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.

 

Anti-abortion extremists urge kidnapping of women on way to clinic

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Hi Charles, Long time no talk to!



I was under the impression that the trend was toward a more informed consumer of goods and services, not a less informed one. We want GMO foods labelled. We're demanding calorie and other nutrition information on restaurant menus and grocery store products. We produce videos showing what actually happens at meat processing plants.


A consumer should have the right to know what is in the food that they buy and how it is prepared. Although, many consumers may choose not to watch cows being bulldozed or chickens being torn apart alive and many consumers choose not to be informed how their hot dogs are made.


My doctor was perfectly willing to show me where my cancer was, because we demand that patients give fully informed consent before we perform a procedure.


I'm so sorry to hear about your cancer! Cancer is always a surprise and no one usually knows where it exists or it's extent until looking at it through medical instruments. But, how many people need to see their gall bladder or tonsils before they're taken out?

Did your doctor charge you out of pocket for viewing your cancer through medical instruments? Because the American Medical Association has deemed vaginal probes before an abortion are unnecessary and insurance won't pay for it. It's an extra unnecessary and additional charge that many women can't afford.


I like the idea of empowering women, and other people, to make fully informed decisions as far as those decisions comply with the law.


There's nothing empowering about being unnecessarily and forcefully probed to show a woman that she is indeed pregnant. A woman seeking an abortion knows what is inside of her and where it is. Usually she also knows how far along her pregnancy is too.




posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Sometimes I wonder how many things that anti-abortionists do, that the rest of the population would find abusive, irresponsible and socially unacceptable.

I'm ok with opinions but when you are forcing your opinions unto others live, it's far beyond disrespect.

I'm not going to go out of my way to "teach" people how to live their own lives.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

Now I feel like I'm back home! To be totally honest, I took a week off ATS due to some personal problems. At the end of that time I found I had no real urge to come back. I won't bother explaining why I did return, but it took several days of lurking without logging in to actually do it. During the lurking period, I looked at the "new topics" list and, I'm sorry to say, after being away they seemed shallow. Either insignificant or filled with thoughtless arguing.

The very last thing I would ever want to do here is to get into a thoughtless argument with you. You're thoughtful, and on the subject of abortion you always provide a good discussion. We've got to talk about other things though, I feel I'm missing out on a great brain.

Oh, and thanks for the sympathy on the cancer. The surgeons said it was stage four and they got it just in time. I liked that. When I went in to have my gall bladder removed, the doctor said he had never seen one so distressed, they had to pick me off the floor of the emergency room. I liked that, too. It seems to me to be the manly thing to do, to suffer as long as possible before admitting to the need for help. Yes, I know it's crazy, but it comforts me and gives me good stories to tell.

The focus of my comments was rather narrow. I was responding to what I thought was the idea that it was absolutely insane to let women see what the doctor was going to remove. First, I thought madness was overstating the case a bit. Secondly, I thought the objection was to seeing the picture and the probing didn't really enter in to it.

But here's a thought. I'm not as expert on women's bodies as I'd like to be (95% serious, 5% sly smirk) but it seems to me that even without invasive exams, a doctor can tell how far along the pregnancy is with great accuracy. If the objection is to the probe, couldn't the doctor show her a video of what a typical pregnency that far along looks like? No intrusive exam, more information for the mother. It sounds like every one wins.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 

Dear theMediator,

We haven't had the chance to talk before. It's a pleasure. May I look at something you said?

I'm ok with opinions but when you are forcing your opinions unto others live, it's far beyond disrespect.

I'm not going to go out of my way to "teach" people how to live their own lives.

I applaud your sentiments, but the country has left you and me far behind. It's much to late to take that stance. We're being told how to live based on others' opinions all the time. The most recent example may be Obamacare which tells you what coverage you need to buy, resulting in the absurdity of young men being required to buy pre-natal and maternity care coverage. It also requires you to stop seeing, in many cases, the doctor you've grown used to.

There are restrictions on how you can use your land (or even if you can keep it), teach your children, hire and compensate employees, gather in public, buy your lightbulbs, showerheads, and toilets, eat in schools, the list is endless. You recall mayor Bloomberg's attempts to ban soft drink containers larger than 16 oz.

As we are finding out, the restrictions based on global warming fears are turning out to be based on opinions. The same is true of GMO foods. No one can say there is scientific evidence proving these problems exist, just enough evidence to make two opposite opinions possible.

But rather go on all day, I'll simply repeat that we are having others' opinions forced on us in just about every area of life. There's nothing particularly sacred about abortion.

