There is no moral equivalency between objective good and objective evil. Planned Barrenhood is an organization dedicated to the killing of innocent pre-born human beings. The pro-lifers are individually and collectively dedicated to the preservation and protection of innocent pre-born human beings. That IS the point here.
The government of Canada, acting through its lawless secular humanist judges such as the dishonorable S. Ford Clements, is the muscle enforcing the murder of innocent pre-born human beings. That Clements engages in such despicable behavior "under color of law" (read: using what he THINKS is the law as his flimsy excuse for being morally complicit in such murders) does not insulate him from being called to moral account for that complicity.
That Mary Wagner and others like her are quite obviously his moral superiors by an infinite margin is not changed by the fact that he is clothed with apparent "authority" to exercise his muscle with total disregard for the truth of his eager participation in Canada's and modern society's shameful holocaust of the pre-born innocents is manifestly beyond rational argument. The judgments rendered by the Allies at Nuremberg after World War II against the Nazi war criminals (including Nazi abortionists for perpetrating abortions) make clear that a nation's laws coupled with "I was only following orders" do not exonerate those who killed or facilitated the killing of the innocent (born or pre-born) obviously ought to have known or did know better. Nuremberg established an unassailable natural law basis for bringing such criminals as Nazis and abortionists to justice when rule by the grown-ups is restored (the sooner the better).
No innocent, much less defenseless pre-born innocents, is threatened with death by peaceful worshiping congregations. Nor, frankly, is any innocent directly threatened by a Planned Barrenhood apologist for the holocaust of the innocent pre-born (largely for the personal convenience of the born patient and the profit of the perpetrator) entering a Church to distribute literature. After an initial response from the congregation and its pastor praising God for delivering to the congregation and its pastor a very serious Planned Barrenhood murder-enabling sinner to be loved and persuaded and converted once the Mass or church service is concluded (God did not lay the foundation for churches just to gather the holy or the forgiven or the non-sinners, assuming there are any non-sinners), the trespasser might be held in a time-out room since the congregation and its pastor (engaged in moral activity) are entitled to priority in the use of their real estate in good behavior.
Ahhh, but trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, should the pro-lifer not be held to the same standard when entering the killing facilities of Planned Barrenhood and therefore be subject to a citizen's imprisonment? Well, obviously not, as you shall see.
If one is my neighbor and owns his/her own house and land and, for whatever reason, despises me (maybe I make pro-life arguments in the neighbor's pro-abortion presence), and orders me never, under any circumstance, to enter that house or land or both, generally speaking a part of that bundle of rights that are collectively the right to own real property whether an abortion mill or a church or a home or a factory or whatever is the right to exclude from that real property any person(s) one may choose to exclude.
Now suppose that the neighbor really hates religion and a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon or a Catholic or an Evangelical has come to the neighbor's door to share the good news of his/her faith with the neighbor. Suppose further that, instead of a polite: "Thanks, but no thanks" or a steamy and emphatic: "Get off my property and never come back," the neighbor grabs the visitor and drags him/her into the house and, taking out a firearm, berates the visitor and threatens to imminently kill the visitor who has, in no way, initiate the use of force against the neighbor. I am morally entitled and legally entitled to enter the neighbor's premises and, using whatever force is reasonably necessary, to prevent injury or death of that visitor. The legal doctrine is called "vicarious self-defense" or "defense of another." If a threat by the neighbor was unwarranted and the visitor who was threatened, if able, was justified in exercising self-defense, then another person is legally entitled to engage in defense of the visitor as forcibly as necessary to thwart the threat. Vicarious self-defense applies.
My intervention is also justified by the legal defense of "necessity." The imminent threat of harm to that visitor is deemed by law to be a more serious evil than any occasioned by my technical trespass on the property (as surely you would agree if you were an innocent and unsuspecting visitor to my neighbor's property having religious conversion of my neighbor in mind). The neighbor (in good behavior) is entitled to send you away in protection of his property rights but is not entitled to threaten your life or safety imminently.
Another application: My wife is eight month's pregnant and appears unexpectedly) to have gone into labor a month early and her contractions are strong and frequent. There is no time to call an ambulance. Delivery is imminent. We get in our car and I speed (carefully) when driving her to the hospital and I disregard the police officer trying to pull me over. I peacefully submit to the officer when we reach the hospital and my wife is being received by the medical personnel. The speeding was necessary (within reason) to prevent a worse damage (to the health and welfare of my wife and child) than the damage that the speed limit statute was designed to prevent. Necessity applies.
If anyone gets their panties in a bunch over my references to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and cites the idiotic "Godwin's Law" that the first person to mention the Nazis loses the argument being made, my response is: Get over it. Nazism was not a unique evil in all of human history. We just (understandably) act as though it was. Abortion is not only a direct analogy to aspects of the Nazi Holocaust, but as the published research of a history professor (John Hunt) at St. Joseph's College at West Hartford, CT, has shown, several defendants at Nuremberg were prosecuted and convicted solely for perpetrating abortions.
see #69. God bless.
Dang sure ain't gonna get that from me. Thanks for the ping BlackElk.
Bringing up the Nazis when there are innocent people (born or pre-born) being killed is completely legitimate. Bringing up the Nazis or the Taliban because someone thinks fornication, pornography, or public nudity is wrong and should be discouraged is a violation of Campion’s Law.
When Mormons come to my door, I let my sons talk to them about Boy Scouting, when we have time. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are neighbors and know I’ll be friendly and take their literature (which I sometimes read - forgiveness, sensible child rearing, and family togetherness are universal), so they can count me for their quota, and also my dog likes them.
Land of our forefathers,
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As is thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross
Thy history is an epic
Of the most brilliant exploits.
Thy valour steeped in faith ...
A society that will not defend the unborn ... soon, they will not defend themselves ... and will surrender and sue for peace when militarily invaded. The people feel guilty when fighting in defense of their homeland and soon stand down.
The abortion rate in Yugoslavia was the highest in Europe and plunged to almost zero ... as they blew up their country.
But since the law doesn't recognize the unborn baby as a person, it seemingly follows that legally there is no "another" to defend and so those defenses don't apply. (Please understand that I'm addressing only the legal issue - morally and ethically, the unborn baby IS a human person, abortion IS wrong and OUGHT to be stopped, and it is morally and ethically praiseworthy to practice civil disobedience in defense of unborn persons.)