I feel the same way about murder.
Isn’t it neat that there’s no way for anyone to compel you to commit murder, then?
It’s a good law because the miscarriage means that the woman loses something that she wanted. If someone assaults another person, that’s assault. And if the assaulter ALSO damages property, that’s another charge. Or if the assaulter causes a broken limb, that’s more serious that a bruise. Or, as I understand it, if the assaulter attacks someone who’s got medical problems, and makes the problems worse, that’s a more serious crime.
But it isn’t more legally permissible for clinic protestors than for others with other literature, is it?
I approve this award.
I agree.
I don’t agree, however, that this tactic is legal, no matter if it’s done by abortion protesters or by Lyndon LaRouche volunteers.
This tactic is not legal, whether it’s done by abortion protesters or Justin Beiber fans.
And irrelevant to this discussion, but interesting nonetheless, this is not “legal kidnapping.”
At common law, the elements of kidnapping are: (1) the taking away of another; (2) by fraud or force; (3) without the consent of the person taken; and (4) without lawful reason. Surrounding a car and not permitting the passengers to leave would not be kidnapping, because it lacks the element of “taking away.”
It would, however, be an example of “false imprisonment,” which is a lesser-included offense of kidnapping, and simply requires that the accused detains the victim without lawful authority.
Were you at all curious about who was doing the lip-reading/interpreting referred to by People magazine? (even if one accepts that the phrase was accurately recorded, it does not appear to be a direct answer to the question).
As to Bricker’s earlier contention that the “Helpers Of God’s Precious Infants” cited in the OP were filming the clinic to protect themselves from accusations of improper conduct: wouldn’t it then make a lot more sense, instead of doing the filming sitting in a car across the street, to give the proselytizers a videocamera so interactions with patients and staff could be recorded accurately close up? (according to local law it appears there’d be a problem with audio recording, but we could get images of what the various parties “mouth” at each other, including any threats). Of course they might reason that for patients, having someone point a camera at you from inches away could easily be construed as intimidation/harassment, whereas doing it within plain sight but from across the street is, well, the same thing but less obvious.
So forgive us if we are not credulous enough to think that the poor, put upon Helpers of God’s Precious Infants are just out to protect themselves and aren’t following classic anti-abortion protester strategy at clinics - haranguing and harassing women into not getting abortions, going right up to and sometimes over legal boundaries to do so.
QFT.
If we all could stop yelling past each other for the moment, it’s important to recognize the assumptions that underlie each other’s meta-arguments. Unless those assumptions – the “when” of fetal personhood – are addressed, further argument is not fruitful because, in essence, you’re not even speaking the same language.
Also, +1 for correct use of the phrase “begging the question”.
You’re about as classy as a piece of shit yourself.
Oh and to dropzone don’t you dare send me another DM about the partial birth abortion your brother and SIL had. If you can’t differentiate between fantasy and reality it isn’t my problem. I am not responsible for your family and their crazy problems.
No, because the sentiment was reported by many other sources. For example:
In this version, we don’t need to rely on a lip-reader; she spelled out the words by pointing at letters. Because the the account of the lip reader is consistent with this account, I believe both.
Do you have some reason to doubt the issue?
Since sound would not be permitted, I don’t see much additional value in the close-up video, and I see a much greater intimidation factor.
Agreed. But if the actual purpose is to insulate them from false accusations, the across-the-street method is the best balance between in-your-face intimidation and sufficient clarity of image to make clear if any assaults took place.
Who is “we?” Do you have intestinal parasites that share your skepticism of this claim?
:rolleyes:
You’ve got major problems.
Why? For pointing out that is attached to a woman’s body, wholly dependent on her for blood, oxygen, nutrients, etc. and is composed of human DNA?
(Bonus points if you can tell whether is a fetus, a tumor, both, or neither.)
Gee I don’t know do tumors have xx or xy chromsomes? i think it’s pretty damn easy to tell the difference. Tumors don’t have heartbeats either.
Only a moron would base humanity on heartbeats.
Not that I’m suggesting you don’t. 
In any case, brain dead people can have heartbeats. It’s brain function that defines humanity, and a fetus is effectively brain dead.
Well, yes, actually. XX, anyway. I’d be surprised to see a tumor (or any tissue, really) with an XY in a woman’s body normally, unless it happened to be a male fetus.
Anyway, your views are stupid and you’re either a troll or a very good simulation of one.
Because you say so?
I’ll take my assessment over yours that is derived from your imaginary friend. Kay?
So now we have two versions of what the woman supposedly did - either mouth the words (to whom?) or spelled them out (according to a sketchy AP account reproduced on the Times web page). And that doesn’t raise questions in your mind - the fact that there are multiple versions of the story is a point in its favor? When you were a public defender, did you feel that when a prosecution witness gave multiple, differing accounts of an event, that strengthened his credibility? :dubious:
Yes, the anti-abortion movement has given us considerable reason to doubt claims about brain-damaged people. Allow me to refresh your memory -think back on the Terry Schiavo case, which “pro-lifers” glommed onto, and the claims made by numerous people (including Senator Bill Frist, the Superman of long-distance video diagnosis) about how she was allegedly communicating with others, proving she was not in a persistent vegetative state. Then at autopsy it was demonstrated that the great majority of her brain was mush, leaving her incapable of responding the way those witnesses and long-distance analysts claimed.
Thanks for conceding my point - filming patients going into the clinic from across the street is intimidation, just not as flagrant as doing it close-up. So even you now admit there’s more going on here than just the Precious Infants brigade protecting themselves from claims of misbehavior.
Nice. But even someone with your limited reading comprehension skills can detect other posters in this thread who share my skepticism about the motives of this batch of anti-abortion protesters.