justice "justice"

[TWA Dude]

I don't think shouting in a public environment is considered harrassment.

I'm no legal expert, but I do believe it matters exactly what is shouted. Shouts that incite violence or are threatening may be considered harrassing. Given that abortion clinics are in fact receiving death threats on a regular basis makes it reasonable to think that there could be dangerous individuals amongst the legitimate protesters. The bottom line: some amount of protection is warranted.

While I thank you for the observation, I have to tell you that since I spent over two decades as a liberal, I reserve the right to apply my personal and insightful experience in a declarative statement. If I can't identify a liberal fantasy, no one can.

I guess when you were a liberal you gave into fantasies, which might lead one to believe today you're giving into conservative fantasies. I don't give in to either. I reserve the right to my own beliefs regardless of what any politician or clergyman says.

While I cannot imagine the thoughts of others, I know of no one who has expressed an "implicit" support of shooting abortion doctors outside of a small group of wacky people who say that God has gone against scripture and authorized them to encourage this action. For them to suggest this, they must abandon a Biblical view of God, who is always consistent. To the very best of my knowlege, these are not the same individuals who pray outside of clinics.

Then it's too bad that a few rotten apples spoiled it for the rest.

The RICO statute is supposed to be used against a corrupt organization. If a group of protesters is indeed corrupt, according to legal definition, then the authorities must simply round up, charge, and convict the people to whom this applies. The next day, a group of non corrupt protesters will be happy to take their place. You see, you can't make a blanket statement that ALL people who espose a view under the first amendment should be barred from making that expression. The RICO started to come into play as NOW began to pressure liberal judges to apply the statute in a way that was not intended in its passage. NOW wants the statute to be applied in a political manner, which is the definition of oppression. Of course, as liberals, oppression is okay, as long as it is someone else's oppression.

I'm going to repeat myself for emphasis. It's about the safety of the patients and doctors. Abortion clinics and doctors receive threats and it's the job of law enforcement to protect citizens from known threats. Do you honestly believe that if police everywhere just completely abandoned abortion clinics there would be no incidents of law-breaking? I'm not lumping everybody into one group; we agree that it's only a few nuts that are dangerous. The problem is that those nuts often look and act like normal humans. Some judges probably think it's just fine to allow protesters to block easy access to a clinic because they disapprove of what goes on there. Well, that's why there's judges with higher authority to overrule when necessary. And when the public isn't happy then legislation ensues. It's an imperfect system but it's what we have. Mandatory sentencing rules came about because rogue judges weren't playing ball but I think it's obvious that justice isn't always served.

Dude

 

[Timebuilder]

Of course Christianity isn't a religion of violence and neither are any of the others (that I know of).

As mentioned in a previous discussion, there are groups that have called themselves "Christian" that are not, by definition, and they can be violent, such as in the Spanish Inquisition.

Outside of Christianity, there is one very popular religion that is spread by intimidation, and saw its initial popularity under threat of death by the sword. In some places, it is a theocracy that demands total adherance, with no choice. In fact, most often people of other religions are beaten or killed unless they can convince the predominant followers that they are not a "threat".

Any guesses which religious group that might be?

 

[UpNDownGuy]

You're missing the point...

The bill that was passed has nothing to do with ending abortion "rights". It is simply outlawing a particulary vile form of infanticide, which was dreamed up in order to fit within the letter of the current law. It is not an approved, taught, or tested "procedure". It is NEVER, EVER the sole or even the best way to protect a mother's life IN ANY SITUATION. That's ZERO. So the red herring of "protecting the mother's health", and "doctors should be free to decide what's best for their patients" is pure hooey. In testimony before Congress, doctors agreed that this particular "procedure" was very dangerous and harmful to the mother. The protests of abortionists have more to do with fear of undoing Roe V Wade than trying to support this unsupportable practice.

 

[Timebuilder]

I guess when you were a liberal you gave into fantasies, which might lead one to believe today you're giving into conservative fantasies.

I suppose that would be true, if all I had done was change from one group to the other.

For me, it was a spiritual and political renaissance that was like a light being turned on in a dark dungeon. It was a change from the idea that people are inherently incapable from true self-government, and required the leadership of a better, smarter, more elite "ruling class" for guidance, to the idea that the genius of the founders and the foundation of the constitution, irrevocably based on a belief in the blessings of God and the basic goodness of His people, made our form of government, by the people and for the people, the best form of government on earth. Rules which restrain speech, for example, even if it makes others "uncomfortable", should not go unchallenged. Intead of fantasies of the whole world holding hands singing "Kum Bay Ya", I am now keenly aware of the complex problems that face our nation and our people.

Maybe you didn't take all of that other information into account when you supposed that I would be continually gripped by fantasies, simply because I once was so influenced.

Given that abortion clinics are in fact receiving death threats on a regular basis makes it reasonable to think that there could be dangerous individuals amongst the legitimate protesters.

According to our laws, if such a threatening person can be identifed, that person should be taken into custody. Otherwise, there is no correlation between peaceful protesters and those who make threats. The law requires that we carefully make that distiction.

Do you honestly believe that if police everywhere just completely abandoned abortion clinics there would be no incidents of law-breaking?

I have not seen police outside of a clinic since 1984. Your experience may be different, void where prohibited by law, not all applicants will be eligible for this low rate.

 

[siucavflight]

Everyone here seems to be arguing here about who is right, republicans, democrats, conservaties, liberals.
Have any of you here ever watched a partial birth abortion?
I have and let me tell you, the baby's head comes out, the one that i saw the baby was crying, then the doctor took a clamp and crushed the babys head, and you could actually hear the bones in the baby's head break.
Who cares about what political party you belong to, all that this legislation did was to ban such a horrible operation. One in which is known as murder.

I rread an article of a man who shot a pregnant woman in the stomach and killed her baby, he was charged with murder. The mother survived. Can someone please tell me how it was murder in that case?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Siucavflight,

Are you married? Do you have children?

I honestly didn't know what a D-and-X was until I looked it up on a couple of medical research websites. It made me sick...more so because the descriptions were written in such dry, clinical language. I felt both of my sons rolling around in my wife's belly before they were born...I know what they're capable of even before birth.

But suppose something went wrong during the pregnancy, and you found out that if your wife carried the fetus to term, the child may live but your wife will die...and because it's so late in the pregnancy, D-and-X is the only safe option for her.

I can imagine few situations more horrifying than this one...I certainly would never want to be confronted with such a decision. But would you really insist that a woman die for the sake of a child that might or might not live?

NOTE: I've reversed myself 180-degrees on abortion since my sons were born. Elective abortion is wrong. Period. However...it's my understanding that this procedure is almost never used in elective abortions. Most of those occur in the first trimester when D-and-X isn't necessary.

(I'm also not totally without experience along these lines: my wife had to have a D-and-C when my first child died at ten weeks gestation due to a hormone deficiency. The worst day of my life...so far.)

 

[Timebuilder]

Just a little note about the Partial Birth Ban: there is still a provision for this procedure when the LIFE of the mother is endangered.

The oppononents of the ban want a clause that says the HEALTH of the mother, but that opens the gate to depression, etc and just as many procedures would be done.

Don't let anyone tell you that there is no out if a pregnancy puts the mother's LIFE in danger. That provision will ALWAYS be legal, even if Roe v Wade is overturned.

 

[Typhoon1244]

By the way...I don't know what you saw, but in D-and-X the head never leaves the uterus. That's why they call it "partial birth." D-and-X is performed when passage of the infant's head through the birth canal will cause damage to the mother. Just pulling the baby out negates the need for the procedure.

So yes, what you saw was murder, not medicine.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

Typhoon, I refer you to my previous post. There is NEVER any reason to perform this particular "procedure". Doesn't exist. It is NEVER a choice of this practice or the mother's life. There are many tested, tried and taught procedures to use in the actual case of a mother's life being at stake. This "procedure" is actually thought by most reputable OB/GYN's to be dangerous and harmful to the mother. It's only purpose is to be able to perform late-term abortions, ELECTIVELY, and still remain within the letter of the current law.

 

[siucavflight]

Typhoon,
No i am not married but i do have one little boy.
What would it matter if the head left the mother or not murder is murder.
I do feel that we do need a provision to allow for an abortion when the mothers life is in danger.
You are right abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. If you are not ready for a child then you should not be having sex.

 

[Typhoon1244]

If you are not ready for a child then you should not be having sex.

Bingo. That's the whole point, exactly.

Unfortunately, telling teenagers to not have sex is like trying to cool a Brasilia in Houston in July with a deferred APU and one pack.

(Hey, I'm trying to get some aviation back in here... )

 

[Timebuilder]

Or, trying to cool a Lear with that "silly-small" compressor driven by an electric motor!!

 

[siucavflight]

i got one,
Trying to cool your foot by sticking it in an oven.

Thank you

 

[TonyC]

Unfortunately, telling teenagers to not have sex is like trying to cool a Brasilia in Houston in July with a deferred APU and one pack.

That's why you don't wait 'til they're teenagers to start teaching them right from wrong.

 

[TonyC]

Murder vs. Medicine?

So yes, what you saw was murder, not medicine.

Let me see if I've got this straight.

When the head of the child/baby/fetus/mass of tissue delivers first, and a cry is heard, and a breath is taken, and the eyes look about at the onlooking medical "professionals" and the head is crushed until the heart stops beating in the child/baby/fetus/mass of tissue, that is, by your estimation, murder.

But if the feet and torso deliver first so that the cry cannot be heard, the breath cannot be taken, and the eyes cannot see, then the forceful thrust of the metal tube through the back of the neck up into the skull that delivers a suction that vacuums the contents of the skull out, so that it can be crushed and subsequently delivered, that stops the beating of the same heart of the same child/baby/fetus/mass of tissue - - that's MEDICINE?

Give me a break.

I don't think feet first or head first makes an iota of difference.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Murder vs. Medicine?

...that's MEDICINE?

Yep. "Dialation and Extraction." D-and-X. It's a medical procedure. Period.

I don't like it...not at all. And believe it or not, Tony, it wasn't my idea.

I've already told you I believe elective abortion is wrong. What more do you want?

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Murder vs. Medicine?

Yep. "Dialation and Extraction." D-and-X. It's a medical procedure. Period.

I don't like it...not at all. And believe it or not, Tony, it wasn't my idea.

I've already told you I believe elective abortion is wrong. What more do you want?

OK, OK. Don't get all defensive. I wasn't attacking you. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the words.

What more do I want? Well, I didn't really want anything else, but since you asked....

You used a qualifier when you stated you think abortion is wrong. You said ELECTIVE abortion is wrong. Why do you think ELECTIVE abortion is wrong? A couple can ELECT to abstain from sex, and thereby prevent a pregnancy. A couple can ELECT to use contraceptives, and thereby reduce the chance of pregnancy. A couple can ELECT to have an abortion, and thereby terminate a pregnancy. Is it the election that's wrong, or the abortion?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Re: Re: Murder vs. Medicine?

Is it the election that's wrong, or the abortion?

The election is wrong. If someone wants an abortion because they've decided they just don't want the baby, then they're wrong. They need to be responsible and find another answer.

If the fetus is injured and will not survive the pregnancy or delivery, or if the mother will be injured or killed by a continued pregnancy...what would you do, Tony? Tell the mother "tough luck, sweetheart?"

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Murder vs. Medicine?

The election is wrong. If someone wants an abortion because they've decided they just don't want the baby, then they're wrong. They need to be responsible and find another answer.

I'm trying to aim my question very carefully, and I believe you might be missing my point. Election of abstention or election of contraceptives is deemed perfectly legitimate (well, at least in most circles - - the latter is not among Catholics). Why then, is election of abortion wrong? What makes abortion, in this circumstance (election), wrong? In your mind? I'm just curious.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Murder vs. Medicine?

Election of abstention or election of contraceptives is deemed perfectly legitimate (well, at least in most circles - - the latter is not among Catholics). Why then, is election of abortion wrong? What makes abortion, in this circumstance (election), wrong? In your mind? I'm just curious.

In my mind, it comes down to this: elective abortion ends a life (proto-life?) for selfish reasons.

Aborting a fetus that is going to suffer or die is humane.

Aborting a fetus that is going to injur or kill its mother...in my mind, it is a gray area. But must we tell these women that they have to suffer and/or die because W. accepted Christ as his savior?