- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 57,629
- Reaction score
- 32,177
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Are you not familiar with the term dehumanizing?
Oh, you mean like pro-choicers do with unborn children? Yes, quite familiar.
Are you not familiar with the term dehumanizing?
Why did you resurrect this year and a half old thread?
They were targeted for doing a legal job. It's like a nut taking a sniper shot at a cop.
See post 64.
Thankfully the number of nuts ready to resort to violence doesn't reach epidemic proportions.
But, you can't tell me that Tiller's death could not be predicted once they started calling him "Baby Killer".
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
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
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.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?
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?
Because they are not infrequent
and are the inevitable outcome of the rallying cries we hear against abortion.
Because it was broken down in the post #64 quoted.
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]
there were hundreds of bombings and acts of arson...not to me tion, the Half-dozen premeditated acts of murder.
Sure not even a weekend in Chicago. But, that's not really apples to apples is it?
It was inevitable to Dr Tiller. :roll:I agree that someone *may* act based on such language. But earlier you said it was inevitable
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?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
You're right, the abortion clinic killings and vandalism are no way even on par to the violence that is out there.
I claimed thousands terrorist attacks, pointing to hundreds of bombings and acts of arson. Learn to read.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"
When preachers in Chicago start inciting Black people to go out and shoot other Black people, I'll consider your point.
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
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.
No. In comparison to the number of clinics out there, the violence is extremely high.
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.
Whatever you say. The number of incidents out there in comparison to the violence in the U.S. IS SMALL. Sorry.
I claimed thousands terrorist attacks, pointing to hundreds of bombings and acts of arson. Learn to read.
It shows here that 25% of all clinics have experienced severe violence. I think that's significantly higher than most other fields.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.
Since the vandal and trespasser aims to intimidate providers and patients, then yes. It is Terrorism.So we are including vandalism and trespassing in the catagory of "terrorist attack"?
LOL
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.