Reviving my blog to talk about Tiller

I've been reading a lot of news articles and blogs about the Tiller murder. The chatter in certain circles reveals the difficulties the pro-life side has in getting its "we condemn this" message to stick. Apparently, few believe that the vast majority of pro-lifers really do condemn it. I get the idea that there's a widespread belief that the pro-life stance is inherently hypocritical and/or that the view of abortion as murder justifies, in the pro-life mind, the murder of abortionists (that it makes twisted sense because the pro-life argument and community are systemically twisted.) Lots of somebodies out there are spending a lot of words and thoughts reflecting on whether that lone act of murder strengthens or weakens the pro-life case. (Which, to my mind, says a lot about the writers--that they are keyed in on power and influence and "who wins" more than they are on literal life and death, but that's another topic.) But what about the pro-abortion side? What strengths and weaknesses does the Tiller episode reveal there?

What I haven't seen much discussion of is the utter and complete illogic of the pro-abortion condemnation of the murder. Upon what basis do they claim it a "heinous" act? The same logic which allows abortion, when left to run its full course, finds no road-block at "shooting in cold blood someone who is doing something you think is bad." If the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is "between a woman and her conscience" then the decision to terminate or continue an enemy's life is also a matter of private personal conscience. The logic of abortion as a private matter admits no impedance from phrases such as "unless it harms someone else." Where, then, is that phrase introduced into the pro-abortion lexicon? Is it not hypocritical to refuse limitations to privacy in one instance but to uncritically assume them in another? (And then to sniff at pro-lifers as if they are the ones who don't "get it" that consistency makes or breaks the argument.) To be consistent, the pro-abortion side should be saying, "It was a private personal matter between the gunman and his conscience; we cannot impose our sense of morality or our religious convictions on him or limit his freedom to act in accordance with the dictates of his conscience." Since that's not what they are saying, I'd like to know where in the flow of logic the new ideas of "harm" and "protection of the rights of others" entered. And how they justify considerations that previously were anathema.