The Roe V Wade Protests are Coming

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah yes, it would need to be a bitchute video? As the person was continually uploading the video, you believe they were editing all the "violence" out of it?

I'm going to just say that either you are a Brown Shirt or support the Brown Shirts of the Biden administration to push legilation that will deny human rights and freedoms.

Prove me wrong, Karen.

If you have the balls, I'll challenge you to an official ATS debate.

Your brain against mine, kitten.

Are you up for the challenge?

Because I have just double-dog dared you.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Seriously? Who are you to judge anyone's relationship with their God? Do you say the same about a soldier? Or any "sinner"?

a reply to: DBCowboy

What got you all riled up? The Fox scare mongering? Karen? Kitten? Seriously?

I disrespected you in no way. What are we supposed to be debating? Why are you so angry that you feel you need to belittle me by calling me kitten?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: DBCowboy

What got you all riled up? The Fox scare mongering? Karen? Kitten? Seriously?

I disrespected you in no way. What are we supposed to be debating? Why are you so angry that you feel you need to belittle me by calling me kitten?

I challenge you to a debate on Roe vs Wade.

Consider your face slapped.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Seriously? Who are you to judge anyone's relationship with their God? Do you say the same about a soldier? Or any "sinner"?

HAH i know you werent talking to me, but its not judging anyone to say that wanting to kill innocent babies is against the flow of the divine

Its common sense, and that poster is right

I also agree DBC, you seem like an apologist and judging by your past posts it would seem that youre the one riled up.

Yes people praying who support killig babies is TOTALLY not hypocritical

a reply to: DBCowboy

Why would you and I debate it? We've both been very clear in our positions on other threads. As a mother of three daughters I support a woman's right to choose. You do not. It's not like we're going to sway anyone. One thing about ATS is that everyone is fully entrenched in their positions.

I mean if it does make you feel better to call me a brownshirt,or Karen or kitten, I guess just go for it. It really doesn't affect my life, nor hurt my feelings.

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Do you hold the same opinion of soldiers who pray before blowing up an area that may have children in it? I'm just curious honestly.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why would you and I debate it? We've both been very clear in our positions on other threads. As a mother of three daughters I support a woman's right to choose. You do not. It's not like we're going to sway anyone. One thing about ATS is that everyone is fully entrenched in their positions.

I mean if it does make you feel better to call me a brownshirt,or Karen or kitten, I guess just go for it. It really doesn't affect my life, nor hurt my feelings.

It's obvious you are for violence against people who think differently from you, hence your support of the terrorism and violence against the Supreme Court Justices that you encourage.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Do you hold the same opinion of soldiers who pray before blowing up an area that may have children in it? I'm just curious honestly.

What an absurdly weak argument, babies are innocent, PERIOD . Trying to compare WAR where other people are actively trying to kill you with someone CUTTING UP , Dismembering and even at some points SELLING the parts of a baby who is brand new to the world is sick and wrong

There is something gravely wrong with you

Its murder and theres no other way to slice it, whats worse is its murder people like you try to pass off like its not

Dont be pissed off at us and others because we refuse to be part of your death cult

a reply to: DBCowboy

They lit candles for gosh sakes. They chanted. The cops had nothing to do. You think in that neighborhood the neighbors would have invited some violent protesters to drink wine around a bonfire after the protest?

Twitter

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why would you and I debate it?

WHy not?

If my position is so weak then you would clearly win, n'est pas?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: DBCowboy

They lit candles for gosh sakes. They chanted. The cops had nothing to do. You think in that neighborhood the neighbors would have invited some violent protesters to drink wine around a bonfire after the protest?

Twitter

Yeah, trying to intimidate Justices is legal, is that what you're saying?

Please say that you're saying that.

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Ah, it's war, so collateral damage including innocents is "acceptable" murder. I got it. I do not judge you for holding that opinion as that's how you feel.

The only anger I see on this thread is not coming from me. You are entitled to your own opinion. I did not try to sway anyone.

I simply stated there was no violent protest this evening. Somehow that is very upsetting to a few people.

The issue here is that there is no established consistency in this debate.

If this country wants to be pro-life,
start by abolishing the death penalty.

If this country wants to be pro-choice,
start by abolishing the controlled substance act.

Both sides of the argument can't see the forest for the trees.

A pox on both their houses.

a reply to: frogs453

I simply stated there was no violent protest this evening. Somehow that is very upsetting to a few people.

It's illegal; that's what it is.

18 USC § 1507

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

I don't see where that US statute makes an exception for peacefully protesting. The maximum jail time is one year, which I believe makes this a Class A misdemeanor (I always forget if a felony is "one year or more" or "over one year" maximum penalty). Of course, had anyone thrown anything, lit anything on fire, or even threatened anything toward one of the Justices, this statute would probably not be considered. That would fall under 18 USC § 1503:

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is—

(1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;

(2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and

(3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.

Quite the difference... any threat is 10 years in Federal prison. It would not be hard to argue that anyone attending during an aggressive act, who did not immediately leave the premises, would be as guilty as the aggressor, since the mob itself would become a threat to a reasonable person.

Sounds to me that these nice folks who had the bonfire risked quite a lot to have it. Things could have gone very badly, and it is by the mercy of the police that they weren't arrested under 18 USC § 1507 for the exact actions they undertook. I doubt that, under the circumstances, a judge would have thrown the book at them and locked them up for a year, but a nice hefty fine after a night in jail would have been quite possible and appropriate.

That right to protest does not extend to interfering with judicial decisions and/or actions. The Justices get to rule on the case, the litigants and their agents get to make the legal arguments, and the rest of us get to sit and wait until the decision is released. No one gets to try and bully, coerce, intimidate, shame, or otherwise affect a Justice. Especially in the aftermath of the "Summer of Love" riots, aka "mostly peaceful protests," it is completely reasonable for anyone to see a crowd of people chanting and make the assumption that things can turn violent. That is the legacy of the "Summer of Love."

To be totally honest, were I to see a group of people outside my home chanting, I would immediately arm myself to the teeth, call 911, and sit somewhere with a vantage point so I could see heads in the crosshairs, hoping against hope that the cops got there before I had to open fire. It would not surprise me to learn that Justice Alito and his family were armed and ready just in case. These protestors are playing a very dangerous game.

You can thank BLM and Antifa for that danger.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy

WHERE IS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT PEOPLE CAN KILL THE UNBORN, KAREN???

The same place where it states that officers that are scared for their life because someone might be a threat can kill born people of all ages.

Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life -- whether a specific threat is known or not.

Unfortunately, too many people don't give a damn about the mother's life.

Right???

a reply to: TheRedneck

To be totally honest, were I to see a group of people outside my home chanting, I would immediately arm myself to the teeth, call 911, and sit somewhere with a vantage point so I could see heads in the crosshairs, hoping against hope that the cops got there before I had to open fire.

Such reverence for life. Such inspiring Christian values. I'm so impressed.

NOT.

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Are you aware that Jewish texts state that women are required to have abortions if the fetus puts the physical or mental health of the mother at risk?

Are you also aware that the Talmud states that life does not begin until the first breath and that before that time the fetus is part of the woman's body? Or how about the fact that the Torah makes it very clear that if a man causes a woman to miscarry it is a minor crime punishable only by a fine, whereas if the mother is gravely injured the punishment is a life for a life?

Just because your religion says abortion is a sin doesn't mean all religions think that way. The funny thing is, the New Testament doesn't actually have anything to say about abortion. The only references to abortion in the Bible are in the Old Testament which, as we've established, is pro-abortion.

So how can you judge someone that supports access to abortions' relationship with God when your own sacred text supports access to abortions?

a reply to: Boadicea

Do you really think I would not defend myself and my family against any threat, no matter what? Do you really think other people will not do the same? Do you really think a hoard of unruly humans has some special dispensation to loot, steal, and kill that is above both the law of Man and the laws of Nature?

If so, I suggest you change your opinion.

That statement holds reverence for my and my family's lives, and reverence for the protestor's lives because i would be hoping the police would arrive. Yes, if a protestor were to throw one, just one, Molotov cocktail or wave one, just one, shiny object that looked like a gun, I promise you the response will be immediate and severe. I was not the one burning down buildings in 2020; I will not be the one helplessly watching it happen to me in 2022, 2023, 2024, 2030, 2050, 2100, or any other year henceforth.

Better tried by twelve than carried by six. If you honestly cannot see that, I strongly, strongly suggest you stay as far from any protests as humanly possible. This sounds like it will end very, very badly.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your advice is neither wanted nor appreciated.

What you fail to grasp is that for the same reason you have the right to protect and defend YOUR life, a woman has a right to protect and defend HER life, including from life-threatening risks of pregnancy.

Unfortunately, you are not the only one. Lots of noble talk about protecting the right to life... until it's time to boast about taking lives.

As an individual, and as a society, it has been determined and accepted that not all lives can and/or should be saved, for various reasons.

We need to find a way to balance rights where they conflict. Especially in this debate.