• 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!

A Planned Parenthood Clinic In Wisconsin Was BOMBED Last Night

Who bombed the Wisonsin Planned Parenthood?

  • Total voters
    54
calamity said:
Are you not familiar with the term dehumanizing?
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like pro-choicers do with unborn children? Yes, quite familiar.
 
nota bene said:
Why did you resurrect this year and a half old thread?
Click to expand...

Because a previous poster said:

"I can't see this guy being some right wing religious zealot out to make a point about children. "

I was helping him out, he had some trouble in another discussion about abortion and religion....
 
calamity said:
They were targeted for doing a legal job. It's like a nut taking a sniper shot at a cop.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep trying to act as if people are justifying the violence here? It's totally dishonest and misrepresents the fact that what people challenged was your claim that such violence was frequent and the inevitable outcome of the views against abortion
 
calamity said:
See post 64.
Click to expand...

Why not list and explain the breakdown, since this is the third time you were asked about it. Because right now it seems you're including trespassing and vandalism under "terrorist attack". Which would be a rather liberal application of the term, to say the least
 
calamity said:
Thankfully the number of nuts ready to resort to violence doesn't reach epidemic proportions.
Click to expand...

Yet you just claimed a few pages back that violence was the innevitable outcome of their views.


But, you can't tell me that Tiller's death could not be predicted once they started calling him "Baby Killer".
Click to expand...

So if I call you a baby killer it's inevitable someone is going to kill you?


PS do you notice that your argument keeps changing, that you keep misrepresenting your own cited figures, and simply ignore countering arguments?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Why do you keep trying to act as if people are justifying the violence here? It's totally dishonest and misrepresents the fact that what people challenged was your claim that such violence was frequent and the inevitable outcome of the views against abortion
Click to expand...

Because they are not infrequent and are the inevitable outcome of the rallying cries we hear against abortion.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Why not list and explain the breakdown, since this is the third time you were asked about it. Because right now it seems you're including trespassing and vandalism under "terrorist attack". Which would be a rather liberal application of the term, to say the least
Click to expand...

Because it was broken down in the post #64 quoted. And, I did qualify that of the thousands of terrorist acts, there were hundreds of bombings and acts of arson...not to me tion, the Half-dozen premeditated acts of murder.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Yet you just claimed a few pages back that violence was the innevitable outcome of their views.




So if I call you a baby killer it's inevitable someone is going to kill you?


PS do you notice that your argument keeps changing, that you keep misrepresenting your own cited figures, and simply ignore countering arguments?
Click to expand...
If you call someone a "baby killer" on Fox News, in church and on countless printed leaflets, it really should not come as a surprose that some fanatic takes it to heart, acts on that label and shoots the "baby killer" dead.

PS why do you continue ignoring reality?
 
calamity said:
If you call someone a "baby killer" on Fox News, in church and on countless printed leaflets, it really should not come as a surprose that some fanatic takes it to heart, acts on that label and shoots the "baby killer" dead.
Click to expand...



I agree that someone *may* act based on such language. But earlier you said it was inevitable


PS why do you continue ignoring reality?
Click to expand...

as the figures you cited make clear, such violence is exceptionally rare (8 dead over a 20 year period). So I fail to see what I am ignoring
 
calamity said:
Because they are not infrequent
Click to expand...

You're own figures paint them as infrequent

and are the inevitable outcome of the rallying cries we hear against abortion.
Click to expand...

then why do the overwhelming majority of such people not engage in them? You figure if it was inevitable there would be more incidents you could cite
 
calamity said:
Because it was broken down in the post #64 quoted.
Click to expand...

But those figures don't support your claims.

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[12]
Click to expand...

you claimed hundreds of bombings: your citation only lists 41

You claimed thousands of terrorist attacks: but ony 41 bombings are cited, 173 acts of arson, and 91 attempted bombings or arson (for a total of 305 such acts) The only way your claim makes sense is if we include such things as vandalism and trespassing. Which I doubt most people would describe as terrorism in most cases


there were hundreds of bombings and acts of arson...not to me tion, the Half-dozen premeditated acts of murder.
Click to expand...

you didn't claim "hundreds", you claimed "thousands"
 
calamity said:
Sure not even a weekend in Chicago. But, that's not really apples to apples is it?
Click to expand...

You're right, the abortion clinic killings and vandalism are no way even on par to the violence that is out there.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I agree that someone *may* act based on such language. But earlier you said it was inevitable
Click to expand...
It was inevitable to Dr Tiller. :roll:




as the figures you cited make clear, such violence is exceptionally rare (8 dead over a 20 year period). So I fail to see what I am ignoring
Click to expand...
It's not rare, especially when you consider that there are so few abortion clinics per state, pretty much just one or two per state. Thousands of terrorist attacks on basically a few hundred abortion clinics. Hello?

You really are making an asinine argument.
 
TheNextEra said:
You're right, the abortion clinic killings and vandalism are no way even on par to the violence that is out there.
Click to expand...

When preachers in Chicago start inciting Black people to go out and shoot other Black people, I'll consider your point.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
But those figures don't support your claims.



you claimed hundreds of bombings: your citation only lists 41

You claimed thousands of terrorist attacks: but ony 41 bombings are cited, 173 acts of arson, and 91 attempted bombings or arson (for a total of 305 such acts) The only way your claim makes sense is if we include such things as vandalism and trespassing. Which I doubt most people would describe as terrorism in most cases




you didn't claim "hundreds", you claimed "thousands"
Click to expand...
I claimed thousands terrorist attacks, pointing to hundreds of bombings and acts of arson. Learn to read.
 
calamity said:
When preachers in Chicago start inciting Black people to go out and shoot other Black people, I'll consider your point.
Click to expand...

I'm really not interested in what you will or will not consider. You said the violence was not small, I proved that in comparison to all the violence out there, yes it is.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
You're own figures paint them as infrequent



then why do the overwhelming majority of such people not engage in them? You figure if it was inevitable there would be more incidents you could cite
Click to expand...

Again, if you do the math and look closely at how few clinics there are and compare it the the high number of attacks on them, you'd see that they are not infrequent.

Sheesh.
 
TheNextEra said:
I'm really not interested in what you will or will not consider. You said the violence was not small, I proved that in comparison to all the violence out there, yes it is.
Click to expand...

No. In comparison to the number of clinics out there, the violence is extremely high.
 
calamity said:
No. In comparison to the number of clinics out there, the violence is extremely high.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say. The number of incidents out there in comparison to the violence in the U.S. IS SMALL. Sorry.
 
calamity said:
Again, if you do the math and look closely at how few clinics there are and compare it the the high number of attacks on them, you'd see that they are not infrequent.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...

How about this: you come up with the odds of a person working in one of these clinics/patients of these clinics being killed in a year by attack. (# workers in a year injured by attack / total # of workers). Then do the math to get 100,000 in the denominator and we can compare it to the average occupational death rate for 2012. If it is much greater than 3.2 per 100,000, then we'll talk. As far as I can tell, the odds of a worker being killed while working at an abortion clinic in a year is near 0. (these stats come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on fatal occupational injury, you can look them up if you want to verify).

In terms of likelihood of being injured, nurses and nursing assistants are some of the most likely to have occupational injuries, though that is mainly from muscular and skeletal strain from moving elderly/overweight patients (e.g., helping them get to the bathroom). Additionally, health services employees (including nurses, doctors, etc.) are more likely to be a victim of workplace violence (which can include terrorism) because of the people they treat and the situations involved. Note: these include all hospital and health care facilities (https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3148/osha3148.html).

What evidence do you have to show that workers in abortion clinics have a greater odds of violence in their workplace than average health care workers? You've mentioned several times that the "violence is extremely high" yet I have seen no evidence that a worker in an abortion clinic faces a greater risk of injury and death than other health care employees. It seems that abortion clinic workers may have a lower than average risk of violence-related injury and death while on the job than other health workers. Granted, I really am only considering injury and death of people without much regard to property damage. That is because I consider property damage to be an order of magnitude less significant than harm to personnel. It seems an appropriate distinction to me as I'd rather work in a place where there is higher risk of the building is damaged and I am not, than a place where the inverse is true.
 
TheNextEra said:
Whatever you say. The number of incidents out there in comparison to the violence in the U.S. IS SMALL. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Obviously you do not understand the nuance required to make sense of statistics. Sorry.

If global volcanic eruptions were 100 out of two million volcanoes, then the eruption rate would be low. But, if the 100 eruptions all occurred on a single small island in the Pacific which had only one volcano, then their eruption rate would be extremely high.
 
calamity said:
I claimed thousands terrorist attacks, pointing to hundreds of bombings and acts of arson. Learn to read.
Click to expand...

So we are including vandalism and trespassing in the catagory of "terrorist attack"?


LOL
 
CycloneWanderer said:
How about this: you come up with the odds of a person working in one of these clinics/patients of these clinics being killed in a year by attack. (# workers in a year injured by attack / total # of workers). Then do the math to get 100,000 in the denominator and we can compare it to the average occupational death rate for 2012. If it is much greater than 3.2 per 100,000, then we'll talk. As far as I can tell, the odds of a worker being killed while working at an abortion clinic in a year is near 0. (these stats come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on fatal occupational injury, you can look them up if you want to verify).

In terms of likelihood of being injured, nurses and nursing assistants are some of the most likely to have occupational injuries, though that is mainly from muscular and skeletal strain from moving elderly/overweight patients (e.g., helping them get to the bathroom). Additionally, health services employees (including nurses, doctors, etc.) are more likely to be a victim of workplace violence (which can include terrorism) because of the people they treat and the situations involved. Note: these include all hospital and health care facilities (https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3148/osha3148.html).

What evidence do you have to show that workers in abortion clinics have a greater odds of violence in their workplace than average health care workers? You've mentioned several times that the "violence is extremely high" yet I have seen no evidence that a worker in an abortion clinic faces a greater risk of injury and death than other health care employees. It seems that abortion clinic workers may have a lower than average risk of violence-related injury and death while on the job than other health workers. Granted, I really am only considering injury and death of people without much regard to property damage. That is because I consider property damage to be an order of magnitude less significant than harm to personnel. It seems an appropriate distinction to me as I'd rather work in a place where there is higher risk of the building is damaged and I am not, than a place where the inverse is true.
Click to expand...
It shows here that 25% of all clinics have experienced severe violence. I think that's significantly higher than most other fields.
National Clinic Access Project - Clinic Surveys - Feminist Majority Foundation
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
So we are including vandalism and trespassing in the catagory of "terrorist attack"?


LOL
Click to expand...
Since the vandal and trespasser aims to intimidate providers and patients, then yes. It is Terrorism.

Why don't you just go through life telling anyone who asks that abortion providers face no risks and that the amount of violence against them is not that high. I'm sick of dealing with you loons.
 
calamity said:
Again, if you do the math and look closely at how few clinics there are and compare it the the high number of attacks on them, you'd see that they are not infrequent.
Click to expand...

Why would that inform the argument when you cited the inevitable behavior of people that adopt an anti-abortion position? What that argument indicates a very large majority of the millions of people that adopt such a position should be out committing these acts of violence. But YOUR figures indicate the exact opposite

PS If you want to present other figures that help inform your argument, then please do. I will be more than happy to look over them, but i am unsure why you think I'm obligated to do such
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom