• 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
Yes, in most contexts it would be.

These abortion mills shouldn't be allowed to exist, but that doesn't justify breaking the law... handing out punishments for misdeeds is the government's job. When the government isn't doing its job - and it is not - it is our duty to fix that government (or replace it), not take the law in our own hands.

If we consider John Brown to be a terrorist - and we should, because he was - then abolitionists of abortion who cross the line are as well.
 
DaveFagan said:
Let's see now. Bombing a clinic is an attack on an inanimate object. Terminating a fetus is an attack on an animate object. Do that compute?
Click to expand...

again I asked what definition of the word terrorism you are using and could you provide a link. So no that dont compute. And so far nothing you said supports your usage of the word.
 
Jarhead said:
That's too simplistic as there are people involved. It's not an attack on an inanimate object. It's terror, plain pure and simple. There is no justification for it.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's terror to attack a fetus when people are involved. There's something simplistic here alright.
 
fredmertzz said:
terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

I would vote that it depends on the reason of the bombing. If the bomber had the belief that abortion is murder, that a crime was being committed and ignored by society in the clinic, and the bomb was intended to stop these acts, then no, that's not terrorism - in fact, closer to an act of a vigilante. The intent was not to intimidate or coerce; the intent was strictly to stop something from happening using force.

Nonetheless, the bomber is a nutter who deserves life in jail, despite my own anti-abortion views.
Click to expand...

this is totally illogical, this would mean the people who did 9/11 arent terrorists. The definition of terrorism doesn't change based on the terrorists beliefs.

Not to mention how would bombing a clinic killing doctors and patients and employees and people just passing by be ok in the attempt to stop abortion. Sorry thats just nonsense. It terrorism by definition.
 
What difference does it make if it's terrorism or not?

The definition for terrorism is awfully broad.

It's illegal violence and should be handled as such.

Why people are so quick to call things 'terrorism' is beyond me.
 
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...

Good question. To me someone that is a terrorist blows crap up in order to instill fear in order to get what they want. However if someone blows something up just to get rid of something they find offensive? A criminal yes, a terrorist? :shrug:

Certainly a person that blows up an abortion clinic wants to intill some fear in those that do the abortions or gets them but I don't think that is thier main goal. Which is the difference between a terrorist and a criminal. One wants to instill fear as a main form of combating something and the other the fear is just secondary.

It's a very razor thin line imo. So i'll just vote "I don't know".
 
With the caveat that they are blowing it up because they are against abortion, then yes, they are a terrorist. But if they blow it up a specific clinic because they felt slighted in some way or someone he/she knows had an abortion at that specific clinic and they are looking to extract revenge specifically on that clinic with no care about other clinics or people that perform abortions, then no it isn't terrorism. It is all about the motive.
 
Objective-J said:
this is totally illogical, this would mean the people who did 9/11 arent terrorists. The definition of terrorism doesn't change based on the terrorists beliefs.

Not to mention how would bombing a clinic killing doctors and patients and employees and people just passing by be ok in the attempt to stop abortion. Sorry thats just nonsense. It terrorism by definition.
Click to expand...

I just listed the definition of terrorism. The difference between 9/11, which did kill innocent lives as well, and bombing an abortion clinic is one of intent. The terrorists of 9/11 wanted to send a message, to threaten, to coerce. It's not about the action itself that defines terrorism. It's the intent behind the action that determines if it was a terrorist attack or just an attack.

Whether or not there were bystanders or innocent people dying in addition to their intended target doesn't make it a terrorist attack. It makes it a sloppy attack. Please see the definition of terrorist that I pulled from the dictionary and wrote out for you and explain how I was wrong. I understand that it could be a terrorist attack, if it were intended to threaten/coerce other abortion clinics. But if the intent of the bomber was to strictly stop that one abortion clinic, then no terrorist act was committed. A very illegal act was committed and the person should rot. But not terrorism according to the definition of terrorism.
 
