• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant #OccupySeattle Protester Miscarries After Being Kicked, Pepper Sprayed

whysoserious said:
I do not see how you can delegitimize the right to protest based off what they are protesting - especially if their cause is not hateful in anyway.
Click to expand...



I think comparing whining about nothing, student loans, etc in a park, to the civil rights movement, misses reality a bit.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think comparing whining about nothing, student loans, etc in a park, to the civil rights movement, misses reality a bit.
Click to expand...

And I am sure many in '50s had a similar opinion about the civil right movement itself. Again, if all protests were based off of popular thought, what point would they serve?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think comparing whining about nothing, student loans, etc in a park, to the civil rights movement, misses reality a bit.
Click to expand...
proving that some are unable to see the forest for the trees
obviously, you missed the strong similarity: unjust government actions provoking both movements
 
whysoserious said:
And I am sure many in '50s had a similar opinion about the civil right movement itself. Again, if all protests were based off of popular thought, what point would they serve?
Click to expand...



I think the civil rights movement was just, I think the #ows protest is just an excuse to get high.
 
Thunder said:
that's not the point.

the point is, the college is demanding more money from middle-class and lower-class students, while keeping bloated salaries for administration.
Click to expand...

And instead of being pissed at university profs and administrators they protest the banks who gave them the ability to go to college. Morons.
 
VanceMack said:
And instead of being pissed at university profs and administrators they protest the banks who gave them the ability to go to college. Morons.
Click to expand...

more naive, i would say.
 
whysoserious said:
The protesters were breaking the law in a non-violent manner and so were most civil rights protests. Care to explain the difference?
Click to expand...

Because protesting Wallstreet, by blocking streets and intersections in Seattle, is not the same as protesting people being treated as 2nd class citizens by law.
Quite frankly any comparison to the civil rights era protests will fall incredibly short.

You don't have a right to impede other people, in order to protest your pet cause.
 
Last edited:
After having read several other stories on Ms. Fox and her claims, I've discovered:

1. She has attended several OWS protests in which clashes with the police occurred, and in Sept. gave police a statement claiming that she was 3 months pregnant, during which time she complained about stomach pains and was taken by ambulence to the hospital. She refuses to release hospital records, and claims she told police that she was only 1 month pregnant. She has clearly been camped out with the protesters for a minimum of two months; therefore, any claims that she just wandered into the encampment to see what was going on is baseless.

2. The man she claims is the father of the baby has been arrested several times during the past weeks of protests, so her claims of being unaware that there could be violence is baseless.

3. There is no evidence to support her claim that she was kicked in the abdominum or hit by a bicycle, or even that she suffered a miscarriage, since she refuses to release medical records that would indicate abdominal bruising and fetal remains even to the police investigators.

I've concluded that until evidence to the contrary is released, I believe this woman is an opportunist who has twice tried to put herself in a position to capitalize financially from the chaos and is hoping the city will give her a fat settlement check just to make her go away. If that makes me a bad person instead of an objective, rational one to some of you, then so be it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
That's retarded.


She shouldn't go on roller coasters
She shouldn't do tequila shots
She shouldn't go to protests and anatognize the police.


Common sense, there chief.
Click to expand...

Or police should not manhandle women at all, because any woman can potentially be pregnant, and getting violent with a pregnant would could result with murdering innocent children.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Because protesting Wallstreet, by blocking streets and intersections in Seattle, is not the same as protesting people being treated as 2nd class citizens by law.
Quite frankly any comparison to the civil rights era protests will fall incredibly short.

You don't have a right to impede other people, in order to protest your pet cause.
Click to expand...

So no civil rights protests ever blocked streets or intersections? They actually held sit ins inside businesses and restaurants, which would result in lost customers and business revenue.

Yes, these people are very different in some ways, but I really don't think it's honest to try to demonize the individual people in OWS on one hand and defend Civil Rights Movement on the other. People against the Civil Rights Movement then used the same tactics... attack the protesters themselves and not their message.
 
DiAnna said:
After having read several other stories on Ms. Fox and her claims, I've discovered:

1. She has attended several OWS protests in which clashes with the police occurred, and in Sept. gave police a statement claiming that she was 3 months pregnant, during which time she complained about stomach pains and was taken by ambulence to the hospital. She refuses to release hospital records, and claims she told police that she was only 1 month pregnant. She has clearly been camped out with the protesters for a minimum of two months; therefore, any claims that she just wandered into the encampment to see what was going on is baseless.

2. The man she claims is the father of the baby has been arrested several times during the past weeks of protests, so her claims of being unaware that there could be violence is baseless.

3. There is no evidence to support her claim that she was kicked in the abdominum or hit by a bicycle, or even that she suffered a miscarriage, since she refuses to release medical records that would indicate abdominal bruising and fetal remains even to the police investigators.

I've concluded that until evidence to the contrary is released, I believe this woman is an opportunist who has twice tried to put herself in a position to capitalize financially from the chaos and is hoping the city will give her a fat settlement check just to make her go away. If that makes me a bad person instead of an objective, rational one to some of you, then so be it.
Click to expand...

Another possibility is that she could have a drug problem, because a lot of women struggling with drugs don't necessarily seek medical care for their pregnancies nor seek treatment or report miscarriages.
 
SheWolf said:
Or police should not manhandle women at all, because any woman can potentially be pregnant, and getting violent with a pregnant would could result with murdering innocent children.
Click to expand...

equal rights for women is a two-way street.
 
SheWolf said:
So no civil rights protests ever blocked streets or intersections? They actually held sit ins inside businesses and restaurants, which would result in lost customers and business revenue.

Yes, these people are very different in some ways, but I really don't think it's honest to try to demonize the individual people in OWS on one hand and defend Civil Rights Movement on the other. People against the Civil Rights Movement then used the same tactics... attack the protesters themselves and not their message.
Click to expand...

Sitting in a business that refuses to serve black people, has at least some justification.
Blocking traffic for regular janes and joes going to from work, to protest Wallstreet, in Seattle.

No reason what so ever.

The 2 situations are not equivalent.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sitting in a business that refuses to serve black people, has at least some justification.
Blocking traffic for regular janes and joes going to from work, to protest Wallstreet, in Seattle.

No reason what so ever.

The 2 situations are not equivalent.
Click to expand...

Again, are you claiming the Civil Rights movement never blocked a street or intersection? Are you seriously claiming that none of their protests or rallies ever interfered with one's ability to go to and from work with ease, or serve people a cup of coffee in their own business? And FTR, not all sit ins were held in segregated businesses and unions protesting unfair hiring practises would join the Civil Rights Movement. White, black, etc. would go in together, and they'd purchase cups of coffee and sit together and refuse to leave.


In one of the earliest racially-connected sit-ins, followers of Father Divine and the International Peace Mission Movement joined with the Cafeteria Workers Union, Local 302, in September 1939 to protest racially unfair hiring practices at New York's Shack Sandwich Shops, Inc. According to the New York Times, Sep 23, 1939, "‎"On Thursday between 75 and 100 followers showed up at the restaurant at Forty-first Street and Lexington Avenue, where most of the strike activity has been concentrated, and groups went into the place, purchased five-cent cups of coffee, and conducted what might be described as a kind of customers' nickel sit down strike. Other patrons were unable to find seats."[5]
Click to expand...
 
Harry, I'd like to you explain how the actual Tea Party had justification to destroy private property and capital and succeed in shutting down an entire city port, but the OWS people have no justification to block a sidewalk.
 
SheWolf said:
Again, are you claiming the Civil Rights movement never blocked a street or intersection? Are you seriously claiming that none of their protests or rallies ever interfered with one's ability to go to and from work with ease, or serve people a cup of coffee in their own business? And FTR, not all sit ins were held in segregated businesses and unions protesting unfair hiring practises would join the Civil Rights Movement. White, black, etc. would go in together, and they'd purchase cups of coffee and sit together and refuse to leave.
Click to expand...

SheWolf, I saw the civil rights movement live. I lived through it. Comparing what these OWS protesters are doing to the civil rights movement, where a dozen courageous people would go into a white's only diner and wait for the police to come in and club them bloody, is almost insulting. Seriously. If you believe in OWS's tactics, by all means support them. But it really is upsetting to have it compared to a movement in which people were routinely rounded up by law enforcement and lynched, where live rounds were fired into peaceful protesters and dogs sicced on them. I saw this. I lived in that time. It's not the same. It's not the same at all.
 
DiAnna said:
SheWolf, I saw the civil rights movement live. I lived through it. Comparing what these OWS protesters are doing to the civil rights movement, where a dozen courageous people would go into a white's only diner and wait for the police to come in and club them bloody, is almost insulting. Seriously. If you believe in OWS's tactics, by all means support them. But it really is upsetting to have it compared to a movement in which people were routinely rounded up by law enforcement and lynched, where live rounds were fired into peaceful protesters and dogs sicced on them. I saw this. I lived in that time. It's not the same. It's not the same at all.
Click to expand...

I am not saying it's the same thing at all. Protesting Wall St and protesting segregation is entirely different, and there is no comparison. Comparing the Boston Tea Party to OWS or the Civil Rights Movement is also unacceptable, and that's not what I am trying to do. I am debating Harry's statement,

Harry Guerrilla said:
Because protesting Wallstreet, by blocking streets and intersections in Seattle, is not the same as protesting people being treated as 2nd class citizens by law.
Click to expand...

He is interjecting the tactics of OWS and the fact is, the Civil Rights Movement did block streets and intersections, and the Birmingham Campaign shut down the city of Birmingham. The Boston Tea Party also shut down the entire city's port and it destroyed private property and private capital. OWS doesn't look like that big of deal in comparison, nor is the movement remotely similar to the Boston TP or the Civil Rights Movement... even that anti globalization protest in Seattle years ago had more steam than the OWS protest in terms of violence, clashes with police, and getting arrested.

There is no valid reason for Harry to bring up the tactics of OWS in such a manner other than trying to attack the individual people and the integrity of the movement. By doing what he is doing, he is forgetting a lot of our nation's history in the process, and I kind have a problem with that... :2razz:

Simply put, people blocking intersections and streets doesn't reduce the movement to BS or reason to ridicule. In our country, the movements that have taken the most action and have had more people willing to risk their freedom, go to jail, or even die have also been some of the most successful political movements in the our history.

Now I am not saying that OWS is going to make history and it's going to dramatically change the country. But what I am saying is that if Harry simply said, "there's no comparison in protesting Wall St and protesting segregation," then I'd agree with him and the discussion would end there.
 
I wonder if these people were blocking the entrance to abortion clinics, if the same people would be defending their actions so vehemently.
 
X Factor said:
I wonder if these people were blocking the entrance to abortion clinics, if the same people would be defending their actions so vehemently.
Click to expand...

I guess that would depend on whether you think abortion-on-demand is murder.

But in any event, the law is the law. Blocking an entrance to a store or bank or clinic isn't right.
 
nota bene said:
I guess that would depend on whether you think abortion-on-demand is murder.

But in any event, the law is the law. Blocking an entrance to a store or bank or clinic isn't right.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but my point is that the cause itself shouldn't matter to someone who defends the form of protest that OWS is engaged in.
 
SheWolf said:
Again, are you claiming the Civil Rights movement never blocked a street or intersection? Are you seriously claiming that none of their protests or rallies ever interfered with one's ability to go to and from work with ease, or serve people a cup of coffee in their own business? And FTR, not all sit ins were held in segregated businesses and unions protesting unfair hiring practises would join the Civil Rights Movement. White, black, etc. would go in together, and they'd purchase cups of coffee and sit together and refuse to leave.
Click to expand...

If they're blocking innocent people from going about their daily lives and refuse to leave, I have no problem with the use of pepper spray, civil rights people or not.
It should be expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom