As an atheist, it’s sometimes difficult to find a definition of “evil” that’s coherent. I know quite a number of atheists even reject the term entirely, believing it too mired down in theism.
Not me, although I tend to reserve the term for actions and institutions rather than individuals. “Evil” is a verb, not an adjective.
With that being said: anti-choice protesting is an evil act, and I don’t think I could be convinced otherwise. This is an activity whose sole purpose is to increase the amount of human suffering and misery in the world. An act that preys on the weak and vulnerable in order to feed the self-righteous egos of the people who do it. If that’s not a definition of “evil”, I don’t know what could be.
Whether you’re pro-choice or anti-choice, theistic or not, I honestly don’t see how anyone could condone the sorts of things described in the Shakesville article.1
“Gently, lovingly” my pimply ass.
Abortion clinic escorts are heroes. Particularly given the violence the anti-choice set is known for…
- Well, that’s somewhat dishonest: I can see how someone would condone it, and that “how” hinges of a belief that all the means in this life–no matter the pain and suffering they cause–is justified by ends in another. This is the dark side of Pascal’s Wager, and thankfully it’s not an affliction suffered by even the majority of the theistic. (And before anyone mentions it: I know secularists have something similar, with things like “the common good” being substituted for “the afterlife”.)