Bomb Scare at OK Abortion Clinic

[bynmdsue]

Turns out the baby-killer is a liar as well.

What to do when yer violent extremist opponents won't attack you.
Fake a BOMB SCARE!

The former director of an Oklahoma abortion clinic has been charged with making false or misleading statements after telling police she'd found a bomb at the facility, according to federal court documents.

Investigators said Linda Meek reported on Aug. 13 that a bomb had been placed in a trash can at Reproductive Services of Tulsa, according to documents filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Tulsa. The clinic, which was bombed twice in 1997, and an adjacent building were evacuated, but a bomb technician determined that a suspicious box in the trash can was not an explosive.

Meek, who left her position with the clinic after the incident, is charged with conveying false or misleading information, according to the documents.

"former director" - Only 'cause she got caught.

http://amarillo.com/oklahoma-news/2010-09-04/ex-leader-abortion-clinic-charged-bomb-scare

 

[johnny karate]

A couple of minor points:

Turns out the baby-killer is a liar as well.

According to the article you linked, Meek was not a "baby-killer" but rather the director of the clinic. See, medical procedures are typically performed by someone called a "doctor". I'm not sure if that's mentioned in the Bible.

What to do when yer violent extremist opponents won't attack you.

From the article you linked:

The clinic, which was bombed twice in 1997...

If this woman is proven guilty of what she is accused, I hope she is punished accordingly. But to pretend she is creating a false impression that "violent extremist opponents" attack the clinic is nonsense.

That impression is created by the violent extremist opponents who actually do attack the clinic.

 

[GreNME]

Well, maybe this happened because it was only an okay clinic and not a really snazzy one.

 

[Puppycow]

It's now illegal to report a suspicious package?

Did she really tell police that she knew it was a bomb?

If she thought it was a bomb, then reporting it to the police was the right thing.

Sounds to me like a legal lynching.

 

[Puppycow]

Here's another story. It's not clear to me why this is considered a crime rather than a simple mistake:

The charge accuses Linda Meek, 63, of reporting that a bomb had been placed in a trash can at the clinic.

Reproductive Services, 6136 E. 32nd Place, and a building next door were evacuated Aug. 13 after Meek made the report. Reports at the time said a employee reported seeing a box in a trash can that she reportedly did not recognize to be trash from the clinic.

A Tulsa Police Department bomb technician examined the package and found no explosive device.

Is it because she described it as a "bomb" instead of "a suspicious package that might contain a bomb"? This clinic has been targeted by bombs before.

 

[Halfcentaur]

As a resident of Oklahoma City, I must insult Tulsa for not being OKC.
I hope this is isn't a lynching. I think she is perfectly justified in fearing the strange package, being what they are and what has ALREADY happened. Shame on the original poster for jumping to conclusions. Biased?

 

[Darat]

Here's another story. It's not clear to me why this is considered a crime rather than a simple mistake:



Is it because she described it as a "bomb" instead of "a suspicious package that might contain a bomb"? This clinic has been targeted by bombs before.

They were my first thoughts, I can imagine in a place which has been the target for bombs in the past that some leeway would be made for someone being a tad over-excited and screaming "It's a bomb!!!!".

 

[Travis]

I'd like to see some evidence that any babies were ever killed in that place since that would constitute infanticide.

Or are people stupidly calling parasitic fetuses "babies" again?

 

[SnakeTongue]

I'd like to see some evidence that any babies were ever killed in that place since that would constitute infanticide.

Or are people stupidly calling parasitic fetuses "babies" again?

Yes.

Proof:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1180606/pg1

 

[Sledge]

Yes.

Proof:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1180606/pg1

Could you single out where someone provides that proof? I'm seeing a lot of whinging about liberals and abortion being murder, but no proof that babies were killed at this clinic.

 

[Cleon]

Could you single out where someone provides that proof? I'm seeing a lot of whinging about liberals and abortion being murder, but no proof that babies were killed at this clinic.

I think the "yes" was in reference to the question, "are people stupidly calling parasitic fetuses 'babies' again?"

 

[Sledge]

Ah, my bad. Serves me right for not concentrating. Also: WAAAH! That link scares me.

 

[KingMerv00]

Turns out the baby-killer is a liar as well.

Babies cannot be legally killed at abortion clinics.

 

[Accidental Martyr]

I'd like to see some evidence that any babies were ever killed in that place since that would constitute infanticide.

Or are people stupidly calling parasitic fetuses "babies" again?

Yes, bynmdsue is.

 

[Mycroft]

Republican state Rep. Mike Ritze, who supports pro-life legislation, said the bomb scare is part of a growing trend among abortion activists to represent opponents as violent and dangerous in order to divert public scrutiny from themselves.

"Either she did it maliciously to harm the opposition or is trying to draw attention away from the abortion industry," said Ritze, a family practice physician in Broken Arrow.

Well it certainly doesn't draw attention away from the "abortion industry". If that's really the goal, I can't think of a worse way of doing it.

And if pro-lifers are really worried about being portrayed as violent and dangerous, there is a pretty simple fix to that. A campaign condemning and repudiating the violent and dangerous among them would do the trick, probably get them more support too.

 

[Puppycow]

They were my first thoughts, I can imagine in a place which has been the target for bombs in the past that some leeway would be made for someone being a tad over-excited and screaming "It's a bomb!!!!".

I did a Google News search, but the media is not doing a good job of shedding any light on what she actually said and what false statements were allegedly made.

One story says that she's "been accused of intentionally providing "false and misleading information" about a package found at the clinic last month." and that "Linda Meek will either be found guilty of the charge, or will be able to provide evidence that exonerates her." The burden of proof is on her now? I hope that's just poor reporting.

Another story says that she's "been charged with one count of willfully making a threat with an explosive device."

Oklahoma is a very pro-life state, and all the news stories I've read so far seem to be hostile and not much interested in digging deeper to find out exactly what the evidence against her is.

 

[uruk]

I'd like to see some evidence that any babies were ever killed in that place since that would constitute infanticide.

Or are people stupidly calling parasitic fetuses "babies" again?

Where is the legal line of demarcation between fetus and baby? Where is the biological line of demarcation between fetus and baby? Where is the philosophical line? Are they all the same? Is it easy to define?

The "baby" is still technically "parasitic" until it's 360th month when it finally gets a job and moves out of it's parent's basement.

 

[KingMerv00]

Where is the legal line of demarcation between fetus and baby? Where is the biological line of demarcation between fetus and baby? Where is the philosophical line? Are they all the same? Is it easy to define?

I'm not sure if you are applying it but:

Loki's Wager fallacy

 

[Aepervius]

Where is the legal line of demarcation between fetus and baby? Where is the biological line of demarcation between fetus and baby? Where is the philosophical line? Are they all the same? Is it easy to define?

The "baby" is still technically "parasitic" until it's 360th month when it finally gets a job and moves out of it's parent's basement.

Legally it has been decided.

biologicaly, assuming it is not a loki's wager as presented above, a case could be made that it is parasitic until it can be removed from the women body and survive. A 9 month baby in that regard or a 360 month is not anymore a parasit as it does not nourish itself from the nutriment in the blood system of the mother.

Now where is the limit ? I would place it at the earliest point a CNS is created, baring that at the earliest point a baby can be out of the womb and survive. As far as i can tell the earliest ever is 20 weeks.

 

[uruk]

I'm not sure if you are applying it but:

Loki's Wager fallacy

I see your Loki's wager fallacy and raise you one Continuum fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

No. At least not intentionaly. I was attempting to get the poster to think abit more about his definitions.

People seem to think that the fetus/baby issue is cut and dry. In all the debates I've had about the issue, I find that the aforementioned line is an arbitray line.

Right now I think the legal line is at the third trimester in which the baby or fetus is still in the womb.
There is not much biologicaly different from a fetus that is in it's late third trimester and a fetus, or baby, that has been delivered and is outside the womb.

The nature of the "paracitisim" changes abit, but the new born infant is still dependent upon the parent for survival just the same.

So why is one protected by law and not the other? It is clearly an arbitrary line or determination. A legal definition or line and not a biological definition or line.

Of course it is a necessity of legal convienance. There has to be a line of some sort for the courts. And it is a line or definition made by lawyers and judges rather than doctors and biologists.