When Dr. David Gunn was shot last month outside the abortion clinic where he worked, pro-choice forces treated the ideologically motivated killing as spectacular proof of the dangerousness of the pro-life movement.

In Florida, where Gunn practiced, the state legislature deliberated about and finally failed to pass a bill that would have made most anti-abortion demonstrations outside clinincs into acts of criminal trespass. Though this proposal was portrayed as a response to the assassination, the bill was actually filed before the tragedy occurred.

As the tensions increase, the perception of pro-life demonstrators grows into that of dangerous fanatics who threaten others' civil rights, making the rational discussion of abortion even harder, and motivating some to consider violating protesters' rights of free assembly.

Judging pro-life activism by the actions of its most violent adherents is about as justified as judging Christianity by David Koresh. Even Randall Terry, head of the controversial Operation Rescue organization, was not condoning Gunn's assassin so much as pointing out a perceived hypocrisy when he noted that those who were outraged at Gunn's murder had condoned the murder of the fetuses he aborted.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that pro-life protesters outside clinics do try to prevent independent adults from doing as they please with their bodies, in the name of a constituency (the unborn) who are not universally recognized as possessing rights or deserving defense. Moreover, the protesters envision their actions as a life-and-death matter. This situation superficially suggests that fanatical violence and disrespect for the rights of doctors and women are always implicit in pro-life activism.

In order to underscore this point, pro-choice advocates often discuss demonstrations outside clinics as if the main issue were the women's access to a medical treatment or a constitutionally protected activity, denying validity to the pro-life position in the same way that defenders of slavery might have pointed to constitutional support for property rights. Pro-choice unwillingness to consider the possibility of the fetus' personhood is a blind spot that prevents comprehension of the moral urgency motivating outspoken pro-life demonstrators.

If you are pro-choice, consider for a moment what it would be like to believe that abortion was the taking of a human life. Wouldn't you feel a moral responsibility to go to the site of this crime, not merely to protest against it from a safe distance (as the Florida bill would have required) but to attempt to contact the women and to tell them of other options? This objective is especially important in light of the fact that women frequently choose abortion because they feel pressured by friends, family, society and economic conditions into believing this is the best way to be rid of the problem.

Contrary to the media's portrait of pro-life activists, many (though not all) of them are not motivated by hatred for women, nor is violence their aim. In fact, a commitment to non-violence is often the starting point for opposition to abortion. Instead of criminalizing or demonizing the pro-life position, one should endeavor to understand how these moral principles would make someone feel duty-bound to protect both mother and fetus by preventing the former from aborting the latter.

Pro-choice advocates who insist on the difference between supporting choice and promoting abortion might find it especially advisable to respect pro-life activism. What does the pro-choice movement have to fear from people offering women other options? The legitimacy of the pro-choice cause can only be helped by taking the stance that abortion should be a last resort instead of a form of birth control or lifestyle maintenance. In the struggle to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," the rhetoric used to justify the first two objectives tends to trivialize the moral reasons for the third, creating the impression that "pro-choice" means "pro-abortion."

There is no excuse for legislators, the press or the public to treat pro-life demonstrations differently from other types of non-violent political and social justice movements. If a demonstration becomes violent or disturbs the peace, police action would be taken anyhow: the Constitution only guarantees the right "to peaceably assemble."

Otherwise, pro-life demonstrators outside an abortion clinic should not be condemned as violators of a woman's right to privacy, even when they approach her with information on adoption and support for pregnant women. This is no different from what Planned Parenthood workers do when they give out pamphlets on abortion. It is no more intrusive to have a perfect stranger tell you how to have your baby adopted than to be told about how to have it aborted.

Rather than being stigmatized as intrusive and oppressive moralists, pro-life activists should be respected for their recognition of the fact that abortion is not just a private matter between a woman and her doctor, but a social issue involving the society that required the death of her fetus as the price of her survival, the culture that made her think this was the only option, and the sanctity of life.