PERSPECTIVErnMind Your Own Businessrnby Thomas FlemingrnThe murder of abortionist David Gunn in March of thisrnyear ought to sharpen the focus of the national debate onrnabortion, although partisans on both sides may be slow in gettingrnthe point. The New York Times, in a ponderous exercise ofrnsoft journalism, portrayed the event as a study in character contrasts.rnMichael Griffin, who according to police confessed tornthe crime, is a “loner with a bad temper.” A Pentacostalist whornjoined an extremist abortion protest group. Griffin was havingrnmarital troubles. In other words, he is the sort of dispossessedrnmisfit that characterizes right-wing protest movements.rnDr. Gunn, on the other hand, is described by friends and relativesrnas a gentle and compassionate man who loved children.rnA member of the Church of Christ—a sect opposed to abortionrn—Gunn gave up his private practice and devoted himselfrnfull-time to terminating the lives of unborn children. One proabortionrnactivist described him as a “laid-back 60’s kind of guy”rnwho was “thrilled that Clinton had been elected.” But if Mr.rnGriffin was having trouble holding his marriage together, Gunnrnhad already been through two marriages and was “seeing” arnpractical nurse who plies the same grisly trade. The family thatrnslays together .. .rnThis is a study in contrasts but not of the type the limesrnimagines. Griffin, if we can believe the newspapers, is a passionaternman on the edge, a man of limited understanding whornwanted to do what was right. Gunn, on the other hand, was thernclassic 60’s refugee: a hypocrite who said he was proud of hisrnwork but never told his parents anything about it. Although hisrnfriends spoke of the sacrifices and efforts Gunn had madernfor the cause, the truth may be simpler. For an unambitiousrnphysician, it is easier to make a living by taking lives than by savingrnthem. Of course the money is usually less than in privaternpractice, but so is the responsibility. Real doctors usually havernto worry about losing patients, but for the abortionist, that isrnthe whole point.rnFrom the Christian perspective, from the perspective of therndoctor’s own church, David Gunn was a killer who deserved torndie long ago. From the same perspective, Michael Griffinrnshould be executed for committing a first-degree murder withoutrna scintilla of justification for his crime.rnBut if Dr. Gunn deser’ed to die, why was it wrong to killrnhim? That question, I fear, is secretly being asked by many activistsrnin the life movement. After all, some of them have beenrnregularly engaging in noisy protests, blocking entrances to privaternbusinesses, storming abortion facilities to destroy equipment.rnIn previous discussions of abortion, I warned the extremistsrnthat crimes against property would lead to crimesrnagainst life itself, and although David Gunn may be the firstrnabortionist to be murdered by a pro-life activist, he is only onernof man}^ to hac received death threats.rnChristian activists who engage in acts of civil disobediencernthink they can draw a sharp line between crimes against propertyrnand crimes against persons, between destruction of thingsrnand destruction of life. Some of them are even against therndeath penalty, a position that is entirely at odds with bothrnScripture and tradition. There is no seamless garment, asrnsome Catholics like to pretend, that can be fitted upon inno-rn14/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn