Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I have no words...
- Thread starter Pthalo BlueMoon
- Start date
Peter Octavian
New member
OK...so the article says that the Supreme Court issued this ruling, but gives no details of....well...the details of the ruling.
The threat is a little ambivalent, and considering the source of this press release, smacks a bit of an "agenda".
Don't get me wrong, I think that any nutjob who lays down in the middle of a driveway at a women's health clinic deserves to be roadkill, but c'mon. If you're saying there's a verifiable threat here, lets have the specifics, and not just the vagaries of "could add increasing difficulty....".
The threat is a little ambivalent, and considering the source of this press release, smacks a bit of an "agenda".
Don't get me wrong, I think that any nutjob who lays down in the middle of a driveway at a women's health clinic deserves to be roadkill, but c'mon. If you're saying there's a verifiable threat here, lets have the specifics, and not just the vagaries of "could add increasing difficulty....".
Shatna
SOINT PLUT!
"Increasing difficulty" means I think that simply entering a clinic can be a nightmare for some women, especially the young and fearful. Anti-abortion protestors like to surround patients on their way in, calling them names, shoving dead baby photos in their faces, harrassing them with religious condemnations, and all kinds of other fun stuff. Add to that the threats from people like Randall Terry, who isn't kidding around. Not a big deal I guess, unless you're the one enduring it.
Peter Octavian
New member
I get that.
I'm from a small, very Catholic town, and when the clinic opened, there were daily protests, all of them exactly like, or worse than you described.
It's wrong. I don't contest that at all.
Here's my thing: There is an ambiguous threat mentioned in the article, giving no specificity to exactly what this decision is going to do to exacerbate the problem.
Before I go chicken little, I want a little more detail than, "could make it more difficult".
I'm from a small, very Catholic town, and when the clinic opened, there were daily protests, all of them exactly like, or worse than you described.
It's wrong. I don't contest that at all.
Here's my thing: There is an ambiguous threat mentioned in the article, giving no specificity to exactly what this decision is going to do to exacerbate the problem.
Before I go chicken little, I want a little more detail than, "could make it more difficult".
Shatna
SOINT PLUT!
I assume the threat is this: "Joseph Scheidler, Randall Terry and other leaders of the self-described "pro-life mafia" had vowed to stop abortion "by any means necessary," and the ensuing attacks included arson, bombings, violent blockades, death threats and even murder."
I suppose feeling like the Supreme Court is on your side is one way to embolden your righteous efforts!
I suppose feeling like the Supreme Court is on your side is one way to embolden your righteous efforts!
Big Dick McGee
If you don't know, now ya know
^^Agreed, I'd like more info. Seems to me that the Justices ruled by strictly interpreting the law. "Technicalities" exist to fix problems that exist in laws.
I also think Randall Terry is a whack-job that needs to be locked up. He gives all pro-life people a bad name, as NOW and the bleeding heart liberals seize upon him as an example of the "average" pro-lifer. :roll: Bottom line, if you are pro-life, you should value all humal life, even the lives of murdering doctors and women. It's not your job to judge them, it's God's.
I also think Randall Terry is a whack-job that needs to be locked up. He gives all pro-life people a bad name, as NOW and the bleeding heart liberals seize upon him as an example of the "average" pro-lifer. :roll: Bottom line, if you are pro-life, you should value all humal life, even the lives of murdering doctors and women. It's not your job to judge them, it's God's.
Peter Octavian
New member
^^That's the real issue though.
We don't know that the ruling is really what the implied threat makes it out to be.
With a volatile issue like this one, with both sides so vehemently, at times even irrationally opposed, there's lots of chest beating and teeth baring. One side boasts victory, the other cries foul with righteous indignation.
What were the specifics of the ruling?
NOW heralds the event with gloom and doom, the "pro-life mafia" celebrates it as a decisive victory for the cause. Generally, the truth is some where in between, and I'd kind of like to hear what the Joe Friday version of it is before we start changing the policy alert color.
We don't know that the ruling is really what the implied threat makes it out to be.
With a volatile issue like this one, with both sides so vehemently, at times even irrationally opposed, there's lots of chest beating and teeth baring. One side boasts victory, the other cries foul with righteous indignation.
What were the specifics of the ruling?
NOW heralds the event with gloom and doom, the "pro-life mafia" celebrates it as a decisive victory for the cause. Generally, the truth is some where in between, and I'd kind of like to hear what the Joe Friday version of it is before we start changing the policy alert color.
Laker_Girl
Mrs. Big Dick McGee
Shatna said:
And that is why God made fifty-five bajillion types of birth control, abortion not being one of them.
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
Exactly which ones did God make?Laker_Girl said:
Laker_Girl
Mrs. Big Dick McGee
Eggs, when I'm in New York next time, we should get together for drinks...You don't get me and it's a shame because you'd love me...But I curse a lot.
WordInterrupted
Troll Kingdom Ambassador
The court ruled that violent abortion protesters couldn't be charged under federal racketeering law. Racketeering law only covers violence connected to extortion and robbery, and abortion protesters are neither extortionists nor robbers. The law is very clear-cut; I don't think the court could have ruled any other way. Besides, it isn't necessary to charge them under racketeering law anymore. There are now laws that establish specific penalties for violence at abortion clinics.
Peter Octavian
New member
Well, I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with that. Leaving that provision on the books is a sure way to appeals and reversals. Anyone who commits violence of this nature, whether it's pro-life wackos, or animal-rights wackos should be subjected to the full penalty of the law.
What's more, the police should zealously, and even-handedly enforce the existing laws, once again, with no respect to who's committing the violence, or what the target may be.
What's more, the police should zealously, and even-handedly enforce the existing laws, once again, with no respect to who's committing the violence, or what the target may be.
WordInterrupted
Troll Kingdom Ambassador
Animal rights wackos have committed theft and property damage, but I don't think they've ever committed violence.
Peter Octavian
New member
I would lump "assault" in with "violence", and they've done plenty of those.
WordInterrupted
Troll Kingdom Ambassador
I only mention it because the proper response to eco-terrorist groups is a current policy debate. The Justice Department recently labled eco-terrorism as the number one domestic terror threat. You may be right that there are individual instances of assault, but none of the crimes attributed to eco-terrorist groups have involved physical injury of any kind. It's absurd to label them as the number one domestic terror threat when there are groups that, you know, kill people. Of course, Bush can't label the people who kill abortion doctors as the number one terrorist threat because that wouldn't sit well with his radical base.
Peter Octavian
New member
No, but Dr. Jerry Vlasik and Dr. Stephen Best (two high profile animal rights wackjobs) have advocated violence against people, if necessary. Ingrid Newkirk (founder and director of PETA) has taken a "look the other way" stance in regard to violence involving people or property.
Given the methods of "eco-terrorists" and militant animal rights activists, It's a miracle that no one's died to date.
And as to your claim about Bush going soft on naming people who kill abortion doctors as the number one terrorist threat...that's a joke. The sheer volume of violence perpetrated by eco-terrorists, and the real risk of harm not only to property but to humans who live and work at the places(not to mention the millions of dollars in medical research which had been lost) which they bomb makes them the clear leader for the title of No. 1 Homegrown Terrorist organization.
To say that the small lunatic fringe that has actually carried out the handful of abortionist murders which have occurred is as big a threat as people who, for instance, blow up collegiate and corporate medical labs is hyperbole.
Given the methods of "eco-terrorists" and militant animal rights activists, It's a miracle that no one's died to date.
And as to your claim about Bush going soft on naming people who kill abortion doctors as the number one terrorist threat...that's a joke. The sheer volume of violence perpetrated by eco-terrorists, and the real risk of harm not only to property but to humans who live and work at the places(not to mention the millions of dollars in medical research which had been lost) which they bomb makes them the clear leader for the title of No. 1 Homegrown Terrorist organization.
To say that the small lunatic fringe that has actually carried out the handful of abortionist murders which have occurred is as big a threat as people who, for instance, blow up collegiate and corporate medical labs is hyperbole.
WordInterrupted
Troll Kingdom Ambassador
Call me crazy, but I think loss of human life is much more serious than property damage. When eco-terrorists blow up a federal building or assasinate someone, it might be reasonable to label them the number one threat, but until then property damage is nowhere near as serious as the kind of violence we've seen from other groups.
Peter Octavian
New member
I'm not mitigating murder carried out in the name of the pro-life cause (to see the irony and hypocrisy of the movement, you need look no further than the previous sentence). However, as evil as the murder of abortion doctors is, if there's to be condemnation of violence in the name of "life" (or protection of life), it's silly to quibble over specifics. Arguably, that eco-animal rights wackos destroy medical research facilities which are engaged in research which will ease human suffering, or save human life, is every bit as egregious. (It is a fundamental claim of the animal rights movement that testing on animals has not, and will not, yield any data or advancement which can be applied to human beings....a claim which has been proven false again and again).
While the animal-rights movement has not tallied up a bodycount, the extremity of their actions falls squarely in the "it's only a matter of time" catagory. No matter how careful a bomber is, planting enough explosives to destroy a building is a risk not only to property, but to human life as well. (There's no guarantee that there will be no human collateral, such as people living or working in a dormitory or office building adjacent to the intended target.)
If it's all about the business of threat assessment when it comes to violence in the name of some "movement", then throwing a verifiably well-funded group with a histroy of high-volume mayhem and an on-the-books disregard for human life and well-being at the top of the pile should be no big deal.
That being said, if the pro-life movement has earned, or is earning, increased scrutiny because of their means, then it's a duty for our legal system to keep it in check, and hold it accountable for it's actions without flinching.
While the animal-rights movement has not tallied up a bodycount, the extremity of their actions falls squarely in the "it's only a matter of time" catagory. No matter how careful a bomber is, planting enough explosives to destroy a building is a risk not only to property, but to human life as well. (There's no guarantee that there will be no human collateral, such as people living or working in a dormitory or office building adjacent to the intended target.)
If it's all about the business of threat assessment when it comes to violence in the name of some "movement", then throwing a verifiably well-funded group with a histroy of high-volume mayhem and an on-the-books disregard for human life and well-being at the top of the pile should be no big deal.
That being said, if the pro-life movement has earned, or is earning, increased scrutiny because of their means, then it's a duty for our legal system to keep it in check, and hold it accountable for it's actions without flinching.