• 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!

Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act?

Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act?

  • Total voters
    98
TurtleDude said:
1995: Cincinnati. The planned parenthood clinic had previously been bombed by a guy who claimed to be a member of "the army of god". he was convicted of plotting to ban a clinic in florida as well. On the "Mike McConnell Show" was one James Condit Jr-a perpetual candidate for congress who is an anti abortion fanatic, and recently has become a militant anti semitic. He was consigliere of the bomber.

His argument-bombing a clinic is justified because the intent is to save innocent life I would note Condit knew who I was and I identified myself to him and Mike before I went on the air.

SO the discussion went like this

Condit-even if innocent blood is shed in the bombing of a clinic-it is justified because the intent and goal is to save the innocent lives of the unborn

Turtle: Many women go to PP for things other than abortions. STD screenings, treatment, pregnancy tests, counseling etc. Many of those women are innocent yet could be harmed by a bomber

Condit: the overriding goal is to save the lives of the innocent.

Turtle: My wife goes to PP for contraception. Since you have advocated bombing the clinic and My wife is an innocent person, I therefore must protect her innocent life. Therefore if I see you anywhere near the clinic when she is there, I am therefore justified in killing you as quickly as possible because you MIGHT throw a bomb into the clinic while my wife or other innocent people are there

Condit; Dead silence

Mike McConnell-seems reasonable to me.

condit-More silence.

cut to a commercial

Condit: You'd never do that

Turtle: bring a bomb when I am there and see what happens

McConnell (who is a conservative)-well Jim (Condit) that shows how moronic your position is.
Click to expand...

Props for a great post! The term "abortion clinic" is biased in favor of the anti-abortion crowd. These places are "family planning clinics." There are far more services available there besides abortion. In fact, the contraception that is available prevents unwanted pregnancies and therefore prevents abortion. If I wanted to give the clinic a biased pro-life, I would call them "abortion prevention clinics." It's ironic that an anti abortion terrorist murders people and in doing so increases the likelihood of abortion.

I wish the media would start calling these bombers what they are: terrorists. I'd like to make another point. Most of these murderers have some form of Christian belief. However, it would be unfair to brand them "Christian terrorists" since the vast majority of Christians don't support their actions. Well, guess how most Muslims feel about so-called "Islamic terrorism". The vast majority of them don't support the despicable actions of groups like al Quaida.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
What you said before was…

You did not there say anything about intent, and it's not apparent to me that there's a distinction anyway. Clearly, the intent behind abortion is to kill an innocent person. That's the effect and purpose of the act.
Click to expand...

Because intent in law and law enforcement is common sense. It is the difference between criminal trespass and burglary for instance, or manslaughter and murder. With terrorism, the subject of the OP, terror is clearly the intent. Not with abortion.

Bob Blaylock said:
If, as you said, “Any act of wanton violence that also kills innocents can be considered terrorism…”, then abortion certainly fits that criterion. It is indisputably a wanton act of violence, and it kills innocents.
Click to expand...

My reply was to the original question on terrorism. Obviously you were the only one that did not understand it was in reference to nothing but terrorism.

Bob Blaylock said:
I don't think I entirely agree with your definition of “terrorism”, but if you're going to be consistent, then you have to agree that abortion fits your definition as you stated it.
Click to expand...

No it does not in my reply to terrorism. It is silly to even imply such nonsense.

As I said (and this is not meant as an insult) everyone else seemed to understand it was in reference to terrorism. How you can pull abortion out of that makes no sense to me. I mean lets go even just a little deeper...

#1 Abortion is not a wanton act of violence on anyone's part like terrorism. The whole purpose of terrorism is to cause terror to a specific civilian population.
#2 Abortion is not related to terrorism in any way shape or form. The objective of abortion is to remove an unwanted pregnancy, not cause "terror." I was clearly responding to the OP, not just random violence or anything outside of terrorism.
#3 I can only think you came to that conclusion because of your anti-abortion agenda. No other reason to make such an illogical leap.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, it's the use of violence against murderers of innocent children, to stop them from murdering.
Click to expand...

So you advocate the Minority Report "Pre-Crime" notion of accusing, trying and convicting people before they have committed a crime?
 
Luna Tick said:
Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act? I say that it is. It's the use of violence to try to get your way politically.
Click to expand...

It's domestic terrorism.

(5) the term ‘‘domestic terrorism’’ means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life
that are a violation of the criminal laws of
the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,
or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2331.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
So you advocate the Minority Report "Pre-Crime" notion of accusing, trying and convicting people before they have committed a crime?
Click to expand...

I don't see where you get that.

What is under discussion here is the use of violence against those who are known to have already murdered many innocent children, and who it can safely be assumed will murder many, many more, unless something is done to stop them.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't see where you get that.

What is under discussion here is the use of violence against those who are known to have already murdered many innocent children, and who it can safely be assumed will murder many, many more, unless something is done to stop them.
Click to expand...

Fact 1: normally there are no murders at an abortion clinic especially murders of innocent children
Fact 2: many INNOCENT, adult, already born human beings will be be murdered possible including, doctors, patients, nurse, maintenance workers, IT workers, delivery people, passer-byers on the street and children

this is again more proof that you have a bat**** insane, illogical, evil, deranged, inane, mentally void view of this issue

woner how you'd feel if your brother, mother, father, sister, wife etc just happened to be near the facility and they were also murdered, in the terrorist attack? see why this is mentally deranged broken logic.
 
Objective-J said:
Fact 1: normally there are no murders at an abortion clinic especially murders of innocent children
Fact 2: many INNOCENT, adult, already born human beings will be be murdered possible including, doctors, patients, nurse, maintenance workers, IT workers, delivery people, passer-byers on the street and children

this is again more proof that you have a bat**** insane, illogical, evil, deranged, inane, mentally void view of this issue

woner how you'd feel if your brother, mother, father, sister, wife etc just happened to be near the facility and they were also murdered, in the terrorist attack? see why this is mentally deranged broken logic.
Click to expand...

To bring this back to our conversation a while back on this thread, Objective, this is the exact scenario I was describing as one of the many possible scenarios in which the bombing is not considered terrorism, by definition. A person who bombed, not with the intent to coerce or threaten others, but because they thought they were stopping evil from happening, is not a terrorist by definition. Obviously insane, but not a terrorist.

I still do not understand what is confusing about this point and am interested to hear what you have to say that contradicts this - but so far all I've got from you is that you believe my argument is illogical - I'd love to hear your side - or more specifically, what's illogical about not considering an act of hate, without the intent to coerce or threaten, as an act of terrorism? Where is the contradiction in premises or the conclusion that follows with one of those premises?

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that it can't be terrorism - in fact, I'd think most of the time it IS terrorism by definition. Just that it doesn't always have to be terrorism.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't see where you get that.

What is under discussion here is the use of violence against those who are known to have already murdered many innocent children, and who it can safely be assumed will murder many, many more, unless something is done to stop them.
Click to expand...

Collatoral Damage... that is how I get it. Associated with the clinic could get innocent people killed... even innocent by your standards of not "murdering" an abortion victim.
 
fredmertzz said:
To bring this back to our conversation a while back on this thread, Objective, this is the exact scenario I was describing as one of the many possible scenarios in which the bombing is not considered terrorism, by definition. A person who bombed, not with the intent to coerce or threaten others, but because they thought they were stopping evil from happening, is not a terrorist by definition. Obviously insane, but not a terrorist.

I still do not understand what is confusing about this point and am interested to hear what you have to say that contradicts this - but so far all I've got from you is that you believe my argument is illogical - I'd love to hear your side - or more specifically, what's illogical about not considering an act of hate, without the intent to coerce or threaten, as an act of terrorism? Where is the contradiction in premises or the conclusion that follows with one of those premises?

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that it can't be terrorism - in fact, I'd think most of the time it IS terrorism by definition. Just that it doesn't always have to be terrorism.
Click to expand...

I think that any time you intentionally bomb something, in a non-military situation, it is terrorism. Suicide bombers at military checkpoints? Not terrorism. Suicide bombers of the same cause at a random cafe? Terrorism. Murder an abortion doctor outside his home. Not terrorism. Bomb a clinic? Terrorism.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that any time you intentionally bomb something, in a non-military situation, it is terrorism. Suicide bombers at military checkpoints? Not terrorism. Suicide bombers of the same cause at a random cafe? Terrorism. Murder an abortion doctor outside his home. Not terrorism. Bomb a clinic? Terrorism.
Click to expand...

If you wish to redefine terrorism to answer this question, go for it. I'll use the dictionary definition that requires the intent to coerce or threaten.
 
fredmertzz said:
To bring this back to our conversation a while back on this thread, Objective, this is the exact scenario I was describing as one of the many possible scenarios in which the bombing is not considered terrorism, by definition. A person who bombed, not with the intent to coerce or threaten others, but because they thought they were stopping evil from happening, is not a terrorist by definition. Obviously insane, but not a terrorist.

I still do not understand what is confusing about this point and am interested to hear what you have to say that contradicts this - but so far all I've got from you is that you believe my argument is illogical - I'd love to hear your side - or more specifically, what's illogical about not considering an act of hate, without the intent to coerce or threaten, as an act of terrorism? Where is the contradiction in premises or the conclusion that follows with one of those premises?

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that it can't be terrorism - in fact, I'd think most of the time it IS terrorism by definition. Just that it doesn't always have to be terrorism.
Click to expand...

DOnt ever remember talking to you but thats fine

by definition it is still terrorism, the persons opinion doesn't change anything, nothing as changed :shrug:
was 9/11 terrorism? yes, even if the people THOUGHT they were stopping evil LMAO

you argument is 100% illogical because you cant prove that it wasnt to coercer, force, intimidate for a goal.
the goal was to stop abortion, they tried to achieve that by violence and force and intimidation and coercion :shrug:


Terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

if it was to stop abortion it was terrorism

the only way it wouldnt be is this.

If tommy bomb an office to kill doug because doug cut him off in traffic and doug just happened to work at an abortion clinic a i wouldnt call that terrorism.

but anybody bombing an abortion clinic to stop the abortions that goes on there is in fact committing terrorism by definition :shrug: the problem with your failed scenario is that that ARE using violence and force and intimidation and coercion .

id love for you to show other wise, show me how "feelings" matter.

LMAO the hell with it lets start with scratch.
Forget everything i just said and ill show you the light.

Give me your original example that you think isnt terrorism.

Person bombs abortion clinic to stop abortions because that person thinks they are evil, is this right? is this your example?
 
fredmertzz said:
If you wish to redefine terrorism to answer this question, go for it. I'll use the dictionary definition that requires the intent to coerce or threaten.
Click to expand...

seems you dont understand the dictionary definition and you also have to use LAW or you pick and choose what parts you want to observe and ignore.
 
fredmertzz said:
If you wish to redefine terrorism to answer this question, go for it. I'll use the dictionary definition that requires the intent to coerce or threaten.
Click to expand...

Redefine what? I have done no such thing...

"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).


FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005
 
Objective-J said:
DOnt ever remember talking to you but thats fine

by definition it is still terrorism, the persons opinion doesn't change anything, nothing as changed :shrug:
was 9/11 terrorism? yes, even if the people THOUGHT they were stopping evil LMAO

you argument is 100% illogical because you cant prove that it wasnt to coercer, force, intimidate for a goal.
the goal was to stop abortion, they tried to achieve that by violence and force and intimidation and coercion :shrug:


Terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

if it was to stop abortion it was terrorism

the only way it wouldnt be is this.

If tommy bomb an office to kill doug because doug cut him off in traffic and doug just happened to work at an abortion clinic a i wouldnt call that terrorism.

but anybody bombing an abortion clinic to stop the abortions that goes on there is in fact committing terrorism by definition :shrug: the problem with your failed scenario is that that ARE using violence and force and intimidation and coercion .

id love for you to show other wise, show me how "feelings" matter.

LMAO the hell with it lets start with scratch.
Forget everything i just said and ill show you the light.

Give me your original example that you think isnt terrorism.

Person bombs abortion clinic to stop abortions because that person thinks they are evil, is this right? is this your example?
Click to expand...

You've just contradicted yourself... again:

The act of bombing with the intent to stop an action occuring at that place (which is exactly what you wrote: "if it was to stop abortion it was terrorism") is not the same as the act of bombing with the intent to intimidate or coerce other people. The intent to intimidate or coerce is a necessary part of the definition of terrorism. If the act was simply 'to stop abortion', it's not terrorism as it does not include any intent of coercion or intimidation.

Like I said, this likely is not the case. it's likely that coercion and intimidation are part of the intent of the bomb. But if it's not necessarily the case, if the case is strictly "if it was to stop abortion", then it is not terrorism. Which means the absolute statement: "Bombing an abortion clinic is an act of terrorism." is false as an absolute statement.
 
fredmertzz said:
You've just contradicted yourself... again:

The act of bombing with the intent to stop an action occuring at that place (which is exactly what you wrote: "if it was to stop abortion it was terrorism") is not the same as the act of bombing with the intent to intimidate or coerce other people. The intent to intimidate or coerce is a necessary part of the definition of terrorism. If the act was simply 'to stop abortion', it's not terrorism as it does not include any intent of coercion or intimidation.

Like I said, this likely is not the case. it's likely that coercion and intimidation are part of the intent of the bomb. But if it's not necessarily the case, if the case is strictly "if it was to stop abortion", then it is not terrorism. Which means the absolute statement: "Bombing an abortion clinic is an act of terrorism." is false as an absolute statement.
Click to expand...

there is ZERO contradiction LMAO unless of course you look at it in a biased and totally void of reality and logcial manner.

heres where you will fail every time, answer this question.

how is the abortions stopped?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Redefine what? I have done no such thing...

"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Your definition was: "any time you intentionally bomb something, in a non-military situation, it is terrorism" - that's fine, if you wish to define terrorism in that way - as you pointed out, there is no single, universally accepted definition. I'm not saying you can't. I'm just saying that the definition is different from mine. I use the definition listed in the Code of Federal Regulation which requires the act of force and violence to have the intent of coercion or intimidation.
Click to expand...
 
Objective-J said:
there is ZERO contradiction LMAO unless of course you look at it in a biased and totally void of reality and logcial manner.

heres where you will fail every time, answer this question.

how is the abortions stopped?
Click to expand...

You site the definition of terrorism as requiring an intent to coerce or intimidate, then claim a situation that the intent was not to coerce or intimidate, but rather to stop abortions as terrorism. This is a contradiction.

I'll answer your question, because I'm really very interested to try to understand how you think "to stop abortion" is the same as "to coerce or intimidate":

Q: "how is the abortions stopped?"
A: The abortions were stopped by an act of bombing the abortion clinic.
 
fredmertzz said:
You site the definition of terrorism as requiring an intent to coerce or intimidate, then claim a situation that the intent was not to coerce or intimidate, but rather to stop abortions as terrorism. This is a contradiction.

I'll answer your question, because I'm really very interested to try to understand how you think "to stop abortion" is the same as "to coerce or intimidate":

Q: "how is the abortions stopped?"
A: The abortions were stopped by an act of bombing the abortion clinic.
Click to expand...

nope thats what YOU say i do and reality and facts disagree with you and prove you wrong.

but at least you answered the question, ill lead you right to the facts lets see if you are honest and logical enough to see them.

you said by bombing it

how did bombing stop them? answer
VIOLENCE, FORCE, COERCION and INTIMIDATION

there for its terrorism lol
 
Objective-J said:
nope thats what YOU say i do and reality and facts disagree with you and prove you wrong.

but at least you answered the question, ill lead you right to the facts lets see if you are honest and logical enough to see them.

you said by bombing it

how did bombing stop them? answer
VIOLENCE, FORCE, COERCION and INTIMIDATION

there for its terrorism lol
Click to expand...

If you wanted to be fair, you would let me answer the questions.

Q: "how did the bombing stop them?"
A: It killed them, so they were unable to perform their duties.

Violence and Force, yes. But you cannot coerce and intimidate someone you just killed. Ergo, not terrorism.
 
fredmertzz said:
If you wanted to be fair, you would let me answer the questions.

Q: "how did the bombing stop them?"
A: It killed them, so they were unable to perform their duties.

Violence and Force, yes. But you cannot coerce and intimidate someone you just killed. Ergo, not terrorism.
Click to expand...

LMAO

so you are just going to be dishonest and lie now, I see the issues LMAO

Terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

no matter how much BS you try to feed us, your example is terrorism and thats just the facts :shrug:

Let me know when you can change this fact.
 
Objective-J said:
LMAO

so you are just going to be dishonest and lie now, I see the issues LMAO

Terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

no matter how much BS you try to feed us, your example is terrorism and thats just the facts :shrug:

Let me know when you can change this fact.
Click to expand...

In order for it to be terrorism, all parts of the definition of terrorism must be true. You've highlighted the parts that are obviously true, which I am not attempting to refute.

Allow me to highlight the portion that I am consistently arguing, which you have failed time and again to address:

Terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

That is a critical piece of the definition. Without the intent to coerce or intimidate, what you have is "an unlawful use of force or violence against personrs or porperty."

Explain to me how a person bombing an abortion clinic in every situation is doing so in order to 'coerce or intimidate'. If we can think of one example in which this is no the case, then the absolute statement of: "If a person bombs an abortion clinic, it is an act of terrorism" is false.

These are the rules of logic.

If you claim "If 'A' then 'B'" and I explain a situation in which "A and not B" exist, then your claim is false.
 
fredmertzz said:
In order for it to be terrorism, all parts of the definition of terrorism must be true. You've highlighted the parts that are obviously true, which I am not attempting to refute.

Allow me to highlight the portion that I am consistently arguing, which you have failed time and again to address:

Terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

That is a critical piece of the definition. Without the intent to coerce or intimidate, what you have is "an unlawful use of force or violence against personrs or porperty."

Explain to me how a person bombing an abortion clinic in every situation is doing so in order to 'coerce or intimidate'. If we can think of one example in which this is no the case, then the absolute statement of: "If a person bombs an abortion clinic, it is an act of terrorism" is false.

These are the rules of logic.

If you claim "If 'A' then 'B'" and I explain a situation in which "A and not B" exist, then your claim is false.
Click to expand...

thanks for this long post that doesnt change any facts. LOL
are you trying to lie on purpose or do you honestly just dont know that your example is 100% wrong and 100% terrorism?

now you are also trying to say i made an absolute statement, this is a lie, in fact a gave an example of how bombing an abortion clinic would NOT be terrorism. Its a last minute dodge, backpedal to save face, but honesty trumps you every time.

seems like you ignore the definition of words when they dont suit you and just make stuff up and be dishonest.

you already saw the definition of terrorism.

heres the definition of coerce

co·erce (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly
3. To bring about by force or threat

this is exactly what bombing would do, your example is terrorism, thats a fact, sorry you dont understand that but facts dont care about your opinion and broken logic :shrug:

make 20 more posts, you will continue to be wrong if you say your example isnt terrorism.
Next
 
DiAnna said:
Violence against clinics and doctors who provide abortions is terrorism by definition. The terrorists are sending a message meant to terrorize and coerce doctors into refusing to provide abortion services because they fear for their lives, and women are terrorized by the threats against them for using clinic services.

It's quite obviously a tactic to prevent women from receiving a perfectly legal, constitutionally-protected medical procedure, thereby enforcing their will on the rest of the populace by violent means.

I don't see how playing semantical musical chairs can obfuscate the obvious.
Click to expand...

I was always find it curious how often debate-ending posts like these need to be ignored in order for the debate to continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom