The post I made here was mainly intended to ask why people don’t just start “Is abortion ok?” threads instead of disguising them as related questions which will inevitably lead back to the same old debate.
But in my first reply, now lost among all the arguments regarding the nature of a foetus, I make my real complaint against the suggestion of bombing abortion clinics - which is that there is just TOO MUCH VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD!! I certainly sympathise with people jailed for illegally harbouring slaves. But I wouldn’t sympathise at all with people who torched the homes of slave-owners, even if they made sure the homes were empty first. It’s bad enough that the small body of people who govern us should have the power to incarcerate us and sometimes even execute us; are we now considering giving that power to any random person??
You chose good examples to use when you mentioned slavery and women’s liberation. But what about people who champion totally ridiculous causes? What if I decide that killing insects is immoral and the equivalent of murder? Who decides what is right and wrong?
There are plenty of people fighting for their beliefs in a non-violent way. And these people are being disgraced by those of us who carry sticks of dynamite around to make our point. Wouldn’t you agree?
If you want to complain about violence, fine…but you also said “So we’re talking about doing something which the majority of people oppose, in order to protest something which the majority of people support.”
As IF the popularity of the actions or opinions matters.
Again, if you’re opposed to all uses of violence in political demonstrations…that seems quite a bit different than you saying “I’m criticising the use of illegal means to protest something which is legal.”
Umm…the elected officials, petitioned by the populace ?(assuming we’re taking about a democracy)
I don’t feel “disgraced” by morons who blow up abortion clinics, or, for that matter, idiots who throw paint on people wearing fur coats
Well, to me it seems that people who blow up abortion clinics give pro-lifers a bad name. It just seems a bit hypocritical to speak of abortion as a violent crime and protest it so violently. When Palestinians kill Israeli civilians, for example, I feel that it gives the rest of their people a bad name because people begin to think of them as unwilling to compromise or work towards peace. To me it seems disgraceful, at least… oh well, gone are the days of Gandhi and peaceful non-cooperation movements…
It isn’t the popularity I’m talking about, it’s whether the actions are legal or not. As you say, our society (assuming we’re talking about a democracy), relies on elected officials to tell us what is right or wrong. So I believe that in order to protest a certain action which is legal, we should try to get the law changed, and not by inspiring terror in those who support that law, but by campaigning/demonstrating/voting to get it changed.
I noticed Dubya has made several attempts to point out that the actions of the radical elements of Islam involved in the Sept 11 incidents are not representative of the religion as a whole. Should American Muslims STILL walk around feeling disgraced, and feel like they have been given a bad name…even when they disassociate themselves from terrorism? Or should we realize that it’s the fault of those who choose to use such a broad brush when they categorize people?
You’re right, they definitely should not feel disgraced. But speaking from personal experience, I was in America on September 11th, and I felt disgraced. Thanks for bringing up the comparison between Usama bin Laden and abortion-clinic-bombers, though!
Why should you be required to support your children? Because they’re your children – and if the fetus is a living human being, then it’s your child as well.
Ultimately, that’s the only question which matters. Is the unborn child a living human being? If it isn’t, then no amount of justification is necessary to have an abortion. But if it is, then no amount of justification can be sufficient.
(One might ask, “What about when the mother’s life is in immediate peril?” For example, what about ectopic pregnancies which are about to rupture the fallopian tube? Such situation s are not abortions in the typical sense of the word, and certainly do not qualify as elective surgery. In these cases, it is far better for one person to live, than for both of them to die.)
I would consider the unborn child a living human being if life were viable outside the womb, so I wouldn’t condone third-trimestre abortions, unless, as you pointed out, the mother’s life were in danger.
But aren’t we supposed to be discussing whether it’s “ok” to bomb an abortion clinic? What do you think about that?
As an adoptive mom, I’d like to point out that a birth mom is not always required to support her living children. She can sign away her parental rights and responsibilities.
In Minnesota, we have the “Safe Place for Newborns” law which allows babies to be abandoned, provided it is done in a safe place. This was to address a “rash” of dumpster babies.
So, even birth is not the “you are now responsible” point.
Perhaps you use a definition that differs from mine. In my mind, the word “abortion” always means the same thing. A [url=“http://www.dictionary.com”]dictionary[/dictionary] might be helpful.
Now, I have a few real questions for you.
What if the mother’s psychological health is in immediate peril? For instance, a woman who has been raped will likely suffer additional and excess severe emotional trauma if she bears a child fathered by a rapist. Should she be forced by law to value the spawn of her attacker over her own emotional well being?
As another example, a woman pregnant by a husband who has beaten/abandoned/defrauded her will likely suffer additional and excess severe emotional trauma if she bears a child fathered by that man. Should she be forced by law to serve as the vessel for the spawn of such a man?
How thin is the line between acceptable abortion and unacceptable abortion?
[/quote]
Now to the meat of the discussion.
Those who would bomb health clinics that provide abortion services are engaged in acts of terrorism in the truest sense. A terrorist is one who employs threats, intimidation, force or violence as a means to further a political intent. Obviously, clinic bombers are terrorists. They use violent means to directly coerce noncombatants. Doctor assassins are terrorists in that their acts of violence are intended to coerce by intimidation others by the demonstration of willful and deliberate murder. Protesters who attack or threaten patients or service providers at clinics are also terrorists, using the more liberal of definitions.
Terrorism is not ok. I would think that the recent events and reactions would have made that clear.
I think you should read that statement more carefully. Terminating an abortion can be considered an abortion, but that’s not the typical use of the term. (The text which you quoted specifically discussed the typical use of the term.)
“Abortion” may mean the same thing in your mind, but the circumstances governing elective abortion and medically necessary terminations are vastly different. Vastly different.
I think that the typical usage of the word “abortion” is to mean the termination of a pregnancy. Qualifying terms typically identify all variants on that theme. Note your own usage of qualifying terms such as “elective” and “medically necessary.” This is typical, so I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.
I would like to read your explanation of this statement which, standing alone, seems so simple that I’m led to think that you did not intend to leave it as it stands. Would you care to expand on this?
I think the issue of whether abortion is killing or not is relevant here because this thread is suppose to be about responses to horrible crimes.
The point (again) is :
If you believe that the clinic is killing babies everyday then how can you just sit there and let it happen? “bomb the clinic” was an unfortunate phrase. I believe you would do anything in your power to stop it. hopefully nonviolent. thats why I suggested dumping bags of concrete at the entrance. anything but just voting or firing off an email.
If you really believed it then how could you just sit on your arse?
Well, maybe I am just overly sheltered, but I am unaware of any “abortion clinics” that only provide abortion services. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but they surely aren’t typical. Generally, abortion is one of many health services a clinic may provide.
Let’s say, for example, that you find out the Planned Parenthood clinic I attend performs abortions (which it does). You decide to be an urban vigilante and pour cement at its entrance. You have effectively blocked me and hundreds of other women from receiving: annual gyn. exams (including Pap smear, breast cancer screen, ovary check, STD & other infection screens, etc.), birth control pills so that we won’t need abortions, condoms to those who need them (usually free), full OB/GYN services for pregnant women carrying to term, counseling for rape or abuse victims, counseling for grief over miscarriages (and abortions), and a host of other services, only one of which is abortion.
The raison d’etre for this clinics is to maintain women’s health and make education & healthcare affordable and unintimidating. The more educated and healthy women are, the less likely they are to require an abortion. Which is why these clinics exist.
So, is pouring cement at entrances any more of a good idea than bombing clinics? Hell no. It may be less violent, but it’s still stupid, shortsighted, and unequivocally morally wrong.
Beadalin,
Good point. My only exposure is thru the media when “an abortion clinic was …” . the samething for the “abortion doctors”.
Ok, how about making concete tombstones and dumping them there so the people would have to walk around them until they were removed. but that goes back to the passive protest instead of anything active, doesnt it.
Medically necessary terminations of pregnancy are rare and decidedly non-controversial. In fact, a physician by the name of John Willke has written that such procedures are not considered abortions in the normal sense of the world.
Besides, common sense dictates that there is a tremendous difference between aborting a child because you don’t want to be pregnant, and terminating the pregnancy because the mother is about to die.
Simple. Medically necesssary “abortions” are done so that the mother may live. Elective abortions are not. Medically necessary “abortions” are done to preserve life. Elective abortions are not. Medically necessary “abortions” are performed because it is better for one person to live than for both to die. Elective abortinos are not.
