• 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
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.

Certainly it can be. The only possible exception I can think of is if someone were targeting the facility as a function rather than abortion as a political issue, and so directed their attack so as to occur when no one was in the building, and sought no political goal from the act.
 
Certainly it can be. The only possible exception I can think of is if someone were targeting the facility as a function rather than abortion as a political issue, and so directed their attack so as to occur when no one was in the building, and sought no political goal from the act.

In such a case, if someone had no political goal, why would they bother blowing up a clinic at all? What would be the reasoning behind that?
 
In such a case, if someone had no political goal, why would they bother blowing up a clinic at all? What would be the reasoning behind that?

To reduce the ability of the abortion industry to function.
 
To reduce the ability of the abortion industry to function.

That would suggest opposition to abortion activities. Thus bombing the clinic would still be a political goal, wouldn't it?
 
Certainly it can be. The only possible exception I can think of is if someone were targeting the facility as a function rather than abortion as a political issue, and so directed their attack so as to occur when no one was in the building, and sought no political goal from the act.

i dont see any possible way to separate those, seems dishonest to me. If its about the function by default its political/religious/ or moral and used for intimidation and coercion.
 
That would suggest opposition to abortion activities. Thus bombing the clinic would still be a political goal, wouldn't it?

No, because the intent is not to intimidate the populace into any particular political policy.

Objective-J said:
i dont see any possible way to separate those, seems dishonest to me. If its about the function by default its political/religious/ or moral and used for intimidation and coercion.

That is not correct - targeting a system for a function-degradation has no inherent element of non-combatant intimidation/coercion.

For example, if we wished to (say) degrade Iran's ability to support Hezbollah, and so we launched a virus that played merry hell with their logistics system, that would be different in nature than if we were to instead launch a virus that destroyed Iran's cellular networks with the intent that the enraged populace would put pressure on their government.
 
1.)No, because the intent is not to intimidate the populace into any particular political policy.



That is not correct - targeting a system for a function-degradation has no inherent element of non-combatant intimidation/coercion.

For example, if we wished to (say) degrade Iran's ability to support Hezbollah, and so we launched a virus that played merry hell with their logistics system, that would be different in nature than if we were to instead launch a virus that destroyed Iran's cellular networks with the intent that the enraged populace would put pressure on their government.

1.) says who? what logic would there be to support that.
2.) again say who and what, what logic is there to support that?

you haven't given any logic that separates the two.
 
1.) says who? what logic would there be to support that.

That was the exception described. The example presumed "If it was X, then it wasn't Y."

2.) again say who and what, what logic is there to support that?

the Laws of Armed Conflict as they are applied to Target System Analysis, Target Selection, and Collateral Damage Estimation?

you haven't given any logic that separates the two.

if you believe this, it is because you haven't been paying attention - the intent is what separates the two. The targeted system is different, and so therefore so is the nature of the strike.
 
That was the exception described. The example presumed "If it was X, then it wasn't Y."



the Laws of Armed Conflict as they are applied to Target System Analysis, Target Selection, and Collateral Damage Estimation?



if you believe this, it is because you haven't been paying attention - the intent is what separates the two. The targeted system is different, and so therefore so is the nature of the strike.

the point is you are guessing and just making stuff up, im asking you to support what you actually said not give me an equation where Y cant be explained lol

sorry you havent given anything logical or factual to separate the two if it deals with abortion and the example you gave.

If some guy jimmy bombed a a place to kill Greg the maintenance worker and that just happened to be an abortion clinic then ok but in your example you havent showed any separation between whats needed for an act of violence and terrorism. I payed attention well and you have proved nothing.

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.

attacking this place because of its function and that function being what it is, makes it terrorism.
 
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.

No, it's the use of violence against murderers of innocent children, to stop them from murdering.
 
I say no.

I would think the objection of someone bombing an abortion clinic is to destroy the abortion clinic itself and stop what happens there.

(bolding mine)
That's clearly a political goal.
Violence, or credible threat of violence: check
in order to achieve a political goal: check

Terrorism.

Trying to prevent the murders of large numbers of innocent children is a “political goal”?

I guess this attitude is a symptom of a sick society, where empty politics is too often treated as more meaningful than actual human lives.
 
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.
 
Any act of wanton violence that also kills innocents can be considered terrorism be it domestic or foreign.

Abortion itself is certainly an “act of wanton violence that also kills innocents”. Would you include it, then, in your definition of “terrorism”?
 
Abortion itself is certainly an “act of wanton violence that also kills innocents”. Would you include it, then, in your definition of “terrorism”?

No matter how you define things, killing citizens to save a fetus is not justified
 
No matter how you define things, killing citizens to save a fetus is not justified

One of the few situations in which homicide is clearly justifiable is to save an innocent human being from someone who would seek to unjustly kill that innocent. Certainly, that is the case here.
 
One of the few situations in which homicide is clearly justifiable is to save an innocent human being from someone who would seek to unjustly kill that innocent. Certainly, that is the case here.

wrong-bombing a clinic is indiscriminate and even if you believe an abortion doctor deserves death, it is as stupid as bombing a factory building because a murderer might have taken refuste there
 
One of the few situations in which homicide is clearly justifiable is to save an innocent human being from someone who would seek to unjustly kill that innocent. Certainly, that is the case here.

wrong-bombing a clinic is indiscriminate and even if you believe an abortion doctor deserves death, it is as stupid as bombing a factory building because a murderer might have taken refuste [sic] there

I don't disagree.

But what you said, and to which I was responding, was:

No matter how you define things, killing citizens to save a fetus is not justified

Do you disagree that defense of an innocent victim is a justifiable cause to kill someone who intends to murder that intended victim?

I'll agree that the indiscriminate use of explosives is a very sloppy way to carry out such a defense, and very likely unjustifiable, especially if there's a high chance of killing more innocent victims than you thus save, or of otherwise needlessly causing excess collateral damage when the intended victim could have been saved by less destructive means.
 
1) I don't consider a fetus to be the same as a human (ie someone born)

2) I don't consider it a beneficial goal to punish women for seeking abortions


3) I don't consider it a benefit to society to punish those who provide abortions to women willingly seeking them

4) I don't consider it a benefit to society for unwanted children to be brought into this world against the wishes of their mothers

5) I do not consider it murder
 
Of course. It's violent and intended to invoke fear in order to coerce their intended results. That's pretty much the definition of terrorism.
 
No, it's the use of violence against murderers of innocent children, to stop them from murdering.

and this is way you have a bat**** insane, illogical, evil, deranged, inane view of this issue.
 
Last edited:
One of the few situations in which homicide is clearly justifiable is to save an innocent human being from someone who would seek to unjustly kill that innocent. Certainly, that is the case here.

What is an innocent and what is the basis for your position?
 
Abortion itself is certainly an “act of wanton violence that also kills innocents”. Would you include it, then, in your definition of “terrorism”?

No because it is not either. You leave out "intent." Without the intent to do such it is not in anyway terrorism. The intent or idea to create "terror" is not present with an abortion. Your comment is silly and intellectually dishonest at best.
 
Last edited:
Abortion itself is certainly an “act of wanton violence that also kills innocents”. Would you include it, then, in your definition of “terrorism”?

No because it is not either. You leave out "intent." Without the intent to do such it is not in anyway terrorism. The intent or idea to create "terror" is not present with an abortion. Your comment is silly and intellectually dishonest at best.

What you said before was…

Any act of wanton violence that also kills innocents can be considered terrorism be it domestic or foreign.

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom