Which Of These Three Starements Do You Reject? (Abortion Related)

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
Given my recent post about how some people won't examine their thoughts for inconsistencies, I wanted to ressurect a topic I broached before in this explicit way. But please understand that I choose this topic only because it is the best real world example of the syndrome that I can think of.

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

Anyway here are three statements. Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

1. If there are clinics in this country which kill mildly handicapped children brought to them by lazy parents, it is not morally wrong to bomb those clinics, risking injury or death to the killers, even if such bombings are against the law, as long as other remedies don't work and bombings do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I reject this because I think it is wrong to perform "vigilante justice" via a bombing attempt. Even if you can't seem to stop them any other way, as mentioned, you still don't get to play God.
[ QUOTE ]

2. Fetuses are equally human as children in spite of their age, size, and the fact that they are inside of a mother and couldn't survive otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I accept this one, as I believe fetuses and infants and mentally incapacitated adults, all of whom could not survive without assistance, should be allowed to live.
[ QUOTE ]

3. It is morally WRONG to bomb abortion clinics if there is risk of injury or death to the abortionists, even if there is no other remedy that works but bombings do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I accept this one, again due to the idea of vigilante "justice" being wrong.

Not sure why this is being asked, although I assumed it was an attempt to show how those who are anti-abortion are inconsistent (Is that right, Sklansky?) Maybe it would be more appropriate to classify those who choose to bomb abortion clinics as inconsistent? I can't think of any sane person who would bomb a clinic, so it should be no surprise that a nutjob might have some inconsistent reasoning.

All I can surmise from this post is that Sklansky is pointing out that people who bomb abortion clinics are not using consistent reasoning. Anybody find something else? Maybe I am missing the point, please enlighten me if so.