Community > Religion and Philosophy

Pro-life Terrorism

(1/9) > >>

gyeonghwa:
Link


--- Quote ---Authorities say the man charged with setting fire to a Florida Panhandle abortion clinic long targeted by violence told investigators he was motivated by his hatred for abortion.
In an affidavit released late Thursday, prosecutors said 41-year-old Bobby Joe Rogers told investigators that he made a fire bomb and threw it at the Pensacola clinic early Sunday.

Rogers said he was pushed to action after he saw a young woman enter the clinic for an abortion while he was standing outside the clinic with a group of protesters recently.
--- End quote ---

The dailykos takes pro-lifers to the task:


--- Quote ---It's almost hard to get worked up about stories like this, when they're so damned common. Bombs thrown, buildings burned, car tires slashed, patients stalked, doctors assassinated ... You can look at the statistics. You can read about the thousands of acts of violence and tens of thousands of acts of "non-violent" terrorism against health care providers and their staff and their patients and their landlords and their landlords' children. It's all part of the "pro-life" movement to save the fetuses. And hey, if some property, or some people, have to get hurt, well, that's a fair price to pay.
--- End quote ---

Caitshidhe:
No discussion of this topic would be complete without pointing out that the perpetrators of 'pro-life' violence and seemingly all the most vocally and virulently opposed (or at least, the most public AND most politically powerful) to abortion tend to overwhelmingly be people upon whom an abortion cannot be performed.

Far be it from me to say someone can't have a vote or a voice in whatever issues they attach themselves to, it seems a little bit sideways to me to allow people to make laws regulating and enforce prohibition against something they are by definition incapable of directly experiencing the repercussions to. A man will have--and is by all means allowed to have--whatever feelings he likes regarding his wife or girlfriend's (or anyone else he's close to) abortion, but ultimately it's the woman who goes under the knife and bears the brunt of the consequences.

deadpandoubter:
Weird...I was just reminiscing over my uncle's stupidity on this very topic. Got into it with him during our Christmas visit...couldn't help it, he just outright said that girls under 18 shouldn't be allowed to have Plan B (or as he called it, "that damn abortion pill") and that no woman should ever have an abortion unless the pregnancy's a product of rape or incest.

Which reminds me-- WHY is incest always referred to separately from rape? If your dad rapes you, that's rape, right? So why call it incest?

ThunderWulf:

--- Quote from: gyeonghwa on January 06, 2012, 02:22:57 pm ---
--- Quote ---It's almost hard to get worked up about stories like this, when they're so damned common. Bombs thrown, buildings burned, car tires slashed, patients stalked, doctors assassinated ... You can look at the statistics. You can read about the thousands of acts of violence and tens of thousands of acts of "non-violent" terrorism against health care providers and their staff and their patients and their landlords and their landlords' children. It's all part of the "pro-life" movement to save the fetuses. And hey, if some property, or some people, have to get hurt, well, that's a fair price to pay.
--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---

Caitshidhe:

--- Quote ---Which reminds me-- WHY is incest always referred to separately from rape? If your dad rapes you, that's rape, right? So why call it incest?
--- End quote ---

You know, I never noticed this before but since you said this and I spared it a few minutes of thought, it does seem to be the case. I can't think why, when the two are meant in the same context and definition of non-consensual sex, they're mentioned separately. I mean, not all rape is incest and not all incest is rape, but when rape happens to be incestuous, why make a distinction at all? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps they go hand-in-hand because when legally persecuted in most (or maybe just certain) jurisdictions, they fall under the same laws or statutes. Other than that and both being inherently sexually squicky, I can't think of another reason.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page