If you're willing to fight all these other intrusions, I'll fight alongside you. But if it's just abortion that you choose to defend, I think I'll pass.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Man if I was a woman and was kidnapped by these people on the way to the abortion clinic only to be taken to a church to be proselytized to, I'd immediately call 911 as soon as I knew something was wrong. Let these people trying to save my alleged sinful butt pay for their very real CRIMES they are committing. Then I'd laugh as I got a ride the next week for the same thing.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Yeah, that's pretty clearly pre-meditated kidnapping, and if these overzealous morons go through with this, they will serve the lengthy prison sentences they deserve for their extremist actions. Full stop.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


WOW! Charles, you da man! Tough guy! I hope you're feeling better and your personal problems are abating. You've been missed. Welcome back!

I get it, the topics lately have seemed shallow to me too, and I've hardly felt like, or had the personal time to invest in discussions and authoring threads the way they should be. But ATS has introduced me to some wonderful people and has enriched my life, for what it's worth.




But here's a thought. I'm not as expert on women's bodies as I'd like to be (95% serious, 5% sly smirk) but it seems to me that even without invasive exams, a doctor can tell how far along the pregnancy is with great accuracy. If the objection is to the probe, couldn't the doctor show her a video of what a typical pregnency that far along looks like? No intrusive exam, more information for the mother. It sounds like every one wins


Sure! Except that most states require counseling before an abortion, and that's when the (tasteful) educational video should be shown, in my opinion. Not in doctor's office. I have no problem with education.




posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Man, this "freedom" thing should be forbidden, right? There should be laws against people we don't like!

Seriously, KYFHO.. Keep Your F* Hands Off!



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

I hope you don't mind if I (metaphorically) hold on to you. You're one of the few people I would display to new members as an example of how to disagree vehemently in a polite and thoughtful way without surrendering any of your passion.

I think we've come together on this. If the politicians feel a film is so important, they can mandate it during the counselling sessions and leave the doctor's office alone. Of course, I'd also appreciate it if the doctor's office wasn't used to ask about gun ownership (personal or in the home), or other issues unrelated to the treatment requested.

But, agreement with windword! I shall float lightly through the day in a cloud of bliss. Thank you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Whether any women were kidnapped or not is almost inconsequential. The fact that it went as far as it did is still a felony. Conspiracy to kidnap is no joke and if this is a real situation then these clowns should be prosecuted.

www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Nephalim
reply to post by charles1952
 


People are terrorists now for wanting to save a child's life now Charles; I thought you knew.
edit on 11-11-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)


Do you think that by justifying an act of terror by suggesting it has ultimately 'good' aims in anyway lessens that act of terror? It reminds me of the old 'we had to destroy that village in order to save it', military justification of tactics used in the Vietnam war.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I'm not defending the pro-life crowd by any means, but I understand why they sometimes resort to violent tactics such as these (assuming the story is true). In their mind, abortion is on par with killing a human being. Typically, when someone's life is in danger you will take any means necessary to save them, which is basically what this is (to them).

It really shouldn't come as any surprise when a pro-life individual resorts to extreme tactics such a violence to get their message across, when you know what their message is.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

cuckooold

Nephalim
reply to post by charles1952
 


People are terrorists now for wanting to save a child's life now Charles; I thought you knew.
edit on 11-11-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)


Do you think that by justifying an act of terror by suggesting it has ultimately 'good' aims in anyway lessens that act of terror? It reminds me of the old 'we had to destroy that village in order to save it', military justification of tactics used in the Vietnam war.


Where does it say that I'm justifying kidnapping. Here let me help you out. A qoute from Justice Kennedy.



"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”


You have any other words or behaviors you wanna throw in my direction? I have stated my position on abortion here openly, I have never advocated on ats any person committing a crime against any person for abortion. Nor have I ever spoke against any of my peoples rights. I spend more time defending them here and against wackjobs who think everyone BUT them, is a terrorist.

I also had family who served in Vietnam.
edit on 13-11-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


People can hold opinions about any subject they care to indulge in.

They can protest anything they feel strongly about.

They can work to change a system they strongly dislike.

They can spread their political message far and wide attempting to gain like-minded allies.

They CANNOT commit capital crimes in aid of their agenda.

They CANNOT advocate capital crimes.

Protest is fine, kidnapping people when your protesting doesn't change public opinion is not fine.

These people are extremists, probably mentally ill extremists, but certainly criminal, and ought to be treated as such.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


MysterX the states also have laws that protect children, including the unborn.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Do you mean the laws that punish people who force an abortion on a woman or harm a pregnant women so that it results in her fetus dying?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Its more like these people are trashing their own cause really. For all you or anyone else knows, it could be pro choice people saying this mess in a poor attempt to put pro lifers in a bad light. I'm not stupid enough to believe everything is black and white and extremism apparently isn't limited to one cause or another. It seems more of a staunch and unwavering behavior that seems to incite opponents and its very possible that its on both sides.

Still, going back to those laws, stressing a pregnant women out isn't a good idea to begin with. I don't see how they would think of this as a pro life behavior.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


I assumed that what I quoted you saying was in relation to the original posting about people kidnapping women on the way to the abortion clinic. If that is the case, well then yes, I would consider that an act of terror, regardless of whether these kidnappers believed what they were doing is right or not.

If I am misinterpreting what you have said, please specify so I can see where I may have misunderstood.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

cuckooold
reply to post by Nephalim
 


I assumed that what I quoted you saying was in relation to the original posting about people kidnapping women on the way to the abortion clinic. If that is the case, well then yes, I would consider that an act of terror, regardless of whether these kidnappers believed what they were doing is right or not.

If I am misinterpreting what you have said, please specify so I can see where I may have misunderstood.


Do you think that by justifying an act of terror by suggesting it has ultimately 'good' aims in anyway lessens that act of terror? It reminds me of the old 'we had to destroy that village in order to save it', military justification of tactics used in the Vietnam war.

Lets see if we can sort this out because its hard sometimes to grasp what someone is trying to get across on the internet.

I think acts of extremism have been used to save lives sure. Now can someone justify an act of terrorism, this is tough. Take a pilot for example, who bombs someone in a village knowing from intel that this person wants to commit acts of terror. You may htink of that as a form of defense, while the people getting bombed are terrified. Thus, blowing up a village to save what who knows how many.. in the eyes of some, in their minds is justified. Is it an act of terror none the less? Or a justified act of defense. We know one of our former presidents bombed his own people. In my mind thats a terrifying thought. But we actually got the 13th from his service and later the 14th. Was that extremism or terrorism against the south? or was the South on the giving end.

...and dont get me wrong this terrorism thing its not something good by any measure. I personally take a stance of no harm, and if I personally do harm to someone, it would have to be under extreme circumstances- defense of self and family. Otherwise I'm harmless. Wouldnt harm a soul.

but even that in itself can be extreme to someone right? Some say if you sit back and do nothing and someone dies, you're to blame. One might guess in the minds of both sides they see that they're both right. To the average joe, you and me I'm not so sure. You and I see two sides going at it and neither would be right when they reach the point of violence towards the other, or even us, neither is right, nor justified. Both sides have failed to compromise and use better and reasonable judgments.

Abortion is the ending of a life, and its by choice.
Bombing a cliniq is the ending of life and that's by choice.
Which is the actual position of preserving life and liberty?
My position is.. people much more skilled and knowledgeable about law have decided that its a personal liberty, and a right. I respect that, but I don't enjoy the thought of children dying or knowing a mothers life is in jeopardy over pregnancy issues either. Justifying ending someones life is hard to justify in my mind but I suppose society deems it necessary under certain circumstances.

Maybe that disqualifies me from both groups. I don't know. Maybe just having an opinion puts me into both without me even realizing it. Its very hard to tell today. I do not envy either side of their positions, that's for sure because to me they're all americans, my people; with staunch beliefs in being right and in their minds, justified.
edit on 13-11-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
More incoming

Now these clauses are strange, from a learning perspective. If you apply a liberty clause, and you say well this person is exercising a liberty.. well there are people exercising liberties every day, and some of them go to jail for it. If you include a privacy clause and say well, that's a private matter; people have the right to privacy but even then, your home can be raided, you can be patted down for walking down the street and we have the 4rth, 1st and even the ninth and tenth. The same people who push for restrictions and even fight to keep them from occurring will not do the same for other rights.

We also know rights are restricted as I said, whether we like it or not. How is it possible that a woman can end a life, no penalty and its a right... but you catch a guy with a gun who has the right to bare arms and now more restrictions via gun laws come into play? and how is it that we have the right of liberty inherent, but we throw junkies in jail? Whos defending those rights? Hmm. They ended no ones life. Strange huh.

i used to think it was just about trampling all over peoples rights but with every passing day it seems more like people are just trying to sort through the whole mess and keep everyone as happy possible; and keep as much freedom and liberty in tact as they possibly can. All of this can and does infringe on Life and Liberty though. When is anything justified.
edit on 13-11-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join