different way. My concern with your reasons is this from another comment I made to you which you asked me to post here: I would say the abortion is fundamentally as bad as the holocaust. If you're saying it's not because of the intent on the part of the perpetrators then I would ask if the badness of the holocaust really turns on that by imagining a counterfactual where it's true that the eradication of the "undesirables" in the holocaust would lead to a great many goods equal in worth to women's reproductive freedom, and the Nazis intended that. I don't see how that makes a difference.
"a great many goods equal in worth to women's reproductive freedom"
-- makes me think that this clarification may be necessary. When I wrote --
"due to women's bodily autonomy, the case for society's right to intervene forcibly on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is not overwhelming but near the borderline in the first place; so the case for a vigilante's right to intervene violently on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is still less strong"
-- did you understand me to mean --
"the value/worth of women's liberty gained through abortion (enabling them to do this or that with their lives) helps to offset morally the harm done by their killing their unborn children B, C, D, E, F and G"
-- ?
That's not what I meant. I meant more or less:
"Though I advocate unborn child-protection laws, I do not do so without feeling seriously disturbed by the fact that preventing abortion forces a woman to undergo at least some temporary loss of physical well-being, some pain and some risk, all of which her bodily rights, on the one hand, tend to entitle her to avoid. I think that the case for society's right to enact such laws (i.e., prevent abortion and save lives on the other hand) is not overwhelming but near the borderline. Moreover, it would be understandable, at least, if a doctor sympathized with a woman and wanted to perform an abortion. For all these reasons I think people should be much more reluctant to bump off numerous abortionists than they should have been to bump off Hitler. While killing anyone is problematic, in some circumstances it's necessary; I think evil persons doing wrong are more easily expendable than good persons doing wrong."
And then, as I mentioned, there is the fact that under the present situation, killing abortionists backfires as a tactic.
But, as also mentioned, I would NOT be completely, absolutely dissuaded from considering countenancing violence simply by the thought "On paper, the voters of the US (who nobody believes are right all the time in the first place) can elect a president and a Senate who, after waiting enough years for a certain justice or two to die off, can give us a pro-life Supreme Court."
One reason that even that possibility is only "on paper" is that we might find that a pro-life presidential candidate would also be a candidate likely to get us into World War 3 or ignore science in some disastrous way. But that would be another big topic of discussion that I don't propose here.
You have contended that "the intent on the part of the perpetrators" doesn't make a difference;" now I have said, "While killing anyone is problematic, in some circumstances it's necessary; I think evil persons doing wrong are more easily expendable than good persons doing wrong." So maybe you would be right that it doesn't make a difference in some ways, but when we're proposing necessary assassinations, according to my moral intuitions it does make a difference. This is as regards moral principle. Now as to how that principle would be applied in your counterfactual situation, I would say that those Nazis whose motivation was more selfish would have been more easily expendable than those whose motivation was less selfish, whether that relative altruism of some was based on a correct estimation of "a great many goods" or even a sincerely deluded estimation.
[Edit: Not to mention that if "it's true that [performing certain evils] would lead to a great many goods [more goods than evils]," then on a utilitarian or consequentialist view, if I understand those views correctly, we would not even be comparing the degrees of two badnesses, we would be comparing the bad of abortion with the positive good (in your counterfactual) of the Holocaust. You may not be a utilitarian or consequentialist, but do all those goods not make any difference at all to you?]
(Regarding "society's right to intervene . . . is not overwhelming," by the way -- my thinking about bodily rights, as in a blog post of mine that you know about, leads me to depart from some pro-life thinking and to say that in the case of any pregnancy expected to be significantly rougher than a best-case pregnancy, a woman should have a right to abort -- though I would usually think better of her if she did not.)
create a thought-experiment that forces me to bite the bullet and say
that maybe in a circumstance where X, Y and Z are true that it would be
morally permissible to start a civil war over abortion? Perhaps, but
that thought-experiment will by necessity look REALLY different than
America in 2013 does.
If I have understood your preceding argument correctly, you mean "REALLY different" in terms of only one variable -- the degree of despotism. I have understood your premise to be that as long as a society adheres to true democratic principles, it can NEVER produce a situation that would justify vigilante action. Have I misunderstood you?
I think "never" would be too strong a word. Democracy is the sneaking suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half of the time. And even "more than half of the time" is just a sneaking suspicion.
What if, without encouraging violence, the pastor or the blogger had misrepresented their targets as being more unpleasant persons than they really were?
Misrepresentation is sure to be one of the charges that pro-choicers will make against the CMP. I hope that that charge will be baseless. But -- CMP denounced Planned Parenthood as a criminal enterprise
-- suppose PP was not technically criminal -- Violence was a completely unreasonable (not to mention completely evil) response to their messages . . .
You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to PP's being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not make the CMP culpable -- because even if PP is criminal, violence would be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?