Terrorism and abortion rights

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Definition of terrorism, courtesy of Merriam Webster's:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Now, when pro-lifers harass women going to Planned Parenthood, organize hits on doctors who perform abortions, and bomb clinics, doesn't that make these groups terrorist organizations? After all, they absolutely "use terror as a means of coercion". Why isn't our government pursuing those terrorists with the same vigor?

[elfwitch]

1. Because it ain't terror if...

they think it works for them. It ain't torture if they do it.

They don't do anything about groups that harass clinics because they want the clinics to go away. they want to take the decision to have or not to have an abortion away from women. They think they know better than the woman does about what it right or wrong for her. They have so little respect for women that they believe that they cannot be trusted with a decision to undertake a medical procedure or not.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Yeah, I know exactly what you mean

But why isn't there a movement among pro-choicers like ourselves to truly push the government to use anti-terrorism laws against such groups? Personally, if I were in charge, this would be one of the first things I'd do, being so provocative and simple, yet turning one of the fundies' own laws against them.

[elfwitch]

4. Maybe once things settle down a bit...

Right now we are fighting to save just basic human rights. Until we are sure they won't take those away, it's hard to fight for anything else. You only have so many hours in the day.

[Warpy]

5. Oh, I sincerely hope a Kerry DOJ uses the Patriot {sic} Act

in such a way that it bites all those terror organizations near and dear to the neocons empty chest cavity (no hearts), from the nutbags at Elohim City through the Army of God. I hope they use to hammer every beer-gutted, toothless inbred staffed old boys militia, every chapter of the KKK and CCC, all of the bastards. I hope they use it to hit them so hard the GOP in Congress will raise holy hell to get the damned thing repealed.

Otherwise, they'll never go for it.

[Sorcerer]

6. Difference of opinion

I'm new to this thing, and I dont really think of myself as either Dem. or Rep. and I'm just looking for different views on subjects. But to think that someone has the right to kill another human being, especially an unborn child, seems to me the worst act of evil imaginable. I know that may sound conservative, but many of my views are very liberal, but abortion is one i just can't be liberal about. Now dont get me wrong, I dont agree with those who attack the clinics and women, but there are peaceful ways of getting a message across. But its hypocritical to say a woman has the right to kill a baby, but its wrong to kill an abortion doctor. I just cant see how that can be justified. Killing is killing, bottom line.

If you disagree, please comment. I want to know other people's views.

[Pithlet]

7. It is not hypocritical

because a woman DOESN'T have a right to kill her baby. She does have a right to an abortion. There is a difference.

[Sorcerer]

8. How?

Please explain what the difference is?

[elfwitch]

10. I think the argument here is that

some individuals do not consider it a "BABY" until it is outside the mother and can live on it's own. So, once it is outside the womb and can survive on its own, i.e. it becomes a baby, then a mother has no right to "kill" it. Until it can survivie outside of the mother's womb, the argument goes, it is not a baby and therefore it is not killing or murder.

[redqueen]

13. Is that it?

I didn't think it was linked to viability as much as location (in the womb). I think a nine-month-old fetus is still a 'lump of tissue' to some folks.

[elfwitch]

18. You are probably right...

But I can tell you that even as late as 36 weeks gestation, the "fetus" can die in the womb. One of my co-workers just experienced this exact thing. His wife was literally 2 weeks away from her delivery date when the heartbeat unexpectedly stopped.

Until it takes it's first breath and can live outside it's mother, it is still dependent on her. It is part of her. And as such, it is her decision to make.

[redqueen]

19. That's where people disagree, though

IMO, it's viable without her, so despite the fact that something went awry and caused her "fetus" to "terminate" (don't want to say "Baby" or "die"), it still should not be written off as if it's property of the mother or part of her body.

Just MHO, though.

[elfwitch]

22. And that is why the procedure should continue to be safe and legal...

Until someone can get a definitive answer on that subject, until irrefutable evidence is presented that confirms when one officially becomes a "human being", then it all boils down to a matter of belief. You believe one thing, I believe another.

I will not infringe upon your beliefs if you agree not to infringe upon mine.

[ant]

26. people may disagree...

...but the law is fairly clear. According to Roe V. Wade, states have the right to restrict abortion post viability, defined as mid-to-late second trimester. (I can't remember the exact time, but there may be a qualifier in the law about doctor's determining the appropriate time for individual cases.) While I personally still have some issues with this, I think it's an acceptable compromise so long as exceptions for the woman's health are still allowed and so long as the recommendations of doctors aren't second guessed by people with no medical expertise whatsoever (i.e., government officials and pro-life activists).

In any case, late term abortions aren't the issue pro-lifers are upset about because on that point abortion is already restricted in most states. They've "won" that one, so to speak.

It's the early abortions they're against, so on that point we should be talking about fetuses in the first 2-3 months of pregnancy (that's when the overwhelming number of abortions - close to 90% - take place) rather than the last 2-3 months.

Edited because I got posters confused. My apologies.

[Sorcerer]

20. Genetics

How can it not be a human being until its born. At the time of conception, it has the exact same DNA structure as we do. Granted, it has billions less cells than we do, but in essence, we are all just a group of cells. So how can something not be considered human just because it has fewer cells?

[elfwitch]

24. Because the arguement on the "pro-life" side

rarely has to do with Genetics. The argument is that it has a soul from the moment of conception. It becomes a person as soon as two cells divide.

I can clone tissue that has all the genetic material of a full human being. I can create skin and organs and other such cells that contain all the elements of human DNA. DNA in a cell does not mean that those cells will make up a complete human being.

[meow2u3]

40. Right-wing pro-lifers overuse religion to make their case

Because the arguement on the "pro-life" side rarely has to do with Genetics. The argument is that it has a soul from the moment of conception. It becomes a person as soon as two cells divide.



Left-wing pro-lifers, who are almost always also against the death penalty and aggressive war, use science to prove their pro-life stand. All you have to do is review simple genetics; the fact that conception leads to DNA distinct from mom's egg and dad's sperm is life in my book.

[Unperson 309]

36. My hair and fingernails have the exact same DNA as me, but

I do not regard trimming them as murder!

My thought is this: Say you are living in a nice house. It's raining and cold outside. You go into the kitchen for a snack and when you return, there is a homeless man sitting in your easy chair!

"Who are you? I didn't invite you in!" you say, "Please leave NOW! You are not welcome here!"

The man looks at you and says "I need shelter! It's raining and there's a biker gang after me! If you kick me out, they'll kill me!" He then settles more deeply into your chair. "I need a room, some clothes, use of your car, oh, and money! I want a credit card! I need to use your bank account and by the way, what's for dinner?"

Even if you *know* the guy could be killed by those bikers, do you have the legal right to evict the squatter?

YES!

An unplanned pregnancy is the SAME EXACT SITUATION! Another being is laying claim to your body, your time, your financial resources, your house, your very LIFE.

Now those who want children, FINE. No problem. Go ahead on and have that baby. Mazel tov!

But for those who did NOT want the pregnancy, for whom birth control failed, or was sabotaged (yes, people DO sabotage BC!! Google the term "Oopsing" or "Oopsed") that pregnancy is an invasion!

And in the earliest months, those cell clusters may be *potentially * human, but they're no more fully human than my toenail clippings are!

309

[F_S]

29. Help please

Could you give me a clear definition of viability??
An 18 month old baby doesn't really seem to be very viable to me. My son would have died without someone caring for him until he was about 4 years old. So I'm kind of vague on how we define viability....

[Pithlet]

16. An abortion

isn't murdering a baby. To murder a baby, a baby must actually be present.

[Djinn]

37. simple

killing involves a human being - abortion doesn't - no matter how many religious fascists try and convince folks otherwise

[elfwitch]

9. I disagree in as much as...

if you think that way, it is completely your right. If you think that way, never have an abortion. Where those thoughts go in to the wrong area is if you think that way and make it illegal to make that choice for myself if I do not think that way. Since nobody can say for sure, it is up to the individual woman to make peace with herself and her creator (if she believes in such a thing) if she decides to terminate a pregnancy.

There are just certain things that are none of my business if you want to do them. I have no more right to tell some woman she shouldn't have an abortion than I do to tell someone they shouldn't masturbate or smoke or drink or be gay or that they should be a certain religion or party affiliation.

Everybody is entitled to their beliefs. The problem happens when your beliefs and mine clash. If it is only a belief, it cannot be proven, therefor it should not be subject to the law. Some people believe that homosexuality is a sin against God. Some people want to take that belief as far as criminalizing homosexual acts. Those people are wrong.

[Sorcerer]

17. ..

But just because you belive in something doesnt give you the right to do it. If you believe the way you just wrote, which is completely your right, then that means that if I believed raping a woman is right,which of course i dont, then I have the right to do it because its my choice.

Just because someone believes a certain way doesnt mean they have the right to do it. Thats why we have laws, and if we didnt you can imagine what kind of society we would live in.

My difference of opinion comes from a single question "How is abortion not murder?"

[elfwitch]

21. It is my belief...

that it does not become a person until it can live on its own outside of its mother. You cannot "murder" something that is part of yourself. As long as the fetus depends on the mother for existence it is as much a part of the mother as a limb or organ. Murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being. Since there is a dissonance in BELIEF about when someone becomes a "human being", then there is a dispute about abortion. I do not believe it is a human being until it can live outside of me. You may believe it becomes a human being the second a sperm and egg meet. Since neither you nor I can know for certain, our beliefs are at odds. I believe that on the 8th day of a male child's life he should be circumcised and brought in to the covenant of Abraham. That is my belief. If I tried to make a law that stated that everyone should do that to their male children because of that belief, then I would be wrong.

Rape, on the other hand, is one person infringing on another person's rights as a living breathing sentient human being. A rape is where one person takes away another person's right to consent to sexual activity.

[Sorcerer]

23. Example

I was just using rape as an example. and yes, it is taking away another persons rights, just like I believe abortion is taking away the right to live. And with my belief that an unborn fetus is a human, then abortion is a premeditated killing, thus it is murder.

[elfwitch]

25. And I do not believe that...

And until somebody can prove that an unborn fetus is a full fledged person that deserves all the rights and privileges afforded to a born person, then it all boils down to belief.

My simple answer is: If you don't believe in abortion, never have one. But keep your beliefs out of my uterus.

[ant]

30. it's not a good example, though

The abortion is moral vs abortion is not moral debate has legitimate points on both sides. It really does boil down to a matter of personal religion/spirituality/secular belief. Neither side can "prove" its argument because the argument revolves around the "personhood" of the fetus, an essentially philosophical issue. In order for rape to be an appropriate example we would have to agree that the "personhood" of the rape victim is equally questionable, which it most definitely is not.

But, even if we were to all agree that abortion is immoral, that still doesn't automatically mean it should be illegal. There are a lot of things that we can all agree are immoral (cheating on a partner, lying, etc.), but these things are not always illegal. When it comes to law, the relevant issue is good public policy, not morality, and I think it's obvious that banning abortion would not be good public policy. It would, in the end, cause more harm than good.

And again, this differs from rape in that making rape illegal is good public policy. Imagine what kind of a society this would be if rape was legal. No woman (and probably not a lot of men) would be able to walk the streets at all. The economic impact alone would probably be pretty devastating.

[Sushi-Lover]

31. This is why this issue is beyond compromise.

If you believe it is the same as murder, then you must fight for it to be illegal. This is why there is very little room for compromise on this issue. In any case, this is an issue where I have no idea who is correct and I tend to except any position as reasonable (short of violence against doctors etc). Although, I personally think that leaving it to the mother (and the father actually) is the way to go.

I don't think it is murder until the baby has memory and personality and that is probably a difficult thing to pin down (although its there upon birth). I, personally, think it is wrong as soon as the developing fetus can feel pain, but I would probably be fine with having an abortion before that point (~5 weeks). I don't know if there is a soul, but if there is one I think it must be associated with development of the brain in some way. That is probably why my views on the morality of abortion have to do with the stage of neural development more then anything.

[Unperson 309]

38. A Rape Is A Theft and an Invasion

To rape a woman (or a man) you are depriving her of the use of her body for a time. You are using it against her will. You are taking her time and using it for your own needs. You are denying her the right to say no, to be free of you. You are invading her body, placing soimething inside it that she does not want there. You are denying her the right to refuse you entry and use of her reproductive tract. You are changing her sexual life forever.

To impregnate a woman you are depriving her of the use of her body for nine months. The fetus is using it against her will (if she does not want to remain pregnant). The state is denying her the right to say no, to be free of the fetus. The fetus (and the state which outlaws abortion) is taking her time and using it for its own needs. The fetus is invading her body, placing itself, growing, inside it when she does not want it there. The state is denying her the right to refuse to carry the invader, denying her the use of her own reproductive tract. The enforced pregnancy is changing her sexual, financial, social, personal, vocational, personal life forever!

A rape lasts for maybe a half an hour or so. Then it's over. The woman can get counseling, regroup, find some peace.

An enforced pregnancy rapes a woman for NINE MONTHS and is not over until she either gives the baby away or raises it to adulthood!

Unwanted pregnancy, denial of abortion IS RAPE PURE AND SIMPLE!

Sure the fetus needed a mother. Yeah. And the rapist needed to get off. Either way, the woman gets the shitty end of the stick!

309

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Then how is a woman menstruating

not murder? Or A man ejaculating millions of sperm which will swim around until they "die" little, screaming "deaths", possibly in between the pages of last months YANK? I don't mean to be crude, but the bottom line is, it is in no way universally accepted that -at the very second a sperm meets an egg, these two living gametes (which pro-lifers don't seem terribly worried about) suddenly transmogrify into a micron-sized human being with full 14th amendment rights. It's a religous assertion, basically, and one with which not all of us agree. Yes, I understand that the genetic code- 46 chromosomes- which make up a human are present in the fertilized egg. But to call that a "human" is like asserting that you could take the blueprints for a 747 and fly them to Tahiti. Beyond that, the same chromosomes (23+23=46) are present in the sperm and the egg before they merge.
Defining life as absolutely beginning at conception raises several issues that "pro-life" folks generally don't want to deal with- among them: fertility treatments generally result in many more embryos- fertilized eggs- or, if you will, little itty bitty teeensy weeensy "babies"- being created than will be implanted. Therefore, most fertility treatments engage in several "abortions" for every pregnancy. Should these be criminalized, like abortion?
The IUD acts to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Are women using the IUD guilty of "carrying a concealed weapon"?
The Birth Control Pill also can act as an abortifacent, preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs. There is no way to separate the birth control pill's contraceptive effects from the potential abortifacent effects. Therefore, the Human Life Amendment as written and endorsed in the GOP platform, would effectively criminalize the birth control pill. How about them apples?

Bottom line is, I don't think that any person is more qualified than the woman whose body is directly involved in the pregnancy to make that kind of decision. If she believes that a micron sized dot is a human being, no one can force her to have an abortion. But to criminalize that choice because it happens to be the particular opinion of a bunch of crusty chaste old men or big hair televangelists- and let's be clear, it's an opinion- I find to be an extremely offensive intrusion into the private health matters of others.

On the subject, Check out this link. Classic.

[redqueen]

11. Hi Sorcerer

Welcome to DU! :hi:

I share your opinion of abortions, but as elfwitch has pointed out, this is a grey area so none of us will be allowed to force any *beliefs* on others.

However, that being said, I do think that social mores will eventually dictate that legislation curtail the right to abort to a more restrictive timeframe, probably tied to the viability of the fetus.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. I Would Add That

Folks who are really concerned about later term abortions, should support RU-486. If not RU-486, push for easier access to Plan B Morning After Contraception. If you can't get your head around that, at the very least, work to make sure that contraceptive research is fully funded and supported, which it isn't currently. There have been no substantial breakthroughs in contraception in over 40 years. This is partially due to pressure from "pro-life" groups, who are almost universally opposed to contraception, as well. Which I think is idiotic, or at the very least shows that their real agenda has nothing to do with stopping abortion or "saving babies".

Personally, I'd like to see the day when all pregnancies are planned, and surgical abortion isn't necessary. I think I speak for most pro-choice people there. But the way to do it isn't to criminalize abortion, it's to support comprehensive, informative sex education, and work for better contraception-- along with more universal access to it.

[shraby]

2. Sorry but the only terrorist organization

in this country is the teacher's union. :crazy:

[outinforce]

12. Some Are

Organizations which bomb clinics -- terrorist.

Organizations which organize "hits" on doctors -- terrorist, if by "hit" you mean contracts to kill.

Pro-lifers who "harass" women going to Planned Non-Parenthood -- Hmmmm....

How are pro-lifers who "harass" women going to a clinic any different from, say, people on strike who "harass" people trying to go to a purchase food in a supermarket?

[sangh0]

14. Union members haven't killed any scabs in decades

Members of the Gestational Gestapo have.

[outinforce]

27. Please Re-Read

my post.

Love,

Chester

[Pithlet]

34. Hehehe

Chester. I won't be able to help myself. You'll be Chester to me from now on. :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Depends on the harassment

Public humiliation, privacy violations, the throwing of food and objects... those are all forceful acts of coercion. And last I checked, any of those things would quickly get striking workers arrested.

[outinforce]

28. How About

yelling at people trying to go into the supermarket?

Calling them names?

Handing them (or attempting to hand them) informational literature?

Holding pickets that contain phrases or even pictures that potential shoppers might find offensive?

[sangha]

32. As long as they obey the law

which requires that they not do so right in front of a health clinic, I'm OK with all of those with the possible exception of the last

[Djinn]

39. as far as I'm concerned

they're well within their rights to protest wherever they want - they can call a woman whatever they want but as long as they can take it too - I live in Australia where this isn't such a senstive issue and generally clinics don't get picketed - there are a couple of people who turn up and hold signs but they're quiet and unobtrusive - if the screaming pushy mob ever turn up outside the clinic opposite my work as long as they're happy to have ME follow them at lunchtime with a sign protesting THEIR actions, as long as I can call THEM a bigoted fascist each time they call a woman a murderer - they can protest all they like.

If they lay a hand on those people trying to enter the clinic they should expect a smack in the mouth

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. What about video cameras?

Internet sites? Flyers posted all over town with your picture on it with the title "MURDERER"? Those all happen daily, and all are designed for the sole purpose of embaressing you and violating your personal privacy, forcefully coercing you into not having an abortion. Are THOSE tactics fine?

[Yupster]

41. All those things may very well be

illegal.

They can be trespassing, disturbing the peace, or even assault.

I wouldn't call them terrorism though.

Murdering a doctor is terrorism.
Organiing a hit is terrorism.
Yelling at someone entering an abortion clinic is not terrorism.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. Again, it depends on how it's done

If the informational literature is shoved in your face, that's not legal. If it shows offensive or inappropriate literature, that's also illegal (there ARE decency laws). Name calling? That's a law sometimes called "assault", which is confused sometimes because it's often applied alongside "battery". Again, all those things depend on how far you go. There's a line in the sand somewhere, and if you're doing those things in a clearly uncivil manner, it's illegal. It's not even up for argument - that's the law.

[Djinn]

52. take your point

I guess I'm looking at this from a personal point of view - a right to lifer can feel free to shove something in my face and screech at me - I can give as good as I get, they could also feel free to tell the world if I had an abortion it's not something I'd be ashamed of.

But I do realise many people would be cowed and intimidated, I think in cases like you describe laws relating to assault, privacy, stalking and harrassment should come into play.

To be honest I'm not a huge fan of "terrorism" laws, homocide, conspiracy to commit murder atc would seem to cover it from my POV

[DrWeird]

33. Must be a boring day down at the Suds-n'-suds.

I guess the dryer with the window must be on the fritz, so folks need something else to entertain themselves with.

[Jaged]

35. bush

...because bush is a pro life terrorist.

[dsc]

42. Should Greenpeace be blamed for the acts of radical enviromentalists?

Or does guilt by association only work for people you don't like?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. Before you get on the high horse...

I absolutely despise groups like PETA and PIRG for similar tactics. There IS, however, a huge difference between the groups, however, as so-called pro-lifers are ruining the lives of women who are making a life decision for themselves, the other groups mentioned are not fighting something so personal. However, I think PETA definitely is in the same league with their radicalist tactics. PIRG seems to just do mild harassment. "Forceful coercive tactics" is defined the same way no matter what the cause is.

[dsc]

45. You missed my point entirely

Gee am I shocked. My point was that only a very few pro lifers do the things you are stating. Just like only a few enviromentalists are such radicals. But you lumped all pro lifers together. So one more time. Does guilt by association only work for those you don't like?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. Did I lump them all?

I don't think I did. I think I specifically said "when pro-lifers perform such actions". Perhaps you should read more clearly.

[dsc]

51. This is what you wrote

Now, when pro-lifers harass women going to Planned Parenthood, organize hits on doctors who perform abortions, and bomb clinics, doesn't that make these groups terrorist organizations? After all, they absolutely "use terror as a means of coercion". Why isn't our government pursuing those terrorists with the same vigor?

Just what did you mean by these groups? That is what I responded to. Honest debaters quote the entirety of what they wrote not a selected excerpt.

[gatlingforme]

48. RICO law applies here. This administration will not pursue this

as CLinton Admin. did. Bush Admin. STINKS>