Does calling murder by its name incite violence?

In the aftermath of a shooting outside an abortion clinic that killed three people in Colorado, including a pro-life police officer the propaganda from the liberal pundits who support abortion in our society has been geared toward blaming pro-life groups for the shooting. Apparently, calling murder, murder, is the same as implicitly condoning violence against those who carry out the murder.

National pro-life groups have universally condemned the act of the shooter, and have also promoted non-violent action well before this event, but that has not changed the attempts by many to blame those of us who consistently call for the end of violence against human beings for violence against human beings.

This pro-abortion argument is irrational:

This argument by the left is irrational for a few different reasons:

 1. It begs the question on whether abortion is actually murder. 

The pro-life movement has been accused of 'hateful rhetoric' for calling the literally ripping limb from limb of pre-born humans, murder. But, as we should all be willing to acknowledge, it is never hateful rhetoric to call something what it actually is. For instance, if I call the work of the shooter in Colorado murder (and I most certainly do) no one is accusing me of hateful rhetoric against that man, because we all agree that the act he committed was a murderous one. That means that there is only the possibility of hateful rhetoric if the humans that abortionists tear apart and sell the pieces of are not actually people. 

In other words, the pro-abortion left has to assume that killing humans is not murder for it even possibly to be hateful rhetoric to say that killing those humans is murder. This creates a situation where abortionists can claim the benefits of being right about whether their killing is murder without having to actually prove that their killing is not murder. 

2. It assumes that identifying potential murderers is a promotion of violence. 

When the police department posts the photo of a suspect in a murder investigation, do they suddenly endorse the violent action of any citizen who is willing to kill that person? Of course not. If I have knowledge that one person has murdered another, and I draw attention to that fact, am I suddenly encouraging others to commit violence against that person? Of course not. 

Instead, what I'm doing is promoting justice. I am doing my own legal part in seeing that our society is a safer place for as many people as possible. 

3. It holds different standards for different groups of people. 

Sadly, we live in a country where many of the same people who now want to blame peaceful pro-life protestors for violent acts not committed by them were, just a few months ago, condemning a man who killed a lion with just as much fervor as what the pro-life community exudes. Were the people who condemned the killing of this animal implicitly promoting violence against the dentist who shot him? A consistently applied standard by the left would say, yes, they were. This creates a rather uncomfortable situation since so many of the death threats that the hunter experienced came from this same left. I am perfectly content with accepting the fact that many on the left would not support putting forward death threats against this man, but I doubt environmental conservation agencies condemned those death threats with the same consistency and enthusiasm that pro-life ministries have denounced violence against abortionists over the years. 

Conclusion

At the end of the day, which poses a more serious threat to society, those who publicly condemn and call out murderers or those who sit idly by, aware that the murder is taking place, but saying nothing?

The real obstacle to justice for all humanity is presented by those who would vilify people who consistently support peaceful opposition to ripping humans limb from limb while simultaneously giving the very people who commit those acts a pat on the back.