"Abortion Doctor" Murdered

[A Christian Sceptic]

Does anyone else see a pattern amongst people who have to reasonable arguments to support their positions? It seems to me that such people start to debate the semantics of words of which they would know the definition of in any other situation. In this thread, "violence", has become the "ambiguous word" that someone doesn't understand. In another thread, "torture", is hard to define. Hmmmm. I guess if one cannot have a discussion using reasonable assertions and arguments, one must try to win by being obtuse, eh?

Give me your definition of violence then.

I find an odd pattern here of people making statements as fact and then when questioned on them they clam up and don't clarify. Why is that?

 

[sugarb]

He wants someone to post some sort of proof of violence against a Pro-Lifer by a Pro-Choicer. How can someone do that if he doesn't first clarify what he means by violence?




Please stop asking me to please stop when I'm asking someone else a question. You've done that multiple times.

I'd say that unless you can come up with a murder, and a history of attempted murders, and bombings...you're pretty much out of luck trying to compare the violence of pro-choicers and pro-lifers. Face it...the pro-life movement, at the extreme end, is incredibly violent and there is no way to label them other than terrorists. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between the two movements: one wants to preserve the laws, one wants to change them--and an element of THAT movement is willing to use any means they deem necessary (lawful or not) to do so.

Comparing shoves and kicks (which happen in many demonstrations when people get so worked up they can't control themselves any longer--mob mentality, if you will) to planned bombings and assaults is kind of ridiculous. In my opinion, that is.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Gee, that's funny, because I never see those nuts outside clinics with placards that say anything about Plessy v. Ferguson or quotes from the Federalist Papers.

Do most Pro-Lifers protest with placards outside buildings or anywhere?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'd say that unless you can come up with a murder, and a history of attempted murders, and bombings...you're pretty much out of luck trying to compare the violence of pro-choicers and pro-lifers. Face it...the pro-life movement, at the extreme end, is incredibly violent and there is no way to label them other than terrorists. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between the two movements: one wants to preserve the laws, one wants to change them--and an element of THAT movement is willing to use any means they deem necessary (lawful or not) to do so.

Comparing shoves and kicks (which happen in many demonstrations when people get so worked up they can't control themselves any longer--mob mentality, if you will) to planned bombings and assaults is kind of ridiculous. In my opinion, that is.

I'm not comparing anything to anything - but MattusMaximus made a statement and I'm asking for clarification. His point seems to be Pro-Choicers never do violence, Pro-Lifers do. I'd like to know if he means kill or something else by his use of the word violence?

 

[Cleon]

I'm not comparing anything to anything - but MattusMaximus made a statement and I'm asking for clarification. His point seems to be Pro-Choicers never do violence, Pro-Lifers do. I'd like to know if he means kill or something else by his use of the word violence?

It still has no bearing on the topic at hand. Which means...you're derailing. Again.

 

[Robster FCD]

Solution to what? Then I can tell you if I'm serious.

sigh

And why the heck is this abortion issue even a Federal issue? It seems like it should be a state by state, city by city issue. Then you can move to the place that best suits you. You don't believe abortion should be legal move somewhere where it's not - you think only certain abortions should be allowed - then move there, you think all abortions should be allowed move there. Neither side (and all those in between) likes an opposing view being forced upon them.

 

[Lucky]

Pro-choicers are not a monolith. I think there are plenty of pro-choicers who would be comfortable with bans on late-term abortions. I don't know, though. I would also guess there are pro-choicers who would be comfortable with some restrictions (but not bans) on abortion throughout the pregnancy, as long as they don't make it too hard (the legal term is "unduly burden") to get an abortion. I would guess other pro-choicers would oppose any and all restrictions, regulations, etc., on abortion.

I think that would be a most uncommon view - probably only an extreme libertarian would hold it (so might be more common in the US). Most people in the UK are pro-choice, but I don't know anyone who would argue that, for example, a woman should have the unrestricted right to terminate a healthy 35-week fetus because, say, she's just received the offer of a promotion and decided to delay having a baby.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

It still has no bearing on the topic at hand. Which means...you're derailing. Again.

Was MattusMaximus's post on topic? If yes - then my request for his clarification was on topic.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

sigh

Thanks - that helps clear things up alot.

 

[Robster FCD]

So. Is that your opinion? That if you want access to women's reproductive health care, even if you don't know that you want it now, and might find it in the future, you need to move to a state where abortion is legal? I should choose to live where reproductive rights and health care are available, even if that isn't where I have a job?

 

[Nogbad]

What qualifies as violence?

Presumably ganging up on people outside their houses or place of work or harassing family members etc., (No idea if the pro choice people in the US do this or not).

Taking a swing at someone who has come to scream abuse at you outside your door doesn't count imho.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So. Is that your opinion? That if you want access to women's reproductive health care, even if you don't know that you want it now, and might find it in the future, you need to move to a state where abortion is legal? I should choose to live where reproductive rights and health care are available, even if that isn't where I have a job?

I think letting states decide would alleviate some of the stress on the system being caused by the extremes.

 

[sugarb]

I think letting states decide would alleviate some of the stress on the system being caused by the extremes.

How do you come to that? Letting states decide (which I confess to at one time thinking was the best solution myself) means that decisions will be made in part at least based on the resources to handle the influx of extremists who would then be able to launch a more targeted campaign, state by state.

Beyond that, are women different from state to state? Should their rights vary? Are there other medical procedures that you think should be up to each individual state?

 

[Robster FCD]

So you don't have a response to the obvious hardship placed on real people with real problems other than to fall back on "states rights?"

Wealthy people can travel to have quality reproductive health care, but poor people deserve to be forced to have a child if they have the bad luck to live in the wrong state?

 

[BTMO]

So you don't have a response to the obvious hardship placed on real people with real problems other than to fall back on "states rights?"

Wealthy people can travel to have quality reproductive health care, but poor people deserve to be forced to have a child if they have the bad luck to live in the wrong state?

Well, they could just not **** in the first place, or use a rubber johnny...

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

How do you come to that? Letting states decide (which I confess to at one time thinking was the best solution myself) means that decisions will be made in part at least based on the resources to handle the influx of extremists who would then be able to launch a more targeted campaign, state by state.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part.

Beyond that, are women different from state to state? Should their rights vary?

I confess I've never understood why killing (a baby / fetus / potential human / whatever you want to call it) is a right. This thread is probably not the place to educate me on that - we'd probably get accused of derailing this thread.

Are there other medical procedures that you think should be up to each individual state?

Yeah - I think assisted suicide and medical marijuana. I'm sure there are others.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you don't have a response to the obvious hardship placed on real people with real problems other than to fall back on "states rights?"

Wealthy people can travel to have quality reproductive health care, but poor people deserve to be forced to have a child if they have the bad luck to live in the wrong state?

Why do you have so little faith in the people in the various states to make the best choice?

 

[oldhat]

I think letting states decide would alleviate some of the stress on the system being caused by the extremes.

Er, no, there are no "extremes." There's one extreme, the right wing element in this country that thinks firebombing and murder is acceptable and their enablers and apologists in the mainstream media like Bill O'Reilly.

There's no parity here. Stop making things up.

 

[Cleon]

Why do you have so little faith in the people in the various states to make the best choice?

Jim Crow.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Er, no, there are no "extremes." There's one extreme, the right wing element in this country that thinks firebombing and murder is acceptable and their enablers and apologists in the mainstream media like Bill O'Reilly.
There's no parity here. Stop making things up.

Your statement is an example of the other extreme I'm talking about! Check out the beginning of the thread for even more examples.