It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arson At Planned Parenthood Clinic In Pullman, Washington

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Are there death certificates as well? With said names? I'm guessing no. No birth cert. no death cert. No person. The SCOTUS agrees. If a portion of the population can't accept that, that's their problem AND if this is a protest burning, making it other's problem as well. Childish behavior.


Are we arguing law or are we arguing what's right. How many decades in the western world were black slaves granted death certificates? Were they persons? The law said "Nope, they weren't"... and for many, many years, the SCOTUS agreed! Would you like to make the argument that the SCOTUS was right then? I'd absolutely LOVE to participate in that debate against you if you do.

My point, the SCOTUS and the law have a history of shoving their craniums up their collective ass until the public outcry gets loud enough that they magically declare "Oops, this group is made of people! They're people!!!" My position is that the law don't mean jack when it is in direct opposition of common sense.

I'm also not here to debate the justification of burning down abortion clinics. That's a goddamned trap argument and you know it. Nobody should be burning down buildings to get their point across... but that doesn't make the point they're pushing less valid, either.




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
Are there death certificates as well? With said names? I'm guessing no. No birth cert. no death cert. No person. The SCOTUS agrees. If a portion of the population can't accept that, that's their problem AND if this is a protest burning, making it other's problem as well. Childish behavior.


Are we arguing law or are we arguing what's right. How many decades in the western world were black slaves granted death certificates? Were they persons? The law said "Nope, they weren't"... and for many, many years, the SCOTUS agreed! Would you like to make the argument that the SCOTUS was right then? I'd absolutely LOVE to participate in that debate against you if you do.

My point, the SCOTUS and the law have a history of shoving their craniums up their collective ass until the public outcry gets loud enough that they magically declare "Oops, this group is made of people! They're people!!!" My position is that the law don't mean jack when it is in direct opposition of common sense.


You're talking about "common sense" vs the LAW. Who's sense? Yours and some like you? What about others common sense? That's why the SCOTUS had to rule on this. EVERYONE'S rights, not just some.


I'm also not here to debate the justification of burning down abortion clinics. That's a goddamned trap argument and you know it. Nobody should be burning down buildings to get their point across... but that doesn't make the point they're pushing less valid, either.


So you don't support it but you do. Got it.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
It wouldn't surprise me if it was an inside job.


right...discounting the fact that hundreds of abortion clinics have been firebombed, or burned, by the Christian right-to lifers in the last few decades....other than that....



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




How many decades in the western world were black slaves granted death certificates? Were they persons?

You think death certificates were issued for white slaves? For all whites? For no blacks?

In any case, your point is moot.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
You're talking about "common sense" vs the LAW. Who's sense? Yours and some like you? What about others common sense? That's why the SCOTUS had to rule on this. EVERYONE'S rights, not just some.

Gotcha, so I go back to my original point... the intent is to dehumanize the unborn because, if they're considered humans, then they suddenly have rights too. Kinda throws a monkey wrench into the plans of the millions of women who abort out of convenience each year to have to consider the rights of their baby.

Hey you know, I'll grant you the common sense point. It's subjective. That said, can you explain how the USA has a Unborn Victims of Violence Act on the books which grants legal protection to the unborn in every case except when the "mother" opts to abort the child? Do we have any other laws on America's books which permit one human to kill another completely in lieu of anything above or beyond "Meh, felt like doing it?" Hell, even Stand Your Ground laws require a basis of physical threat...


So you don't support it but you do. Got it.

Word games, really? One can't agree with a concept of "abortion is wrong" without supporting burning abortion clinics? Hmmm... you know, there are quite a few non-violent racial harmony and unity advocates who would find your inability to disconnect the underlying message from the extremists quite disturbing. Muslims, too... The idea that the extremists acting in the name of a message supported by a majority which is non-violent and non-criminal sour the entire message is what leads us to bullcrap like "All Muslims are terrorists" and "All #BlackLivesMatter protestors are wanna be cop killers." Try again.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
In any case, your point is moot.



Why?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Does the fact that people did things there that you don't like make it okay to burn the building? Because otherwise, you're off-topic.
edit on 9/5/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Hey you know, I'll grant you the common sense point. It's subjective. That said, can you explain how the USA has a Unborn Victims of Violence Act on the books which grants legal protection to the unborn in every case except when the "mother" opts to abort the child? Do we have any other laws on America's books which permit one human to kill another completely in lieu of anything above or beyond "Meh, felt like doing it?" Hell, even Stand Your Ground laws require a basis of physical threat...


I think I know what you mean. That's where the woman's rights come before the fetus. She has the LEGAL right to terminate a pregnancy. If someone causes her to miscarry that is not voluntary for the woman. I don't see what's hard to understand there. Voluntary vs involuntary.

Oh, and where are those death certificates for the babies God aborts? We call them miscarriages.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Your point is that black slaves were not considered human under the law. That is false. And that emancipation changed that?

They were humans, owned humans, but humans. If not, how could any have been freed by their owners? Can't have soulless animals walking around, starting businesses and churches and such.


edit on 9/5/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
On a related note..



July, shortly after an anti-abortion group aired an undercover video of a top Planned Parenthood doctor discussing the donation of fetal tissue after abortions, an individual using the name “Joseywhales” posted an ominous warning on Fox Nation. “I’ll pay ten large to whomever kills Dr. Deborah Nucatola,” the person wrote, referring to the senior director of Planned Parenthood who was filmed in the video. “Anyone. Go for it.”


Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




That said, can you explain how the USA has a Unborn Victims of Violence Act on the books which grants legal protection to the unborn in every case except when the "mother" opts to abort the child?


No it doesn't. It only protects against federal crimes that result in the death of the fetus.

It's true that this legislation was perceived as an attempt by the pro-life community to legislate "fetal personhood", and the pro-life community is hoping that this Act will collapse Roe V Wade.

But, it's clear that the Act supports the right of the woman to decide whether or not she wants to be pregnant, and her choice TO BE and STAY pregnant until delivery, is protected under this Act, as well her right to terminate her pregnancy.



Hell, even Stand Your Ground laws require a basis of physical threat...


You are delusional if you think that pregnancy doesn't pose a physical threat to a woman.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Your point is that black slaves were not considered human under the law. That is false. And that emancipation changed that?

They were humans, owned humans, but humans. If not, how could any have been freed by their owners? Can't have soulless animals walking around, starting businesses and churches and such.



NOPE. You're not reading me literally enough. I said blacks weren't considered 'PEOPLE" under the law, and that is an absolute fact. Nobody questioned whether they were humans, just as nobody has questioned whether fetuses are humans. The question is "Are they people?" and I used the black issue to demonstrate that using the law of the United states as the litmus test can produce results which are patently wrong, both morally speaking and Constitutionally speaking.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



The question is "Are they people?" and I used the black issue to demonstrate that using the law of the United states as the litmus test can produce results which are patently wrong, both morally speaking and Constitutionally speaking.


Black slaves were people under the law. Owned people.
But your point is also moot because this is about the law. The law says that abortion is legal and that arson is illegal.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: greydaze
On a related note..



July, shortly after an anti-abortion group aired an undercover video of a top Planned Parenthood doctor discussing the donation of fetal tissue after abortions, an individual using the name “Joseywhales” posted an ominous warning on Fox Nation. “I’ll pay ten large to whomever kills Dr. Deborah Nucatola,” the person wrote, referring to the senior director of Planned Parenthood who was filmed in the video. “Anyone. Go for it.”


Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com...


Sounds like an Agent Provocateur.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Thats a few fires at clinics in the past 2 weeks, those fake videos sure did help the situation, now i cant wait for the pp haters to come in with there excuses.


I definitely qualify as a pp hater, I only like whoo whoos and cha cha's

Humor aside, terrorism or acts that are terroristic are never ok, no matter how much you dislike something, I don't believe in abortion but even stronger, I don't believe in mandating what people can and cannot do, however you cannot kill, threaten, or injure someone you don't agree with. I will defend someone even if I don't agree with them if they fall under attack in such a way..



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
She has the LEGAL right to terminate a pregnancy. If someone causes her to miscarry that is not voluntary for the woman. I don't see what's hard to understand there. Voluntary vs involuntary.


Actually that legal Act covers more than just "miscarriages" but again, it has been carefully worded to ensure the dehumanization of the fetus. (and so Phage doesn't comment, by dehumanize I'm using this is the metaphorical sense, same as we discuss cruel conditions at Gitmo as being "dehumanizaing." I am NOT trying to say that we're turning fetuses into something other than humans.)

Regardless, if you want to roll with this LEGAL concept, then clearly the USA's track record in that regard is sketchy at best. Consider that the country went from blacks are not people to black males are 2/3rds of a person to black males are a full person to black males and females are now people! over the last 150 years of this nation's 240 year history. Japanese interment camps in the USA were LEGAL during WWII. Forced Lobotomies were LEGAL and fairly common until the late 1970s. You cannot use LEGALITY as a justification in the USA because it has as many abject failures as it does successes. The idea that the law and the medical community in 2015 are somehow above their centuries of failure and malfeasance is an arrogance which history tells us future generations will not agree with when they look back at our era.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Kali74

Hopefully, nobody was killed in the fire. Enough people have been killed in there already.


What were their names? All victims have names. Even John/Jane Does.


Oh, they were given lovely names by Planned Parenthood: 'Nonviable tissue mass', specimen, Fetal Body Parts...Lamborghini
...just to name a few...



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The law says that abortion is legal and that arson is illegal.


...and then my argument is that the law is far from perfect.

Oh, and Phage, you're wrong. The Dred Scott case stated that anyone in the US of African decent, free or a slave, could not become citizens of the US and, therefore, were not protected by US laws and had no Constitutional rights. Essentially, in the eyes of the law, they were not what the Constitution defined as "People."



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
She has the LEGAL right to terminate a pregnancy. If someone causes her to miscarry that is not voluntary for the woman. I don't see what's hard to understand there. Voluntary vs involuntary.


Actually that legal Act covers more than just "miscarriages" but again, it has been carefully worded to ensure the dehumanization of the fetus. (and so Phage doesn't comment, by dehumanize I'm using this is the metaphorical sense, same as we discuss cruel conditions at Gitmo as being "dehumanizaing." I am NOT trying to say that we're turning fetuses into something other than humans.)


And that is the crux of the matter. Some see a fetus as human. Most do not. If one really looks at this it's a theological argument. I don't deal in the mystic. It seems like society is moving on too.


Regardless, if you want to roll with this LEGAL concept, then clearly the USA's track record in that regard is sketchy at best. Consider that the country went from blacks are not people to black males are 2/3rds of a person to black males are a full person to black males and females are now people! over the last 150 years of this nation's 240 year history. Japanese interment camps in the USA were LEGAL during WWII. Forced Lobotomies were LEGAL and fairly common until the late 1970s. You cannot use LEGALITY as a justification in the USA because it has as many abject failures as it does successes. The idea that the law and the medical community in 2015 are somehow above their centuries of failure and malfeasance is an arrogance which history tells us future generations will not agree with when they look back at our era.


You DO know that there are many other countries out there not the USA, right? Maybe you allowed that crap, wouldn't surprise me really but that doesn't make what you guys did right. It's about time that you crawled into the 20th(yes that's right) century.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
You are delusional if you think that pregnancy doesn't pose a physical threat to a woman.



Nope, not delusional... I'm just a parent.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join