• 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
I don't like how the US government has exploited that word and used it to erode the constitution. There is very little actual "terrorism" that the CIA or FBI did not instigate , have a hand in, or create outright altogether.
 
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.
 
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...

:applaud

THIS!

Straight to the heart of the matter as always Di. I fully agree.
 
depends on whether there are people inside the building or not
but i think it is still terrorism..
 
spanky said:
So if a prolifer bombed a clinic at midnight when there was no one there it wouldn't be terrorism?
Click to expand...

I answered your question,now answer mine .
What is your definition of terrorism
 
Its absolutely a terrorist act...
 
cmakaioz said:
(bolding mine)
That's clearly a political goal.
Violence, or credible threat of violence: check
in order to achieve a political goal: check

Terrorism.
Click to expand...

As I wrote if of it, it is not to achieve a political goal. It is to achieve a tangible goal of stopping abortions. To you it is JUST political. But to some other people I suspect it is murder and has nothing to do with politics.
 
spanky said:
So if a prolifer bombed a clinic at midnight when there was no one there it wouldn't be terrorism?
Click to expand...
If this is your attempt at comedy,don't quit your day job.
 
It's only terrorism if a Muslim does it. I think.

Or at least we're only supposed to get outraged if it's a Muslim.
 
spanky said:
So if a prolifer bombed a clinic at midnight when there was no one there it wouldn't be terrorism?
Click to expand...

I see it as the overworked "War on __________________" when it isn't war at all. Or putting "______gate" after every possible issue of misconduct in government.

A word gets lached onto and then worked to death until it comes to have no meaning anymore. Yet people act as if the word then has some power of its own right.

This poll is really just arguing over the definition of a word, nothing else. BUT the idea is if the word "terrorist" is attached to someone, then per se that is an extra evil person by virtue of the word. Villification. The American way.
 
joko104 said:
As I wrote if of it, it is not to achieve a political goal.
Click to expand...

Stopping abortions IS a political goal. It doesn't matter how you write about it; that remains unchanged.

joko104 said:
It is to achieve a tangible goal of stopping abortions. To you it is JUST political.
Click to expand...

I never said or wrote that it is JUST political, nor does it need to be JUST political. I don't know where in the world you're getting this imagined premise that it must be exclusively one or the other.

joko104 said:
But to some other people I suspect it is murder and has nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...

Check this out: in this whacky, powerful, multifaceted universe, it is possible for an action or object to have -- this is the amazing part -- more than one quality, or be more than one thing at the same time.

For example: there's nothing precluding the act of bombing an abortion clinic from being BOTH a political act AND murder, i.e.:

Someone wants to stop someone else from doing something.
Will killing them stop them from doing things? In most cases, YES.

Voilá! Political and murderous at the same time.
 
Verthaine said:
I answered your question,now answer mine .
What is your definition of terrorism
Click to expand...

Up until this thread I never thought about it much. It's been used so often and so cavalierly that any specific definition or meaning has probably been lost in the common vernacular.

I checked several dictionaries and this one probably comes closest.

terrorist act

noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

So I guess any crime that isn't for personal gain, a crime of passion or just plain hatred can be considered terrorism.
 
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...

No, because only white people bomb these places, and these people are usually "christians". christians can not be terrorists.

/sarcasm
 
cmakaioz said:
Stopping abortions IS a political goal. It doesn't matter how you write about it; that remains unchanged.



I never said or wrote that it is JUST political, nor does it need to be JUST political. I don't know where in the world you're getting this imagined premise that it must be exclusively one or the other.



Check this out: in this whacky, powerful, multifaceted universe, it is possible for an action or object to have -- this is the amazing part -- more than one quality, or be more than one thing at the same time.

For example: there's nothing precluding the act of bombing an abortion clinic from being BOTH a political act AND murder, i.e.:

Someone wants to stop someone else from doing something.
Will killing them stop them from doing things? In most cases, YES.

Voilá! Political and murderous at the same time.
Click to expand...

^ A very politically correct answer.
 
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, but terrorism nonetheless. Without question. People who do this are enemies of the entire nation.
 
joko104 said:
^ A very politically correct answer.
Click to expand...

WTF are you babbling about now? Acknowledging the obvious point that things can have more than one characteristic is "politically correct" to you?

Let's see:

"joko104" is a member name of a DP poster.

"joko104" contains seven characters.

WOW! More than one characteristic...how very PC of me.

WTF are you talking about? Do you have any intention of actually supporting your nonsense, or are you just looking to spout white noise?
 
Frankly, an abortion clinic is a "terrorist" entity to a fetus. Bombing a clinic is also a terrorist incidence. I am anti abortion, but not being female, I feel their vote on the subject is the bottom line. Abortion should not be used as birth control and I'm afraid that is what goes on in these United States.
 
cmakaioz said:
WTF are you babbling about now? Acknowledging the obvious point that things can have more than one characteristic is "politically correct" to you?

Let's see:

"joko104" is a member name of a DP poster.

"joko104" contains seven characters.

WOW! More than one characteristic...how very PC of me.

WTF are you talking about? Do you have any intention of actually supporting your nonsense, or are you just looking to spout white noise?
Click to expand...

you must be new to his posts, what you are asking for will likely never happen
 
DaveFagan said:
Frankly, an abortion clinic is a "terrorist" entity to a fetus. Bombing a clinic is also a terrorist incidence. I am anti abortion, but not being female, I feel their vote on the subject is the bottom line. Abortion should not be used as birth control and I'm afraid that is what goes on in these United States.
Click to expand...

by what definition? not saying there isn't one that supports you but id like a link to which one does? then if you can provide one i have a simply follow up question.
 
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.
 
Objective-J said:
by what definition? not saying there isn't one that supports you but id like a link to which one does? then if you can provide one i have a simply follow up question.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

The moral/ethical shading of the action (from the perspective of the commissioner of the act) is irrelevant. Whether or not the person doing the act considered it to be ethical/unethical, the goal of "stop something from happening using force" IS coercion.

Terrorism doesn't cease to be terrorism just because the commissioner of the act believes themselves to be righteous. MOST acts of terrorism are of course committed by people who believe(d) their cause to be just. Whether an act is LEGALLY recognized as terrorism is a political battle, but if we stick to an empirical definition we can cut through that whole mess and concentrate on the actions and goals themselves.
 
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...

Bombing a clinic is an attack on patients' access to the medical procedure of abortion (an obviously political goal). Physically destroying or damaging a facility is a means to that end.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom