Arson At Planned Parenthood Clinic In Pullman, Washington

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?

a reply to: burdman30ott6


you mean like the law in South Carolina??

Other prosecutors are twisting laws designed to protect pregnant women and their unborn children into attacks on childbearers themselves. At least 38 states have introduced fetal homicide laws that were intended to be used against violent attacks by third parties like abusive male partners. But in South Carolina, only one case has been brought against a man for assaulting a pregnant woman, while up to 300 women have been arrested under the law, according to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Pregnant Women Who Lose Babies Face Criminal Charges In Mississippi, Alabama
thinkprogress.org...

getting jailed for having a miscarriage. heck one poor girl was found guilty of not only killing her baby while it was still in her womb but also killing it after it was born...
just another good reason to get an abortion if you happen to get pregnant...especially if you find out that it will be a problem pregnancy that carries a risk of miscarriage...
you might get thrown in jail if things go wrong....

a reply to: dawnstar

Sounds almost like Ancient Catholicism. Gotta pump out those units.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

While you accuse the pro-choice community of dehumanizing a woman's fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus, the pro-life side is busy giving a woman's fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, desires, hopes, expectations, etc.

originally posted by: intrepid
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.

Uh, most of the western world outside of the US was about 30 years ahead of the US in terms of elimination of slavery and granting legal personhood to those of African descent. Before we go patting each other on the back, let's also remember that your own beloved Canada has a bit of egg on their face regarding the manner in which your laws viewed you First Nation tribes. Y'all treated them like less than people and it was perfectly LEGAL right into the 70s when the Indian Schools were finally shut down.

So please, join the US in that 20th Century, you only need to crawl forward a little bit more to do so.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

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.

I'm betting dollars to donuts that you're not a woman whose given birth.

Like I said, if you don't think that pregnancy is a physical threat to a woman's health, you're delusional!

The following are some common maternal health conditions or problems a woman may experience during pregnancy—
Anemia

Urinary Tract InfectionsExternal Web Site Icon (UTI)

Mental Health Conditions

Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM)

Preeclampsia.

Obesity and Weight Gain

Infections

Hyperemesis GravidarumExternal
www.cdc.gov...

"Stand your Ground" more than applies here!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
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.

Uh, most of the western world outside of the US was about 30 years ahead of the US in terms of elimination of slavery and granting legal personhood to those of African descent.

Yup. My province of NS being the first. Like I said, ya'll gotta catch up.

Before we go patting each other on the back, let's also remember that your own beloved Canada has a bit of egg on their face regarding the manner in which your laws viewed you First Nation tribes. Y'all treated them like less than people and it was perfectly LEGAL right into the 70s when the Indian Schools were finally shut down.

You picked the wrong aspect of Canadian history to attack. I totally agree. I've said the same and much more. We don't live by that "I'm right or dead" mentality. We own up to our discretions. Ya'll might want to think about that. It's 20th century thinking.

So please, join the US in that 20th Century, you only need to crawl forward a little bit more to do so.

Bwahahahahaha....... Sorry but that's rich. Rich Little.

a reply to: Kali74

What Un Holy Book are these people reading? Where does it say to hate those that don't believe what you do?

It says believers and non believers don't belong in the same churches. And that God judges those outside the church. Stop trying to do God's job.

Violence to end Abortion comes from the realm of hypocritical insanity.

a reply to: intrepid

Its not unheard of arson to pay for code deficiencies or raise capitol to finance a needed remodel . Or even self inflicted for the sympathy . Like The 2 ladies recently just burned down their home said it was the anti gays that did it till the fire Marshall caught them . And some things like that after the church shooting.

I will wait for a suspect being named and charged before I blame any one group.

a reply to: windword

Obviously it *can* be a threat. Here's a compromise, then. Apply the same standard to the law regarding abortions as is applied for Stand Your Ground: "Demonstrate a threat before allowing the abortion." Seems simple, right? Oh, but I promise you no pro-choicer will accept that because they demand 100% control, zero justification required "Abort the baby because [b]I want an abortion." That's the part which is utterly in defiance of the spirit of the law and the part which is entirely unique in American law. In no other aspect of life can one human being kill another human being just because, no reason, and walk away with zero scrutiny.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Apply the same standard to the law regarding abortions as is applied for Stand Your Ground: "Demonstrate a threat before allowing the abortion."

An unwanted pregnancy is like having an uninvited guest that won't leave, or an intruder in your home, only in this case the intruder/unwanted guest that refuses to leave, is in your uterus!

A woman has the right to evict that unwanted squatter.

originally posted by: intrepid
You picked the wrong aspect of Canadian history to attack. I totally agree. I've said the same and much more. We don't live by that "I'm right or dead" mentality. We own up to our discretions. Ya'll might want to think about that. It's 20th century thinking.

...eventually you do, but only after multiple decades of sweeping it under the rug and a massive effort to continue the cover up. www.thestar.com...

The world is the same, my friend. We're all in the snip up to our necks on the national levels and there ain't a single country that's treading anything other than raw sewerage.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

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...

Not to mention "medical billing codes".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Apply the same standard to the law regarding abortions as is applied for Stand Your Ground: "Demonstrate a threat before allowing the abortion."

An unwanted pregnancy is like having an uninvited guest that won't leave, or an intruder in your home, only in this case the intruder/unwanted guest that refuses to leave, is in your uterus!

A woman has the right to evict that unwanted squatter.

Ah, but that guest was invited (in most cases) through voluntary sexual intercourse. You cannot invote a person into your home and then kill them... even in Texas that's against the law.

a reply to: intrepid

Let's carry this to another thread, Trep. We've derailed this long enough and we're well off the arson topic that this is about. I'll give you the last word here, yo. Knock yourself out!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: windword

Obviously it *can* be a threat. Here's a compromise, then. Apply the same standard to the law regarding abortions as is applied for Stand Your Ground: "Demonstrate a threat before allowing the abortion." Seems simple, right? Oh, but I promise you no pro-choicer will accept that because they demand 100% control, zero justification required "Abort the baby because [b]I want an abortion."

That is US law. It's a bitch you don't agree with it.

That's the part which is utterly in defiance of the spirit of the law and the part which is entirely unique in American law. In no other aspect of life can one human being kill another human being just because, no reason, and walk away with zero scrutiny.

You call it a "defiance of the spirit of the law" but you are not accepting that there are other people with different ethics in the country. The SCOTUS voted. It's done. It isn't going to change. Why harp on the past?

TDLR: Your spirit of the law and others are different.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Wrong my friend. You played the attack card to discredit but I agree. We screwed the natives even worse than the Americans. Check it out. Even old time biological warfare.

So not that I copped to my countries foibles, which was easy, can you reach across the aisle?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

thought so, I had a friend who talked about the indian school she was sent to...
don't see why you are knocking canada for their indian schools...
the us didn't close theirs till 1978.

but you seems to be missing something here...
the slave owners could have just left the africans in africa and they probably would have lived much happier lives. we could have left the indians alone and they would have been fine.

when it comes to a women and the baby she is carrying, there is no way that they can go their separate ways. all the pro-life crowd can say is that well if they didn't want the kid, they should have kept their legs crossed.
well, I've gone into why I belief that that is really not a reasonable expectation too many times, I am not here. But, well, let's assume that the baby is concieved and for some reason, the best interest of the mother and the best interest of the baby are at direct odds with each other...
how can they both be considered as equal in rights in such a case? it seems like you would have to demote the rights of one for the benefit of the other.

I wonder when the media will start classifying these acts of violence as terrorism? Because that's exactly what they are.

Looks like ISIS and Christians have more in common than they thought.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ah, but that guest was invited (in most cases) through voluntary sexual intercourse.

Sexual intercourse doesn't imply consent for a fetus to take up residence for 10 months. Birth control seals that social contract, even if birth control fails, abortion is the insurance policy behind that social contract.

You cannot invote a person into your home and then kill them... even in Texas that's against the law.

I'm pretty sure that even in Texas, if your guest threatens your well being, you can shoot them.

a reply to: muse7

please quit using the word terrorism, our gov't goes crazy when it comes to dealing with terrorists and well, I don't feel like having my home attacked by drones because the fools zipped by the street sign too fast to read it and realize that it was the wrong street....