Story Tags What are Tags?

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 219

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  jovial

  Nov. 30, 2006, 4:43 p.m.

  It is indeed terrorism. A lot of people think that terrorists are only Arabs. There are a lot of ideological groups that perform "terrorist acts". Thanks for the story Spade.

  29 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

    jeffery1

    Dec. 1, 2006, 11:10 a.m.

    David,

    Just stop using the oxymoron "Islamo-fascism" and the like. Those two terms are mutually exclusive. An Islamist would never be a fascist. Look up the terms and you'll see why. The term "Islamist" is sufficient as will be evident IF you look up the words.

    18 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+4/-9 -5)

      looter

      Dec. 1, 2006, 11:28 a.m.

      David is right.... the so called Islamo-Fascists in everyway are not believers of Islam. That's what the Christian Right in USA and Europe want to show, that Islam is a violent religion. Where they judge a religion of nearly a Billion and a half by the evil deeds of less than 50000 people who claims to believe in Islam. It all sounds stupid to me.

      4 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        jeffery1

        Dec. 1, 2006, 12:04 p.m.

        For god's sake, look up the words! Reread my post. Look up the words. There has to be at least an attempt to be accurate.

        Also, religions are merely belief systems. And as a Ku Klux Klan member can claim to be a Christain so the likes of Zarqawi can claim to be Muslim.

        These people believe in Islam because it is their version of Islam, made possible simply because the fact that religions are mere belief systems allows them to be interpretable. You cannot validly claim that they are "not believers of Islam" any more than you can claim that a Mormon is "not a believer in Christianity".

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

          Redneck

          Dec. 1, 2006, 2:47 p.m.

          FASCISM 1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

          2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
      • 
        Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)

        Lurch

        Dec. 1, 2006, 3:16 p.m.

        >That's what the Christian Right in USA and Europe want to show, that Islam is a violent religion.

        This article and the facts prove that the Christian Right is a violent religion so why the hell should anybody listen to them?

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

          jeffery1

          Dec. 1, 2006, 3:47 p.m.

          Because they are god's chosen? Help me out here.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      jeffery1

      Dec. 1, 2006, 1:52 p.m.

      Central to fascism is coporatism. Mussolini invented fascism as a counterbalance to communism:

      "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of...Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production"

      Islamists are not corporatists and therefore cannot be fascists. There are many other things about fascism that are not acceptable to Islamists, such as:

      "The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide"

      The term "Islamist" itself exhibits all the elements you list and so is sufficient and more technically correct. Reserve fascist for those that more accurately fulfill what Mussolini discussed.

      5 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        jeffery1

        Dec. 1, 2006, 2:29 p.m.

        There can't be.

        Islamists have as their goal to live in accordance with the Koran; The Koran will serve as the constitution for their governments. This is not the core goal of fascism.

        Although you may consider both to be totalitarian in form, the central tenets of each are not the same. Just use Islamist when discussing Islamists and fascism when discussing corporatists.

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          looter

          Dec. 1, 2006, 2:45 p.m.

          After the first four caliphs, the religious and political authorities in Islam were never again united under one institution. Their usual coexistence was underscored by a mutual recognition of their separate spheres of influence and their respective duties and responsibilities. Often, however, the two powers collided, and invariably any social opposition to the elite political order had religious undertones. "

          I am searching for something that clearly says that the Caliphs were elected by the people. The interesting part is the way cultural ways got into religious practices and later pronounced as part of religion. If you go to different parts of Asia and look into the practices of Muslims you can see a lot of differences, which they all say as part of the religion. In a nutshell the religion of Islam is a very diversified religion with a lot of flexibility. The so called radicals used that flexibility to gain power by manipulating the interpretations of the text.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)

        looter

        Dec. 1, 2006, 2:41 p.m.

        David, what you said gave me a lot of thoughts. I searched some of my old bookmarks and talked to some historians visit this link

        http://www.islamset.com/encyclo/spread_of_islam.ht

        "Sunni Islam was defined during the early Abbasid period (beginning in AD 750), and it included the followers of four legal schools (the Malikis, Hanafis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis). In contrast to the Shias, the Sunnis believed that leadership was in the hands of the Muslim community at large. The consensus of historical communities, not the decisions of political authorities, led to the establishment of the four legal schools. In theory a Muslim could choose whichever school of Islamic thought he or she wished to follow and could change this choice at will. The respect and popularity that the religious scholars enjoyed made them the effective brokers of social power and pitched them against the political authorities. Cont..
      • 
        Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

        looter

        Dec. 1, 2006, 2:50 p.m.

        Yes I agree it is seen in those societies. But if you look at the religion closely one can see something called Zakat which a mandatory charity. Where one must give it poor part of ones assets. This later was taken over by the state. In a way most of the Shariat Law is only applicable to individuals and there is no concerete law saying that state should implement this law. So if a state tell someone that he/she must give charity it is compulsion of a religious practice which is prohibited by the Quranic verse "There is no compulsion in religion". That is why I would like to quote George Bernad Shaw here again "Islam is the best religion but with the worst followers"
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        Lurch

        Dec. 1, 2006, 3:21 p.m.

        Japan has had government ownership of industry for decades, still does. Does that make them fascist?

        In Venezuela a popularly elected president returned power to the people from the corporations who had stolen their land, poisoned their water/air/food, and squashed any attempt to get just compensation. That is fascism and that is what Chavez has been fighting.

        You need to learn the meaning of fascism before you start trying to throw around such big words.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      betruthful

      Dec. 1, 2006, 2:48 p.m.

      David This sure sounds like a very accurate description of the Christian right beliefs and goals of Falwell Etc.

      1 Reply

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        Beau7890

        Dec. 3, 2006, 2:52 a.m.

        I believe Pat Robertson has said things that fit each of those criteria, David.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      Lurch

      Dec. 1, 2006, 3:17 p.m.

      >Christianity and Government have been argued sufficiently to be mutually exclusive.

      tell that to the fundies who are trying to hijack our government.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      Searchbeam

      Dec. 1, 2006, 6:10 p.m.

      Isn't that what the Catholic Church did in medieval times? Inquisitions, tortures, crusades, etc.?

      Would you call it Christian-fascist religion?

      Would anybody stand for and support that kind of theocracy today?

      How about Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant movement?

      Would his interpretation of the Holy Bible be condemned by these Neo-Christians?

      Wake up guys! Look at the history of the world!

      More than half the lives lost in conflict can be directly attributed to the wars conducted under the name of religion!

      "My religion is better than yours!In fact, my religion is the only true religion and my God is the only true god, and everybody else's religion is blasphemy and sin!" seems to be the mantra of our society in the 21st century!

      More....

      1 Reply

      • 
        Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)

        Searchbeam

        Dec. 1, 2006, 6:11 p.m.

        Contd...

        I wonder what Jesus would say about such fanaticism!

        Let us try to live in our world in peace, with respect and compassion for other human beings, and use religion only to guide our own personal beliefs and our moral compass! Let's not try to convert the rest of the world to our own set of beliefs, because if we do, we will have no right to call ourselves civilized, and we will be condemned to the same history that records destruction and annihilation of societies in the name of someone's God!
    • 
      Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

      elzorro2162

      Dec. 1, 2006, 1:46 p.m.

      Right on Jeffery!

      1 Reply

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        easeup47

        Dec. 1, 2006, 3:32 p.m.

        Way to get COMPLETELY off topic guys!! Nice work...
  • 
    Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

    freedomfighter

    Dec. 1, 2006, 12:50 p.m.

    I think it's cute that the author gave a chronological history and breakdown, according to the National Abortion Federation since 1977 as: 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 3 kidnappings etc.. The numbers he failed to mention were the important ones:

    In the United States alone:

    5,000 babies are murdered each day

    35,000 babies are murdered each week

    140,000 babies are murdered each month

    1,825,000 almost 2 million babies murdered each year

    Sounds like the babies are losing this fight folks. Wrap your selfish little minds around those numbers. That's GENOCIDE people.

    9 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      jeffery1

      Dec. 1, 2006, 2:33 p.m.

      These deaths are directly attributable to the right's refusal to provide contraception. If you provide women with contraception, including both prophylactics and morning-after pills, then abortions wouldn't be an issue; You can't kill someone who never existed.

      It is people like the freak in the article who are directly responsible for abortions.

      4 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)

        Redneck

        Dec. 1, 2006, 3:02 p.m.

        So you are saying a woman has a right to choose to abort but does not have the power to choose to have protected sex!! After all people are unable or cannot be expected to refrain from behavior which may cause harm. Sex is such a powerful force and who can resist and why should they?

        How has anyone refused to provide contraception to anyone? Why is the "right" or the government resposible for this?

        Examine your logic and use it in analyzing other problems. eg. people would not steal and murder if the "right" would simply provide marijuana or herion or . . . They only do those things because they need the money so the "right" is responsible for all murders and thiefs!! AND the drug addiction in the first place!!

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

          jeffery1

          Dec. 1, 2006, 3:36 p.m.

          No. I am saying that by preventing access to birth control the religious right ensures that abortion will become an option.

          The federal government refuses to fund access to birth control. Also, the religious right has pressured pharmacies to not provide contraception and state legislatures have sought to limit access.

          Whether you like it or not, the constitution provides for our federal government to "provide for the general welfare". While conservatives can make the argument that it is not government's responsibility to provide birth control that argument is hollow simply because if you find abortion to be murder then the simplest solution is to provide birth control and prevent a pregnancy by either a) providing funding so that low income women can get birth control and b) ensure birth control is readily available to all, over the counter. To not do so, forces women to ultimately have a child or an abortion she doesn't want.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        looter

        Dec. 1, 2006, 2:57 p.m.

        Well said Jeffery... if one can allow people to screw around then they should be allowed to do whatever it takes to make their choice of what they should do with the results. And why are people worried about others babies. Let the grow or eat them alive. If one care a lot about human life go to major cities, you can see a lot of homeless people living in real bad conditions. Help them. Why take a car and hit into a nursing home? They wont do that, because the religious pundits who brainwashed these people in Mosques, Churches and Synogogues only told to go after people who perform abortions, nothing else. That is the problem here.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        jeffery1

        Dec. 1, 2006, 3:47 p.m.

        Not necessarily. Most sex is not well planned and so contraception may not be used. That is why I include morning-after drugs. The Federal government has fought tooth and nail to stop Plan B from being made available over the counter and many clinics do not provide for emergency birth control because they force the woman to "think it over".

        What is the intent of the religious right: a) to end abortions or (b) force women to deal with the consequences of having sex without any alternatives?
    • 
      Avg rating: (+3/-3 0)

      easeup47

      Dec. 1, 2006, 4:06 p.m.

      the chronological history and breakdown was given because it is relevant to the point of the story, which is that people are perpetrating these crimes...the point of thew story is not to debate whether abortion is right or wrong...wrap your narrow mind around that...

      3 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        jeffery1

        Dec. 1, 2006, 4:15 p.m.

        That's your interpretation of the article. The perpetrators are committing these crimes to further an agenda. Part of that agenda, limiting access to birth control, directly creates the very practice that they are fighting to end: abortion. This makes abortion intrinsic to the discussion.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        jeffery1

        Dec. 1, 2006, 4:50 p.m.

        Actually, the point is that the supposed "liberal" media has been silent about the crimes of the religious right. I think that this shows that the media is at best uninterested in the crimes of right-wingers or at worst consciously refuses to cover their crimes. There is no "liberal" media.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        Spadecaller

        Dec. 5, 2006, 10:32 a.m.

        Hold on ... busy wrapping.
• 
  Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

  ind06

  Nov. 30, 2006, 4:48 p.m.

  I've known about the murder of abortion doctors for many years. This is usually passed off as the actions of "a few lone nuts" by the right to life (except if you're a doctor that perfoms abortions) camp. It's disgusting and vile and falls directly in the realm of fundamentalist terrorism.

  No, it's not as widespread or as damaging as fundamentalist Islam (thank God). But an attempt to scare people into an action you would like by murder is the very definition of terrorism.

  Maybe the leaders of the fundamentalist community do not specifically call for these actions as many mullas do, but their preachings influence people to acts of extreme violence. Many in the right to life camp secretly applaud such action, many do not make their applause secret at all.

  I see little difference between them and the Palestinians who danced in the street when the Trade Center fell. If your only argument is one of scale it's a poor excuse.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  lfergie812

  Nov. 30, 2006, 4:50 p.m.

  Yes, this is domestic terrorism of the highest order. Religious extremist using violence to protest their dislike in the name of God.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)

    twincats

    Dec. 1, 2006, 3:36 p.m.

    And given what is tatamount to protection and approval by the press' sin of omission.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Amazing1

  Nov. 30, 2006, 5:06 p.m.

  Abortion is no ones idea of a happy choice. It is a personal decision. And the people who bomb, threaten, send powder filled letters are indeed terrorists.

  The fundamentalists all need to get a grip. They may oppose abortion to their hearts content and refuse to get an abortion if they are raped or their life is in danger. That's their right. But they are trying to enforce their beliefs on everyone else and are using terror to do it. This is a personal matter and must remain so.

  Notice that they are not picketing vasectomy clinics. Isn't that a half life by their definition? Shame on them. There's a whole new cause for them to scream about.

  They should leave everybody else alone. The sad realities of life are none of their business if the actual people involved are not even known to them. This should not even be an issue on the national political stage.

  Just how Christ-like are they when they behave in this manner?

  5 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    Amazing1

    Nov. 30, 2006, 5:14 p.m.

    And the media? Where are they? The cowards have not yet summoned the courage to point out that the emperor has no clothes. They will talk about TomKats wedding and Mel Gibson's meltdown. But they dare not step outside of the dumb-downed pablum they feed us for news. Were they to raise this question, the Fundamentalists might pull their advertizing or complain. And these Fundamentalmentalists have hi-jacked our society by claiming to be above us all. Righteous and pure. Full of Christian family values.

    Bah, I say. They do not follow the example of Christ. They are not kind to their fellow human beings. They whip up hatred among us for those who are brave enough to act on the behalf of those sad women who are faced with the hard choice of abortion or a child they cannot support.

    Shame on them. Christ would repudiate them. For they are not loving and forgiving. They do not follow their own Bible but pick and choose which verses to follow.

    1 Reply

    • 
      Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

      Searchbeam

      Nov. 30, 2006, 5:31 p.m.

      I call the current generation of these guardians of our democracy "laptop Lapdogs".

      When they consent to get "embedded" with our Army units, they are really going to bed with the people they should be watching like a hawk! They give up their objectivity, their freedom to investigate and report, and become a tool of the tyranny aka Dummy Rummy!
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    Amazing1

    Nov. 30, 2006, 5:19 p.m.

    They bash the homosexuals based on a verse found in a book of the Bible that states that one should not wear more than one kind of fabric. Yet you will see them in church wearing cotton shirts with silk ties, wool skirts with polyester blouses. So which is it? If you are going to follow the Bible, follow it totally. If you are picking and choosing, you are not a fundamentalist at all. You are a zealot. The problem with zealots is that their minds are so closed that they cannot even consider a viewpoint other than their own. Just as Islamic extremists do. They are cut from the same cloth, these people and as such, they are terrorists as well when they bomb, burn, and terrorize women's health clinics which may or may not perform abortions.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    KISA452a

    Dec. 1, 2006, 9:38 a.m.

    "The fundamentalists all need to get a grip. They may oppose abortion to their hearts content and refuse to get an abortion if they are raped or their life is in danger. That's their right. But they are trying to enforce their beliefs on everyone else and are using terror to do it. This is a personal matter and must remain so.

    Notice that they are not picketing vasectomy clinics. Isn't that a half life by their definition? Shame on them. There's a whole new cause for them to scream about."

    Your belief is that abortion should be legal and you have no problem "trying to enforce [you] beliefs on everyone else".

    Most people would disagree that a sperm is worth protecting. But thanks for making up things to try to create hysteria and paranoia.

    1 Reply

    • 
      Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

      looter

      Dec. 1, 2006, 11:31 a.m.

      You have given a very detailed explanation in this. By the way what about the embryo David? You know where I am going with this.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Spadecaller

  Nov. 30, 2006, 5:18 p.m.

  It's amazing that other than Kieth Olbermann, I do not recall any media personality, any major newspaper, or anything whatsover, where anyone ever argued that point, George and his NeoCon clan members brag about: "Since 9/11 there have been no terrorsit attacks in the U.S," but it's alright for the fundamentalist Christians to kill off doctors at planned parenthood clinics. Right!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Searchbeam

  Nov. 30, 2006, 5:20 p.m.

  When yopu kill somebody in the name of Jesus, you have not only committed a terrorist act, but you have also committed blasphemy!

  And the Christian Mullahs- I am sorry, preachers, ministers and priests are guilty of the same crime.

  In the eyes of law if somebody asked you to commit a murder, or if somebody gave you a gun to kill someone, that person becomes an accessory of the murder: they get the same punishment as the killer!

  If you let your hatred run your life, you do belong six feet under where you can do no harm!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Spadecaller

  Nov. 30, 2006, 6:20 p.m.

  "According to the Detroit Free Press (the only newspaper in the Nexis news database that reported his crime), he targeted the women's health center because he thought it provided abortions. It doesn't. (Oops!)"

  Some of these lunatics that like to play God don't care about who gets hurt or killed. That's a terrorist's mentality. ONlY one newspaper reported this. UNBELIEVABLE
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Donnaich

  Nov. 30, 2006, 6:59 p.m.

  Some people believe that nothing done in the name of "God" can be extremist... no matter which "God" you're talking about.

  But of course the newspapers didn't report this... that way the DHS can keep crowing "no terrorist attacks yet!" and the Religious Right doesn't have to explain how they've spawned a terror attack.
• 
  Avg rating: (+6/-1 5)

  jordan11

  Nov. 30, 2006, 7:06 p.m.

  I didn't realize that the extent of these terrorist activities was so high, though I'm certainly not surprised; however, that the media doesn't report on it is no surprise. CONS are trying to 'control' the media, and aren't doing a half bad job of it. They're going after the net, and if they succeed, there will be little access to the truth.
• 
  Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

  walden3

  Dec. 1, 2006, 8:39 a.m.

  why is the liberal media absent on this one?

  had it been a dark skinned person or someone that isn't christian doing this bombing the author is 100% correct in stating that it would have been headline news for weeks. i can see the banner scrolling at the bottom of cnnbcmsnfox "muslims invade united states and car bomb building."
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  walden3

  Dec. 1, 2006, 8:40 a.m.

  where is george w chimpie talking about terrorism in the uberland?

  i guess he hasn't kept us safe after all.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Daylight

  Dec. 1, 2006, 9:10 a.m.

  Amazing1

  (If you are going to follow the Bible, follow it totally. If you are picking and choosing,) you are not a fundamentalist at all. You are a zealot. The problem with zealots is that their minds are so closed that they cannot even consider a viewpoint other than their own.

  I'll give you two verses from the Bible, you tell me how is it possible for anyone to follow the Bible totally without picking and choosing, everybody has to pick and chose, you pick and choose because what you think is right for you and others do what they think is right for them, so more than 3000 thousand denominations have their own opinion like yours.

  John14:9, ;Jesus said unto him have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me seen the father; and sayest thou then, show us the father;

  John 5:37 and the father himself which hath sent me, born witness of me, ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape;

  2 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

    Amazing1

    Dec. 1, 2006, 10:05 a.m.

    Neither of them is a commandment. And even if it were, it's not much of an argument.

    I agree that each person should pick for themselves. That is the whole argument. Those who bomb, burn and threaten against abortion are not allowing others to choose. The freedom for that sad choice does not impinge on their right to choose not to have an abortion.

    In addition, I do not interpret the Bible. It is not my Holy Book.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

    jeffery1

    Dec. 1, 2006, 1:16 p.m.

    What about those of us who do not accept the bible as anything more than a collection of texts considered sacred? As far as I'm concerned the bible is not authoritative and is basically irrelevant.

    And, one does pick and choose what to believe. This is precisely why there are so many religions and so many sects within a religion. There are many bibles, not just one, and each was compiled to meet the needs of the adherent sect, not to mention that certain texts were emended because someone thought it needed improvement.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  ciera-marie

  Dec. 1, 2006, 9:13 a.m.

  I personally know people who go on several prolife marches a year. They are not fundalmentalists, they are Catholic and of a type of Catholic that is downright scary. They would agree with you that the killing of the doctors, nurses, etc is wrong and against Christ's teachings. While at the same time argue that because our government allowed women access to birht control, and legalized abortions is why we're in the state that this country is in. They believe all forms of birth control should be made illegal period. They do not want to hear the terrible price women were paying, are paying and will pay to get an abortion. For them they may not like the current person running for politcal office no matter what it is, may not agree with the policies, etc but will vote for them anyway because they say they are prolife. They will still vote them in if policies haven't change regarding abortion, even though support for the family or the children are almost gone.

  One more thing...
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  ciera-marie

  Dec. 1, 2006, 9:18 a.m.

  What I also did not see mentioned in the article is as a result of the terrorist attacks, bomb threats, etc how many medidcal schools are teaching abortion? How many medical students are willing to learn how to do it? What scares me is abortion may still be legal but good luck finding somene who will perform it without leaving the country.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

    jeffery1

    Dec. 1, 2006, 1:12 p.m.

    The real problem is that it is the anti-abortion folks that force abortions.

    The fact is that many of these people do not want to provide any family planning services, including contraception and the morning-after pill. You can't kill someone who never existed, as would be the case when contraceptives are used. But, because they prevent the distribution of contraceptives to many people they ensure an unwanted pregnancy, thus forcing the woman to either have an unwanted baby or have an abortion. the same goes for the use of the morning-after pill.

    So, it really isn't an abortion issue, it is ultimately an issue of these people determining moral behavior for everyone. They see sex as god's means for procreation only, and if you should dare have sex you should also bear the consequences.

    The use of contraception and the morning-after pill allows women to determine their own lives, and it is this they do not want.
• 
  Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)

  KISA452a

  Dec. 1, 2006, 9:36 a.m.

  I'm curious what news you all pay attention to... You haven't heard about attacks on abortion clinics? OMG! You need to pay more attention...

  I am amazed at the LOW numbers reported by this (I suspect) biased group, National Abortion Federation. With all I hear about attacks I honestly would have thought it was in the thousands a year. In 30 years, only 7 murders? I would have sworn it was hundreds...

  As a differnt point of view, try this thought exercise. Let's say there was a law that said parents could kill their children before they turn 10, for any reason or no reason. Would you consider attacking and killing the people who "perform the prodecure"? Would you consider protesting at the "clinics" and working to make it hard for the woment to make this "choice"?

  Agree or disagree, before you condemn people try at least understanding their thoughts. Most pro-lifers consider the embroy equivalent to a human being.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    betruthful

    Dec. 1, 2006, 3:01 p.m.

    those people are morons. Your analogy is ridiculous. A 10 year old with a name and a fetus- my my
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  KISA452a

  Dec. 1, 2006, 9:42 a.m.

  2 of the worst things done in the history of the abortion issue:

  The court allowed it: In a democracy, an issue MUST be decided by the elected representatives. Otherwise, it will never be SETTLED because one side or the other will feel they have not been heard. So, going through SCOTUS for this issue ensured that it will never be resolved.

  Prohibiting picketing and attempts to silence anti-abortion protests: If people can not talk about their issues, they will resort to other measures to get across their point. Currently, people protest all sorts of things, at all sorts of sites and events. The curb on freedom of speech of abortion protestors means that they have no recourse. Any attempt to supress freedom of speech will have a negative consequence. Now 25-30% of people feel they can hardly voice their opinion.

  This "debate" has been handeled in a manner to ensure continuing anger and animosity without possibility of resolution. It's sad, really.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)

    Lurch

    Dec. 1, 2006, 3:33 p.m.

    >So, going through SCOTUS for this issue ensured that it will never be resolved.

    It is resolved. Face the facts and reality.

    Who ever put the idea in your head that it is your duty to control other peoples` actions and morals is not your friend.

    You have no business trying to control other peoples ideas and actions. The constitution guarantees equal rights to minorities. When the elected representatives forget this, SCOTUS is there to remind them.
• 
  Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

  KISA452a

  Dec. 1, 2006, 9:51 a.m.

  Final comment...

  The attempt to put this on par with extemist muslims who want to destroy the entire american way of life is counter productive. Just trying to vilify people will NOT change their minds and will only encite "your base" but not likely get you more recruits. Which is what "you" really want, right? More people to support "your" position?

  This is qual to 9-11? By life? By cash value? By changes in "your" life? By the following world-events?

  Do you think there is an organized effort by anti-abortionists to get women pregnant? To restrict their access to medical care (other than abortions)? To restrict their eductional opportunities?

  I mean, get a grip... The differences are obvious. Anti-abortionists want to halt 1 action that they consider murder. Islamists want to kill as many people as possible to enforce their way of life. Is "your" life really ONLY "pro-choice"?

  7 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

    fishoutofwater

    Dec. 1, 2006, 10:02 a.m.

    KISA452a,

    Such a fine distinction exists in your mind alone, I suspect. Murder is murder. Don't for one minute assume the lunatics that kill abortion doctors would have any qualms about killing thousands of them at a time if they could. There is no difference between fundamentalist idiots of any stripe.

    As for reliance on the legislature -- lots of luck getting any civil rights or similarly "unpopular" actions taken without the courts.

    6 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      fishoutofwater

      Dec. 1, 2006, 10:10 a.m.

      I just wish that all those who wish to live in the 12th and 13th centuries would kindly step off the bus and let the rest of us live in peace!

      3 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        KISA452a

        Dec. 1, 2006, 10:25 a.m.

        You realize that until Roe v Wade, abortion wasn't declared constitutional, right? You realize that in many places in teh world today, it is not legal, right? Again, simply calling names or making fun of people is not helpful. In fact, it is simply harmful because it makes the other group more defensive and less likely to listen to you. So, your attitude, in fact, feeds the extremists. Good job :D

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+1/-1 0)

          fishoutofwater

          Dec. 1, 2006, 4:44 p.m.

          What difference does it make if it is legal or illegal in another country? Many things are illegal in other countries that are perfectly legal here (women here don't have to wear burqas, for instance; and in all but a few places in Kansas, women in our country are free to show some ankle -- how risque!!!).

          Sorry, in my book, idiots get called what they are. Ignorance can be fixed; stupid is forever. These whack-jobs all need to show which applies in their case. Aren't those extremists content with manna? Why are they feeding on my attitude, tasty though it may be???
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        Spadecaller

        Dec. 1, 2006, 11:44 a.m.

        fishoutofwater:

        LOL... My sentiments exactly. How do we invite them onto the bus without violence?
    • 
      Avg rating: (+10/-0 10)

      KISA452a

      Dec. 1, 2006, 10:18 a.m.

      Over a trillion in damage vs millions is hardly "a fine distinction". About 3k killed vs 7 is hardly "a fine distinction". And you seem to have skipped my thought excercise above.

      If "muder is muder", then how can you blame the anti-abortionists for their actions if they consider the doctors murders?

      As to the legislature, you are saying that democracy is a failure and totalitarianism is the only solution. I disagree. If "you" have a valid point, you will probably be able to eventually convince people of it. And according to the most vocal minority leaders (the Jesses, etc) America is hardly any better now than 50 years ago before the civil rights era. Removing 1 or 2 specific laws would take us back to those eras. Civil rights legislation is, according to many minority leaders, a failed experiment. Just something to think about. You actually need to change thinking, not simply impose your will by law.

      1 Reply

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        Lurch

        Dec. 1, 2006, 3:36 p.m.

        >then how can you blame the anti-abortionists for their actions if they consider the doctors murders?

        then how can you blame the islamo-fascists for their actions if they consider Americans murderers?
• 
  Avg rating: (+9/-0 9)

  vor

  Dec. 1, 2006, 10:37 a.m.

  There is no defense for these people. How can you possibly distinguish between an act of murder? It is murder whether you kill one or 1,000.

  Thou shalt not kill. There are no addendums or appendixes here.

  There is no difference between a religious fanatic be they Islamic or Christian. If these Christian nuts had been born in the Middle East they would be among those performing terrorists acts in Allah's name. Just as they feel they have the right to commit these acts in Jesus name. Because it is their fanaticism driven fundamentalism that is the problem and that is inherent to their nature. It typically is only the birthplace that determines the mantra they follow.

  "If "murder is murder", then how can you blame the anti-abortionists for their actions if they consider the doctors murders?"

  You are simply condoning the use of murder as a political tool. Abortion is legal under US law. Don't forget that.

  10 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)

    jeffery1

    Dec. 1, 2006, 11:05 a.m.

    I hate to rain on your parade but the bible supports the act of killing when a righteous person kills an unrighteous person, such as stoning an adultress or killing all people in a conquered pagan city. The "thou shalt not murder" thing is more of a boyscout type maxim for general behavior.

    The fundies see themselves as doing righteous work. Their victims are unrighteous and are proper targets.

    5 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      Spadecaller

      Dec. 1, 2006, 11:21 a.m.

      jeffrey1

      Since when has the bible replaced the Constitution in this country? And if that is your defensse, then you are not too different that the Fundamental Islamic Fascists who consider it their right to murder Westerners in their holy war, their Jihad.

      2 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        KISA452a

        Dec. 1, 2006, 11:27 a.m.

        Jeffrey1 responded to a specific question/comment by V.O.R. And by his comment "fundies" I'd even suspect he's not fond of them...

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

          Spadecaller

          Dec. 1, 2006, 12:19 p.m.

          I was aware of that. My remarks stand.

          IN addition the Bible, does not replace the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in this coutnry, where we still maintain separation of Church from State. But according to the folk lore of the Bible, Jesus' remark, "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone."

          But of course anyone who condones terrorism would refer to that part of their scriptures that would best support their gradiose delusions of righteousness.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)

      vor

      Dec. 1, 2006, 11:41 a.m.

      As stated below, the Bible is not the law in America. Thank God. The kind of thinking you show supports the fact that WE SHOULD NOT BASE OUR LIVES ON A 2000 YEAR OLD TEXT LADEN WITH ERROR.

      And please realize that America was not founded based on Judeo-Christian values. Read up on our founding fathers and you will find a very different story.

      Your last statement brands you as a potential terrorist. Makes me wonder what you might be doing in your spare time? Obviously a fan of those like Paul Hill. But in the end, he met the fate he deserved.

      1 Reply

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        amazed

        Dec. 1, 2006, 2:53 p.m.

        you read up on it -- while they were very careful to make our society secular and adopt no particular church as a state religion, this legal underpinnings of both the Constitution and the penal codes of our country are DEFINITELY based on Judeo-Christian tenets.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

    KISA452a

    Dec. 1, 2006, 11:24 a.m.

    Murder is really an opinion (don't spout what is written down as law) and context. Would it be murder to have killed an SS taking someone to a concentration camp during WWII? You can argue whether this is the same, sure (ie, WWII and abortion), but it is hard to maintain the argument that killing someone is always bad. Therefore, people can "distinguish between an act of [killing]". Would you not try to stop the murder of 3 million "born" children a year? What if the US gvt suddenly said it was ok to kill them? You would be fine with it? "[killing kids under 10] is legal under US law. Don't foget that." Would that still be your response?

    Please quote where I have condoned anything :D

    1 Reply

    • 
      Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

      puzzler

      Dec. 1, 2006, 1:06 p.m.

      Actually, I've read that ancient Romans and other of that period often got their household slaves by picking up unwanted babies left outside to die. (See Oedipus Rex) Wonder if the slaves were properly appreciative.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+1/-1 0)

    vor

    Dec. 1, 2006, 12:23 p.m.

    Halko, we have already gone there. If the word should translate as murder then they need to change the writing of the Commandments. Even by your reckoning they have had 400 years to do this. Change the word, then there will be no dispute.

    Early term abortion is a legal lawful practice. How do propose to handle unwanted pregnancies ? Would be great if they never happened but that is as illogical as teaching abstinence and expected teens not to have sex. Back to the backrooms and alleys? Is that what you propose? Because that is where this practice will occur. Of course with the exception of those wealthy enough to leave the country.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

    Lurch

    Dec. 1, 2006, 3:42 p.m.

    >It is legal by judicial activism -

    Can`t fit a square peg in a round hole.

    If a law is unconstitional, then it is not a law.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  jwfisher

  Dec. 1, 2006, 10:48 a.m.

  KISSA452

  The abortion conflict is only one item in the agenda. These peoplem have more ideas of ways to control the masses so that things will be done right! Everything will be controled! An anti abortionist or an islamic terrorist is not thinking right! These people are classic conservatives. A conservative has a fear of the unknown....a fear of change. They are stiking out from a position of fear. The preachers and the politicians think this fighting amongst ourselves is a good idea. I makes their job easier!

  11 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

    Spadecaller

    Dec. 1, 2006, 11:13 a.m.

    jwfisher

    I concur wholeheartedly. Many of our lobby-owned politicians and certainly the media, for obvious reasons, want to flame the anger and fear on both sides of the political spectrum. Divide and conquer has been goinging on by the elite corporate owners in this country especially during the last decade.

    To control the masses, as you aptly described it. Finding religioius differences, morality issues, and partisan differences have been focused on to exploit and manipulate the middle class and poor.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    KISA452a

    Dec. 1, 2006, 11:16 a.m.

    I guess you could be right that they would go on to other things. Though I would be most anti-abortionists don't have the zeal for other issues...

    But I will point out that EVERYONE wants to control others, what they think, what they do, etc. Every law is a moral judgment forced onto others because it is "your" morals. The left (usually pro-choice) are quite happy to have restrictions on speech or religion, etc if they disagree with them. Noone is immune to the desire to exert power over others. Even the old argument "People shoudl be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else" is a moral judgement that people want to enforce by law (ignoring the obvious inherrent problems with the statement).

    4 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      walden3

      Dec. 1, 2006, 1:36 p.m.

      you're wrong about the left. the left fights for freedom of religion and speech. it is the totalitarian right, andin particular the bush whitehouse, the fights to restrict civil liberties. would you consider the ACLU a left leaning group? their whole mission is to fight for speech, civil liberties and religious freedom.

      3 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        KISA452a

        Dec. 1, 2006, 1:47 p.m.

        Everyone fights to restrict others...

        Of course, the ACLU is far left. And they fight constantly for repression of freedom of speech and religion...

        ex, They don't want Christmas in the schools. It may help prevent person A from being offended, but it prevents person B from expressing themselves in speech and religion. Any attempt to keep religion out of the schools is an obvious attempt to fight against so-called civil liberties... Just about anything the ACLU does fits.

        Not even their biggest supporter can say that the ACLU stands up for civil liberties...

        You can listen to their rhetoric or actually look at what they do.

        tbh, they try to affect others through fear of their legal actions. The costs, the damage to character, the loss of job and wealth. This could reasonably be considered terrorism as well. Just something to think about.

        2 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          vor

          Dec. 1, 2006, 3:28 p.m.

          C'mon, a school is for education and a church is for religion. If you got a problem with that there are plenty of private and religious schools out there. Or would you rather have a system of Christian madrassa schools where the students are just immersed and memorize the Bible all day? And we wonder why the Muslim kids coming from madrassas are so prone to violence. They have been kept from the pleasures of life and told that if something other than religion is pleasurable it is inherently evil. What a screwed up way to live your life.

          Any attempt to keep religion out of the schools is an obvious attempt to fight against so-called civil liberties...

          And just how would you propose to regulate which religion is taught in a public school. That would be promoting one religion over another and is clearly prohibited by the Constitution.

          A reminder the ACLU defends all, no matter their views, including Rush Limbaugh, the ultimate hypocrite.

          1 Reply

          • 
            Avg rating: (+3/-3 0)

            inaroundabout

            Dec. 1, 2006, 8:18 p.m.