I would say it is.... and I would also say it doesn't matter if you call it terrorism or not.

calling it terrorism does not make it a more heinous crime... not calling it terrorism does not make it a less heinous crime.


the best thing an individual can do to combat abortion is, well, to not have one... and to voice their opinion on the matter in hopes that others will adopt that line of thinking.
 
fredmertzz said:
I just listed the definition of terrorism. The difference between 9/11, which did kill innocent lives as well, and bombing an abortion clinic is one of intent. The terrorists of 9/11 wanted to send a message, to threaten, to coerce. It's not about the action itself that defines terrorism. It's the intent behind the action that determines if it was a terrorist attack or just an attack.

Whether or not there were bystanders or innocent people dying in addition to their intended target doesn't make it a terrorist attack. It makes it a sloppy attack. Please see the definition of terrorist that I pulled from the dictionary and wrote out for you and explain how I was wrong. I understand that it could be a terrorist attack, if it were intended to threaten/coerce other abortion clinics. But if the intent of the bomber was to strictly stop that one abortion clinic, then no terrorist act was committed. A very illegal act was committed and the person should rot. But not terrorism according to the definition of terrorism.
Click to expand...

The intent though of the bombers of abortion clinics is to scare other clinics into closing.

"In the summer of 1996, the world converged upon Atlanta for the Olympic Games. Under the protection and auspices of the regime in Washington millions of people came to celebrate the ideals of global socialism. Multinational corporations spent billions of dollars, and Washington organized an army of security to protect these best of all games. Even though the conception and the purpose of the so-called Olympic movement is the promote the values of global socialism as perfectly expressed in the song "Imagine" by John Lennon, which was the theme of the 1996 Games — even though the purpose of the Olympics is to promote these despicable ideals, the purpose of the attack on July 27th was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand. The plan was to force the cancellation of the Games, or at least create a state of insecurity to empty the streets around the venues and thereby eat into the vast amounts of money invested." Eric Rudolph

Eric Rudolph's Written Statement when he pled guilty
 
fredmertzz said:
I just listed the definition of terrorism. The difference between 9/11, which did kill innocent lives as well, and bombing an abortion clinic is one of intent. The terrorists of 9/11 wanted to send a message, to threaten, to coerce. It's not about the action itself that defines terrorism. It's the intent behind the action that determines if it was a terrorist attack or just an attack.

Whether or not there were bystanders or innocent people dying in addition to their intended target doesn't make it a terrorist attack. It makes it a sloppy attack. Please see the definition of terrorist that I pulled from the dictionary and wrote out for you and explain how I was wrong. I understand that it could be a terrorist attack, if it were intended to threaten/coerce other abortion clinics. But if the intent of the bomber was to strictly stop that one abortion clinic, then no terrorist act was committed. A very illegal act was committed and the person should rot. But not terrorism according to the definition of terrorism.
Click to expand...

im aware of all the definitions and your original post is still illogical, the beliefs of the terrorist in relationship to good/bad etc still have no barring. You have changed nothing and the post I addressed still remains illogical and nonsensical. Your attempt to change the illogical statement you made is also meaningless.

this is what you said in the post I addressed "If the bomber had the belief that abortion is murder, that a crime was being committed and ignored by society in the clinic, and the bomb was intended to stop these acts, then no, that's not terrorism"

that is complete BS and totally illogical, sorry, you GUESSING or trying to MAKE UP a reason they may have bombed the clinic based on "they thought evil was happening there" is meaningless in your example. Its terrorism by definition, them believing abortion is murder has no impact. LOL. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
There are LOTS of ways to force the closing of an abortion clinic, and some of them are quite legal and non-violent. The use of explosives is the most flamboyant, attention-getting means possible. It cannot possibly be misconstrued as an "expression of feelings" about a single clinic. It is intended for many people to see and wonder about (am I next?). There can be no message for the single clinic in question because that clinic is now obliterated. It can only be a message for "other" clinics. Therefore, the action is without question, terrorism.
 
EagleAye said:
There are LOTS of ways to force the closing of an abortion clinic, and some of them are quite legal and non-violent. The use of explosives is the most flamboyant, attention-getting means possible. It cannot possibly be misconstrued as an "expression of feelings" about a single clinic. It is intended for many people to see and wonder about (am I next?). There can be no message for the single clinic in question because that clinic is now obliterated. It can only be a message for "other" clinics. Therefore, the action is without question, terrorism.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, people who are unstable blow up things out of revenge and for no other reason. It is not inconceivable that an abortion clinic could be blown up for no other reason than to get revenge on that specific abortion clinic or someone who works there. It is not going to be the most likely reason but it is certainly a possibility. It wouldn't be about spreading fear to the clinic, but rather to kill the person or hurt someone in the clinic.

Another reason could be the same thing that causes many cases of arson, insurance fraud. The owner isn't doing well and decide to blow up their own clinic, making it appear to be an act of terrorism.
 
Any act of wanton violence that also kills innocents can be considered terrorism be it domestic or foreign.
 
Objective-J said:
im aware of all the definitions and your original post is still illogical, the beliefs of the terrorist in relationship to good/bad etc still have no barring. You have changed nothing and the post I addressed still remains illogical and nonsensical. Your attempt to change the illogical statement you made is also meaningless.

this is what you said in the post I addressed "If the bomber had the belief that abortion is murder, that a crime was being committed and ignored by society in the clinic, and the bomb was intended to stop these acts, then no, that's not terrorism"

that is complete BS and totally illogical, sorry, you GUESSING or trying to MAKE UP a reason they may have bombed the clinic based on "they thought evil was happening there" is meaningless in your example. Its terrorism by definition, them believing abortion is murder has no impact. LOL. :shrug:
Click to expand...


It's not complicated - it's a problem of simple logic. I stand by the claim you italicized. the key words are "AND THE BOMB WAS INTENDED TO STOP THESE ACTS" - the implication being that the 'stopping of these acts' was the ONLY intent. The rest of the italicized portion was an attempt to explain how that would be the case, but it is by no means exclusive -it was intended for illustrative purposes.

To put it in terms strictly of logic since you seem to be hung up on logic:

If the intent was to coerce or threaten, then the act of violence was terrorism.

Can I think of an example in which blowing up an abortion clinic doesn't have the intent to coerce or threaten? Yes, I can, and I described it.

Therefore, the answer to the question "Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act?" is: Not necessarily. The act of bombing an abortion clinic does not necessitate the intent to coerce or threaten, the definition of terrorism.

The first thing I wrote in my original post: "I would vote that it depends on the reason of the bombing."

That of course wasn't an answer, so I went with the most correct answer of "no". Because it is not always the case that it is an act of terrorism.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The intent though of the bombers of abortion clinics is to scare other clinics into closing.

"In the summer of 1996, the world converged upon Atlanta for the Olympic Games. Under the protection and auspices of the regime in Washington millions of people came to celebrate the ideals of global socialism. Multinational corporations spent billions of dollars, and Washington organized an army of security to protect these best of all games. Even though the conception and the purpose of the so-called Olympic movement is the promote the values of global socialism as perfectly expressed in the song "Imagine" by John Lennon, which was the theme of the 1996 Games — even though the purpose of the Olympics is to promote these despicable ideals, the purpose of the attack on July 27th was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand. The plan was to force the cancellation of the Games, or at least create a state of insecurity to empty the streets around the venues and thereby eat into the vast amounts of money invested." Eric Rudolph

Eric Rudolph's Written Statement when he pled guilty
Click to expand...


Because it is true in one case does not make it true in all cases.
 
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...

This is something of a gray area as the bombing of an abortion clinic can be seen as a political goal but I think it's best to reserve the term for what would essentially be considered an act of war and differentiate between criminal offenses. It's an imperfect answer but the broad definition puts major league pitchers who throw high and inside in the same category as Osama bin Laden; making the term completely meaningless.
 
fredmertzz said:
It's not complicated - it's a problem of simple logic. I stand by the claim you italicized. the key words are "AND THE BOMB WAS INTENDED TO STOP THESE ACTS" - the implication being that the 'stopping of these acts' was the ONLY intent. The rest of the italicized portion was an attempt to explain how that would be the case, but it is by no means exclusive -it was intended for illustrative purposes.

To put it in terms strictly of logic since you seem to be hung up on logic:

If the intent was to coerce or threaten, then the act of violence was terrorism.

Can I think of an example in which blowing up an abortion clinic doesn't have the intent to coerce or threaten? Yes, I can, and I described it.

Therefore, the answer to the question "Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act?" is: Not necessarily. The act of bombing an abortion clinic does not necessitate the intent to coerce or threaten, the definition of terrorism.

The first thing I wrote in my original post: "I would vote that it depends on the reason of the bombing."

That of course wasn't an answer, so I went with the most correct answer of "no". Because it is not always the case that it is an act of terrorism.
Click to expand...



thanks for posting again but like i said your original statement is still nonsensical, theres nothing to debate

Ill post it again: "If the bomber had the belief that abortion is murder, that a crime was being committed and ignored by society in the clinic, and the bomb was intended to stop these acts, then no, that's not terrorism"

I know what you are TRYING to say but the statement above is an example of terrorism.

sorry the definition makes it that way. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
On the contrary, people who are unstable blow up things out of revenge and for no other reason. It is not inconceivable that an abortion clinic could be blown up for no other reason than to get revenge on that specific abortion clinic or someone who works there. It is not going to be the most likely reason but it is certainly a possibility. It wouldn't be about spreading fear to the clinic, but rather to kill the person or hurt someone in the clinic.

Another reason could be the same thing that causes many cases of arson, insurance fraud. The owner isn't doing well and decide to blow up their own clinic, making it appear to be an act of terrorism.
Click to expand...

To take the time to assemble a bomb (and not kill yourself) takes a great deal of planning and forethought. If revenge upon a single person is the the motive, it's far easier and far safer for the perpetrator to use a gun. Far more likely to get away with the act as well. If the grudge is against the whole clinic, once again, arson is far easier and less easily tracked by the police. Assembling a bomb requires skill and training. If that isn't available, then a significant amount of research and then a significant amount of risk must undertaken. Why do so when easier methods, and more likely to be successful methods, are available?
 
EagleAye said:
To take the time to assemble a bomb (and not kill yourself) takes a great deal of planning and forethought. If revenge upon a single person is the the motive, it's far easier and far safer for the perpetrator to use a gun. Far more likely to get away with the act as well. If the grudge is against the whole clinic, once again, arson is far easier and less easily tracked by the police. Assembling a bomb requires skill and training. If that isn't available, then a significant amount of research and then a significant amount of risk must undertaken. Why do so when easier methods, and more likely to be successful methods, are available?
Click to expand...

No it doesnt take a lot of skill to assemble a device or substance that will blow up a building. To do it so you dont get caught takes some skill, but even then if you are making it appear to be an act of terrorism because then the first people suspected are anti abortion people then all the more reason to use the bomb. It doesnt have to work that well. It just has to be something that might work. You dont really think those anti abotionists who do blow up or try to blow up abortion clinics are experts do you?
 
roguenuke said:
No it doesnt take a lot of skill to assemble a device or substance that will blow up a building. To do it so you dont get caught takes some skill, but even then if you are making it appear to be an act of terrorism because then the first people suspected are anti abortion people then all the more reason to use the bomb. It doesnt have to work that well. It just has to be something that might work. You dont really think those anti abotionists who do blow up or try to blow up abortion clinics are experts do you?
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on how many they've blown up. Do it enough times, you become expert, and also a terrorist. Skill doesn't make someone a non-terrorist. Trying to instill fear does. If the object is to exact revenge upon someone, a bomb is about the riskiest possible way to go. And the most easily tracked, thus diminishing the chance to assuage blame. A bomb is an extremely showy way to express yourself. It's meant to not only destroy something, but to do so in the most obvious manner possible so that many other people know about it. Someone merely seeking revenge just wants the job done, and is more likely to do the deed secretively in order to get away with it.
 
EagleAye said:
Well, that depends on how many they've blown up. Do it enough times, you become expert, and also a terrorist. Skill doesn't make someone a non-terrorist. Trying to instill fear does. If the object is to exact revenge upon someone, a bomb is about the riskiest possible way to go. And the most easily tracked, thus diminishing the chance to assuage blame. A bomb is an extremely showy way to express yourself. It's meant to not only destroy something, but to do so in the most obvious manner possible so that many other people know about it. Someone merely seeking revenge just wants the job done, and is more likely to do the deed secretively in order to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Risk doesn't prevent people from doing stupid things. In fact, that is generally what makes them stupid things.

The vast majority of planes blown up or hijacked before the 80s was all about one of two things, revenge or greed. It had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. D.B. Cooper comes to mind.

But it isn't necessarily just for revenge either. It could be for insurance claims as well. After all, a doctor who owns an abortion clinic could easily have debt. It is also very likely that he has been threatened on more than one occasion by anti-abortion fanatics. It isn't that big of a jump for a doctor to seize on such an opportunity should he face some financial problem one day and figure blowing up his clinic and blaming it on the antis will turn suspicion from him and toward the activists.

And there is nothing that says that people that blow up any building for any reason has to be smart.

In the end, it all comes down to why they did it. But just because an abortion clinic is blown up or burned down, does not make either act automatically an act of terrorism. It all depends on the motive, the reason behind it.
 
roguenuke said:
Risk doesn't prevent people from doing stupid things. In fact, that is generally what makes them stupid things.

The vast majority of planes blown up or hijacked before the 80s was all about one of two things, revenge or greed. It had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. D.B. Cooper comes to mind.

But it isn't necessarily just for revenge either. It could be for insurance claims as well. After all, a doctor who owns an abortion clinic could easily have debt. It is also very likely that he has been threatened on more than one occasion by anti-abortion fanatics. It isn't that big of a jump for a doctor to seize on such an opportunity should he face some financial problem one day and figure blowing up his clinic and blaming it on the antis will turn suspicion from him and toward the activists.

And there is nothing that says that people that blow up any building for any reason has to be smart.

In the end, it all comes down to why they did it. But just because an abortion clinic is blown up or burned down, does not make either act automatically an act of terrorism. It all depends on the motive, the reason behind it.
Click to expand...

Alright. I'll grant you that a doctor blowing up his own abortion clinic to collect insurance is not committing an act of terrorism. However, that scenario strays from the topic of the thread which asks, "Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act?" Obviously, the abortion doctor intending to collect insurance money is NOT in opposition to abortion. So that scenario doesn't apply here. I still stand by my assessment that someone blowing up an abortion clinic to protest abortion is committing a terrorist act.
 
EagleAye said:
Alright. I'll grant you that a doctor blowing up his own abortion clinic to collect insurance is not committing an act of terrorism. However, that scenario strays from the topic of the thread which asks, "Is bombing a family planning clinic in opposition to abortion a terrorist act?" Obviously, the abortion doctor intending to collect insurance money is NOT in opposition to abortion. So that scenario doesn't apply here. I still stand by my assessment that someone blowing up an abortion clinic to protest abortion is committing a terrorist act.
Click to expand...

I was taking what came from your first post I responded to. In that post, it seemed as if you were saying that a bombing of an abortion clinic could never be anything but terrorism because it is always meant to spread fear and further some political goal because of the method used to take it down. I was pointing out that just because the building was blown up does not mean it was meant, from the perpetrators perspective, to cause fear. There are several other reasons that a person may blow up an abortion clinic. The caveat in the OP puts the motive in that makes it terrorism, but that is not what I was responding to to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom