Are Christian prolifers hypocritical for not resorting to violent resistance? I’ve already approached that question from more than one angle. Now let’s consider yet another angle.
Take the case of Paul Hill. Hill was a defrocked Presbyterian minister who was later convicted and executed for the murder of an abortionist.
What were the consequences of his actions? Well, one consequence is that he left behind a widow and three young kids.
As a husband and father, Hill had prior obligations. Obligations to his dependents. By committing a capital offense, he was unable to discharge his prior obligations. He’s morally equivalent to a married man who walks out on his wife and kids. Even apart from the question of murder, desertion is a sin. A very serious sin. Hill was shirking his domestic responsibilities.
Some things are morally permissible–all things considered–which are morally impermissible–all things being equal. A single man or woman doesn’t have all the same responsibilities as a spouse, parent, and breadwinner.
However, even single men or women have prior obligations. For example, grown children have a duty to care for elderly parents who are too enfeebled to care for themselves. If a single man commits a capital offense, then he’s no longer in a position to discharge his filial duties. That’s in addition to the moral status of the capital offense, in and of itself.
(The same would also hold true for a life sentence. You can’t provide for your dependants when you’re behind bars.)