Anti-abortion Terrorist Runs Car into Women's Clinic

A man accused of ramming his car into a women's clinic and then setting his car on fire thought it was an abortion clinic, police said Tuesday.

"He was using his car to torch the building," Davenport police Detective Mike Bowers said.

David Robert McMenemy, 45, of Sterling Heights, Mich., is charged with second-degree arson. He's accused of driving his car into the Edgerton Women's Health Center about 4:30 a.m. on Monday.

www.mlive.com.../base/news-37/1158074946243690.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

Well, this women's clinic didn't even perform abortions, so I guess mission failed. When will the terrorists learn?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Jamuhn]

It seems that the man was a lunatic and had no clue as what cause he was trying to support.

Anti abortion or anti women clinics overall.

The center does not perform abortions and does not provide abortion referrals, said Tom Fedje, the president of the clinic. He said the clinic does advise pregnant women on the various options available to them.

What does he mean various options available, can anybody help me on that?

Originally posted by deltaboy
What does he mean various options available, can anybody help me on that?

I think thats pretty blatantly obvious. He tells women all options regarding their pregnancy. He tells them, like any good doctor, what to expect, and what they can do.

very different from providing referals.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
When will the terrorists learn?

Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targeting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

Source.

When I think terrorist, I think a member of a paramilitary: The IRA, ETA, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad etc.

This man seems to be a lone nutcase criminal following his own agenda. A criminal certainly, but a terrorist? I'm not so sure. By labeling such people as terrorists, are we not opening the doors for abuse of anti terror legislation, legislation that was allegedly brought into being to exclusively target those organisations that use terror tactics for political gain?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I think thats pretty blatantly obvious. He tells women all options regarding their pregnancy. He tells them, like any good doctor, what to expect, and what they can do.

very different from providing referals.

Thank you for providing a more clear idea on the interpretation of his words. Had to be certain what he meant, so I ask.

Originally posted by Implosion
When I think terrorist, I think a member of a paramilitary: The IRA, ETA, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad etc.

This man seems to be a lone nutcase criminal following his own agenda. A criminal certainly, but a terrorist? I'm not so sure. By labeling such people as terrorists, are we not opening the doors for abuse of anti terror legislation, legislation that was allegedly brought into being to exclusively target those organisations that use terror tactics for political gain?

If he was a Muslim blowing up its car would you have the same opinion?

Youve got to laugh at the hypocrisy and irony of these religious freaks who murder because they believe abortion is wrong.

Originally posted by Flyer
Youve got to laugh at the hypocrisy and irony of these religious freaks who murder because they believe abortion is wrong.

I believe abortion is wrong and I'm not religious, nor am I willing to go so far as to ram my car packed with explosives to support that view.

Originally posted by Implosion

Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targeting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

Source.

When I think terrorist, I think a member of a paramilitary: The IRA, ETA, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad etc.

This man seems to be a lone nutcase criminal following his own agenda. A criminal certainly, but a terrorist? I'm not so sure. By labeling such people as terrorists, are we not opening the doors for abuse of anti terror legislation, legislation that was allegedly brought into being to exclusively target those organisations that use terror tactics for political gain?

In the US, anti-abortion activists are common. There are other certain more notable instances of anti-abortion activists using violence to achieve their political goals. And under the second definition I highlighted above, it's obvious this would be deemed terrorism. I do sympathize though with your statement that labelling such as terror may be used against the wrong people. But, this would happen anyway. It is wrong to use a vague definition such as that of terrorism in ANY kind of legislation or promotion of war.

As well, the groups you observed as being terrorists are all separatists organizations. Do we then call groups only terrorists if they are trying to form their own state on their own terms?

But then, we see jihadists labelled as terrorists who are trying to influence the US to leave the Middle East. This is the same concept, except this is a person trying to influence politics within the US using similar methods (using a car to burn down a building). Perhaps we should drop the concept of "terrorism" from legislation completely and replace it with something more meaningful. Until then, I would like to hear more about why this is not terrorism according to the commonly used definitions of the term.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Jamuhn]

As you can probably tell, I have posted a definition that is in opposition to my own view. Accident? I doubt it. Maybe in fact the problem lies with myself. When i think of terrorist acts, I think of large scale actions carried out by highly organised groups of people who share an ideology or goal. Acts such as these:

1996 Manchester bombing

September 11, 2001 attacks

2002 Bali bombing

11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

7 July 2005 London bombings

I think the term terrorist in this case is an over reaction, and as I stated before, if enough people start to think along the lines of terming common criminals as "terrorists", the the possibility of abuse of anti terrorism legislation rears its ugly head.

The definition is indeed vague. If a man pulls a gun on you and demands that you hand over your wallet, is he not utilising terror tactics [the use or threatened use of violence] for an economic goal? I feel a little balance is needed. Where do you draw the line?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Flyer
Youve got to laugh at the hypocrisy and irony of these religious freaks who murder because they believe abortion is wrong.

I believe abortion is wrong and I'm not religious, nor am I willing to go so far as to ram my car packed with explosives to support that view.

I believe abortion is a woman's free choice. I imagine the man that rode this car also believed stem cell research is wrong too. We need stem cell research just as women need to have a free mind to choose. It's not just life or not... its about a lot. We are not in the 1800's anymore, people need to wake up. If a woman's birth control failed her, then she should have the right to abort her baby if she feels she can not afford the child.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Techsnow]

You know, I am in the UK, and over here, as far as I am aware, such acts against abortion clinics are non-existent. To me, the right to choose is a God given right. However, I appreciate that this issue in the United States is a hot one, however, I might just have underestimated just how hot it is.

Google search: anti abortion terrorist

Indeed, it seems I have stumbled into a conspiracy I was completely unaware of:

July/August 1995

Far-Right Militias and Anti-Abortion Violence
When Will Media See the Connection?

By Laura Flanders

When the Oklahoma City bombing captured the attention of the mainstream media, some women's rights activists expected that the attack would end mainstream media's reluctance to report on violence against abortion-providers and other domestic terror threats. That reasonable hope was dashed.

With its first reporting of the Oklahoma story, the New York Times(4/20/95) ran a list headlined "Other Bombings in America", which spanned four decades and included some attacks that claimed no injuries or lives. But none of the 40 officially documented bombings that have targeted women's clinics in that period was mentioned.

Media investigations of where right-wing militants get their violent ideas generally ignored the Army of God manual, which recommends 65 ways to destroy abortion clinics and includes an illustrated recipe for making a "fertilizer bomb" from ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. The manual turned up in 1993, buried in the backyard of an anti-abortionist indicted for arson and acid attacks on nine clinics. But headline-writers avoided describing it as a "Manual for Terrorists," as the New York Times identified a militia document in 1995 (4/29/95).

The first person convicted of violence against a women's health center ignited a gas can in a crowded New York City clinic in 1979. Since 1982, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, there have been 169 arson and bomb attacks on women's health centers in 33 states. In the'90s, when five workers in such clinics have been murdered, people calling themselves "pro-life" publicly advocate violence as a way to make legally sanctioned abortion impossibly unsafe.

In January 1994, the Supreme Court agreed with pro-choice groups that anti-abortionists could legitimately be investigated for conspiracy, but influential media have been harder to convince. In fact, the national media's gentle handling of the anti-abortion story has amounted to a quasi-conspiracy itself.

Source.

In the light of the information linked to above, I take back what I have said. It is obvious to me that there are highly organised groups of people willing to perform such attacks on abortion clinics, and it is quite correct that these people be referred to as terrorists.

Originally posted by Techsnow
I believe abortion is a woman's free choice.

So if your mother decided to abort you in a sense because of conditions she would have faced for example poverty, or don't feel like taking care of you, you would support her decision? What would have happened to all the things you have done in this world that your actions have affected on peoples lives? Maybe you are a doctor or a police officer saving or protecting lives, but your birth mother decided to abort you no matter how strong or weak the reason is. The only thing that I would support such abortion however, is the danger to the host's life.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Techsnow
I believe abortion is a woman's free choice.

So if your mother decided to abort you in a sense because of conditions she would have faced for example poverty, or don't feel like taking care of you, you would support her decision? What would have happened to all the things you have done in this world that your actions have affected on peoples lives? Maybe you are a doctor or a police officer saving or protecting lives, but your birth mother decided to abort you no matter how strong or weak the reason is. The only thing that I would support such abortion however, is the danger to the host's life.

What your saying is irrelevant.
That would be like me saying...
so if your mother decided to use you for stem cell research instead of letting you live, you would support her decision?
The child is not alive until it comes out of the womb. When the fetus is in the womb it is nothing more than that.. a fetus. It might as well be considered a stem cell until it is born. It is a part of the woman and until it comes out of her body, IMO, it is her decision wether or not it comes out.


[edit on 12-9-2006 by Techsnow]

Originally posted by deltaboy


I believe abortion is wrong and I'm not religious, nor am I willing to go so far as to ram my car packed with explosives to support that view.

Thats fair. You are entitled to your opinions, and most people who oppose abortion dont attack or hurt others.

But this guy is a nut and probably has women issues, which is why he did what he did.

Originally posted by Techsnow

What your saying is irrelevant.
That would be like me saying...
so if your mother decided to use you for stem cell research instead of letting you live, you would support her decision?

Its relevant enough to put you in a bind as to the moral question you would face if you were the fetus and not somebody else.

The child is not alive until it comes out of the womb. When the fetus is in the womb it is nothing more than that.. a fetus. It might as well be considered a stem cell until it is born. It is a part of the woman and until it comes out of her body, IMO, it is her decision wether or not it comes out.

That is your view of whats alive and what is not. I'm sure the kicking by this so called fetus sure tells otherwise.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by deltaboy

I believe abortion is wrong and I'm not religious, nor am I willing to go so far as to ram my car packed with explosives to support that view.

Thats fine, I dont have a problem with people who believe abortion is wrong, I have a problem with people who kill because they believe it is wrong and they are all religious nutjobs.

Oh no please don't let this turn into an abortion debate... -_-;

Anyway the guy was obviously crazy. But hes not the only one.

The fact that he hit the wrong place adds a twist to this though.

Originally posted by deltaboy

So if your mother decided to abort you in a sense because of conditions she would have faced for example poverty, or don't feel like taking care of you, you would support her decision?

that is an unfair question coming from a man. You have to be a woman facing a very personal choice to understand what it means to make decisions upon your own body and reproductive rights.

He only said that is a woman choice that all, if you want your opinion respected respect others opinions too.

That was not the right example to use. Try again.

I agree with Kacen this not an abortion issue but an issue of a crazy lunatic going on a rampant crusade.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by marg6043]