great. So we can count on you hauling your ass down to Whiteman Airforce Base and killing some B2 bomber pilots for us, correct?
because, otherwise…
I agree.
To be honest, I don’t think banning abortion would eliminate the demand. Less people would get abortions possibly, but the detrimental effect of a woman going to some shady possible doctor increases dramatically.
I don’t know how you would stop abortion altogether. It’s my opinion that science will eventually develop a pill that would be capable of doing the “dirty work”. When and if that happens, then whom will the violent pro-lifers attack/protest against? The only target they would have would be the drug companies/trying to make legal changes, IMO.
I’ll re-state the argument I posted earlier in this thread to this same comment: For a pro-lifer, who arguably equates abortion with dropping a 5 year old in a wood chipper (pro-lifers, please correct me if I’m wrong), they have stood by while 5 year olds have been dropped into wood chippers for the past 30 years. If the age for abortion was raised tomorrow to age 5 and doctors ACTUALLY started dropping 5 year olds into wood chippers, I guarantee you pro-choicers and people who had no previous opinion on abortion at all would put an immediate stop to it by every means in the book, up to and including stuffing the practicing doctor in the wood chipper. Would the pro-lifers join in? Or would they still say…‘no! let’s try and change hearts and minds!’ while 5 year old after 5 year old was ground into pulp. Would they at the very least support action to immediately stop the practice? At least support the act of blocking access to the facility so women couldn’t drag their 5 year olds to it? Will any pro-lifer admit to being this pacifistic? beagledave would such complete inaction fit your ethical framework?
Meatros -
RU-486 is already available. However, I suspect some women will ignore the fact that they are pregnant until it is too late to use a pill. See the “Late term abortions/Partial Birth Abortions - Should they be banned?” thread.
And pro-lifers will always be able to protest in front of doctors’ offices who prescribe the RU-486 pill, or the drug companies who produce it. I have already posted that I don’t consider protest in front of an abortion clinic to be violent.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting. I had completely forgotten about that. I’m just speculating, but what about a pill that would take effect at any time during the pregnancy? Would that cease the need for doctors to preform abortions?
Yes, if they know a doctor who prescribes it ,however if the pill is easier to get, perhaps via the internet (which could be dangerous, I admit) then the problem would have to face the women having the abortions (I would think). Although I will admit that, as you said, the protesters could still rally where the drug companies produce it.
I’ll admit that I’m not entirely one way or the other on the issue of protesting in front of the clinic. I suppose it depends on what you mean by protesting: If you mean that the protesters are blocking the enterances to the clinics or otherwise harrassing the women who seek to enter, then I’d disagree.
On the other hand, if by protesting you mean holding signs, chanting slogans, but otherwise not impeding women from entering, then I suppose that’s not violent-although it could lead to violence easily .
BTW, I’m not wavering, I’m just not entirely set in my opinions on the matter (other than being pro-choice). I suppose my mind is very open at this point (not saying yours isn’t).
I would vehemently oppose any attempt to suppress freedom of speech, but I think your examples are ridiculous. Not one anti-abortion activist has ever been forbidden to protest or to pray outside a clinic. They are only forbidden to to interfere with other people’s rights. Shouting down a politician is an act of free speech. So is protesting the WTC. Most of the “rioting” I saw consisted of the cops brutalizing the protesters.
But in theory, yeah…if anyone attempted to prevent a bunch of anti-abortion zealots from praying in front of a clinic, I would definitely support the zealots.
I’ve done so twice already. Please utilize your scroll button and move upwards.
Sorry Fred, I didn’t realize you were a pro-lifer. So you don’t consider abortion murder, but you would deny a woman’s right to choose based on the moral issue alone? I honestly did not think anyone would hold that position. Do you not then support the idea of blocking access to a clinic? If so, then Burner was 100% wrong, and I stand corrected.
There are actions which I consider immoral which I believe should not be illegal. So although I consider myself pro-life, I don’t think abortion should be against the law. Your definition of pro-life may be different, of course - because of my unwillingness to involve the law in what I consider to be a moral issue, you may not consider me to be pro-life. Many pro-lifers may not consider me to be “pro-life” :).
I guess it’s good to clarify exactly what I mean, anyway.
You realize that there is no distinction between your view and that of the pro-choice camp? Regarding the OP, I’m sure the ‘pro-life’ faction about which Burner made his generalization is the one that is on the opposite side of the abortion debate from ‘pro-choice’. I’m going to have to recant my concession.
I never was good with labels. 
Zwaldd, you have succeeded in your advocacy. I’m now going to be pro-life, 'cause I don’t want to be associated with jackasses like you.
::Sua turns in his NARAL membership card::
Huh. Not to let facts get in the way here…but may I introduce you to NY State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer?
He pushed to expand the so called “buffer zone” from 15 feet to 60 feet in New York…especially at a clinic in Buffalo.
Several protestors got arrested…see the story of one who jailed for praying inside of the buffer zone here.
(There were others jailed as well).
It wasn’t until the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that particular decision that the buffer zone reverted to 15 feet.
Those tidbits took…oh, about 1 minute of googling to find. Better make sure you have your facts straight before you make those claims. 
Oh come on man…you still have BURNER in your corner there…
Well…on second thought welcome aboard!!
Not only are you a liar, you’re a fucking moron. The posts you provided were in response to people who called you on your bullshit. It was only at these points that you decided that you really only wanted to talk about blocking doorways, a fact which is evidence for what I asserted. Do you understand, you fucking imbecile, that you just trotted out support for what I said? Unfortunately your “new” conviction wavered, by, oh, the next post (which you conveniently forgot to include):
**Then this gem:
**Then this, referring to killing an abortionist:
**So you’re not only a liar, you’re a fucking stupid liar. You did NOT, I repeat, YOU DID NOT, qualify your support for BURNER because you felt only the comment regarding blocking the doorway was apropos, as you claim in this lie:
**You said this:
**And this statement forms a nice equation with the statement: “I can’t understand how someone truly pro-life could stand by and not support murder and blocking clinic entrances.” So don’t try any more of your “I was just posing a question” nonsense. It’s the major thesis you’ve advanced throughout the thread, you vacuous piece of shit. So go ahead, let me hear you deny it one more time. Did you not defend BURNER for both parts of that statement (blocking clinic entrances AND killing doctors), basing your defense on the idea that real pro-lifers would naturally support BOTH activities? Go ahead. Let me hear you lie through your fucking teeth one more time. On second thought, don’t bother. You’re a liar and an imbecile, and you are not worthy of the attention. Asshole.
As I’ve made clear, you continued to pursue the “all real prolifers should support murder” line of bullshit throughout the thread, except in instances where someone called you on the colossal stupidity of your line of thought.
Jesus, what a fucking waste of protoplasm. Next time you want to craft a rebuttal, try pulling together evidence that doesn’t completely contradict you. Now why don’t you run along and kill some bad guys somewhere, idiot.
Your cite is bullshit. That person was not arrested for praying she was arrested for violating a buffer zone. What she was doing in it was irrelevant. Are you telling me that prayer is a What the fuck is wrong with a buffer zone anyway? A clinic is private property, you know. You can protest and pray all you want outside the buffer zone. To try to argue that anyone is prohibited from protesting or praying per se is fucking horseshit and you know it. You just don’t have the right to harass the people who work at a clinic, or the women who seek its services
Sorry sparky, but no.
HE was arrested (he was a priest) for praying inside of a buffer zone. The buffer zone was 60 FEET…in other words, he wasn’t even close to the clinic, much less blocking the clinic.
Let’s look again at your quote, shall we?
- Was the priest praying? Yes
- Was he praying “outside a clinic” (your words Sparky)? Yes. (He was even outside the original 15 foot buffer)
- Was he “forbidden” to do so? Yes (hence, the arrest)
Umm this would be the point where you would admit to being wrong.
BTW, how are those plans shaping up for your assault on Whiteman AFB (you know…so you avoid being a hypocrite and all…)
Bob Cos, you were caught with your pants down in a baldfaced lie which you need to retract before I can take you seriously, your taking my comments out of context notwithstanding. And you know, with all your frothing and ranting, I still don’t see any evidence posted that BURNER’s assertion that all pro-lifers block clinics is false. So I’ll assume you concede that he wasn’t ENTIRELY incorrect.
He was not arrested for "praying, " he was arrested for being inside a buffer zone. The praying was irrelevant. The buffer zone counts as part of the clinic. My assertion stands strong.
And if I had the (non-violent) ability to stop all those assholes from carpet bombing innocent people I would do it, but I’m not willing to toss any salads over it.
Hell, yeah, I’m a coward. At least I admit it.
**
Ahhh…so when you said “outside the clinic”…you ummm…didn’t really mean “outside the clinic”…you meant ummmm 60 feet away (or 500 yards…or 5 miles…guess it doesn’t matter in your “I change the meaning of what I say to suit my argument” world) ?
Riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:
Kinda makes me wonder why a coward would say this shit then…
Let me get this straight…you’re accusing me of “not having any fucking guts”…leaving a “fetus on its own” when you would do also not choose violent methods?
What kind of a hypocritical jackass are you anyway to make those statement against me, and all others who would choose a non violent method to address a situation?
What a hypocritical piece of shit.