            I don't thing that KISA452a was trying to make a practical argument just a philosophical one. By banning Christmas in school they are limiting someone's freedom. Someone who wants to put up a Christmas tree in the middle of the classroom and sing jingle bells cannot, they are being limited in what they can and cannot do. That is a restriction on their total freedom.

            All of our freedoms have been quite limited if you really thing about it. It's not that that's a bad thing it's just a fact. Frankly I'm happy that you aren't free to legally come to my house and kill me because you don't like what I look like or what I say. We are required to limit one another's freedoms in order to be able to live together as a society.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    KISA452a

    Dec. 1, 2006, 11:17 a.m.

    To say they are "not thinking right" is foolish. They think they are trying to stop the murder of 3 million kids a year... That sounds like thinking right.

    The disagreement that is usualy ignored is if it is murder. One side says "yes", the other says "no" then they both start talking based on their opinion and can essentially NEVER come to an agreement because they discuss the wrong issues...

    3 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      Spadecaller

      Dec. 1, 2006, 11:34 a.m.

      One must have a basic belief that their religious convictions are superior than anyone who chooses to live by different belief systems.

      Jihadist or "Fundamental Islamic Fascists" believe according to their interpretation of Islam it is their duty to detroy the infidels and the Western imperialists. Again, it is their sick and delusional belief that their religious ideology is superior and under the Prophet's guidance they are justified and righteous in killing other people.

      When one group or individual VIOLENTLY imposes their will on another group or individual because of this kind of delusional thinking, it is an act of terrorism.

      2 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        endtyranny

        Dec. 1, 2006, 11:38 a.m.

        That's for damn sure.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        KISA452a

        Dec. 1, 2006, 11:48 a.m.

        Don't you think that people who run afoul of US law, get arrested (often violently) by men (sorry, we now have women too) with guns and sticks, put into a cage for years, get beat and raped, have their futures ruined are terrorized by the experience? Aren't laws used to control the masses with the constant threat of violence, even to the point of death? By most definitions of "terrorism" any government fits...

        Just replace "religion" with "ideology" and you can fit almost any of these sorts of arguments onto just about anyone...
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    vor

    Dec. 1, 2006, 1:19 p.m.

    Again, How would you deal with these unwanted pregnancies? 30 million abortions means 30 million unwanted kids. Sure, you could place a few by adoption but what of the rest?

    I think every anti-abortion advocate should sign a form declaring that THEY will adapt and care for an unwanted baby to the age of 18. Put your money where your mouth is. And there should be no control over the color or nationality of the infant. You love all humans equally, don't you?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Matteu00

  Dec. 1, 2006, 11:34 a.m.

  "They hate us for our freedoms" - GWB Sounds like Georgie knows what he is talking about.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    Spadecaller

    Dec. 1, 2006, 11:38 a.m.

    In Iraq they hate our occupation and interference. They never attacked our country, nor were they sponsoring terrorism against us. (FACT) Of course, now George has given them a place to pick of Americans.

    Your reasoning is too simplistic to even debate. Terrorism in the U.S by Americana terrorists is equally immoral as terrorism from Islamic Fundamentalists.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  endtyranny

  Dec. 1, 2006, 11:37 a.m.

  First the anti war protester burns himself alive without a single major news outlet reporting on it, then this. What has this world come to? You have to be a celebrity, politico, or "jihadist" just to make the news.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Richdys

  Dec. 1, 2006, 11:38 a.m.

  She makes and excellent point in terms of the news coverage. I think its part of the corporatization of media that the major outlets want no part of this issue and stay away from it. The shame of it is Planned Parenthood Clinics are a primary source of pre natal care for a lot of women in this country and when they get cauterized in this debate it is the newborns those precisous infants the pro life adherents crow about that get hurt. It is a disgrace that according to the latest CIA fact book and data from the Population Reference Bureau (Funded by the Gates Foundation) the infant mortality rate in Cuba (and for that matter most of the industrialized democracies in the word) is lower than in the U.S. Most of that can be ascribed to universal access to pre natal care.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    Spadecaller

    Dec. 1, 2006, 11:57 a.m.

    That is such a twisted account of the facts. Prenatal care and infant mortality in this country is horribly poor in comparison with most modern industrialized nations. This is primarily due to the fact that 50 MILLION AMERICANS CANNOT AFFORD or CANNOT QUALIFY FOR DECENT HEALT INSURANCE COVERAGE. Using your crusade against free choice to spin the facts to serve your cause is just too obvious.

    If care (other than emergencey care) is not made availabe by mainstreem doctors on an elective basis, the kind of care that most uninsured people receive is inferior -- a disgraceful phenomenon in this country.

    YOu want to use the information that you get from the CIA... my God! How did that work for WMD's in Iraq? Do I need write anymore; I think not.
• 
  Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

  fred-mertz

  Dec. 1, 2006, 12:38 p.m.

  Since 1977, casualties from this war include seven murders, 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, 152 assaults, 305 completed or attempted bombings and arsons, 375 invasions, 482 stalking incidents, 380 death threats, 618 bomb threats, 100 acid attacks, and 1,254 acts of vandalism, according to the National Abortion Federation.

  Is that all? In 30 years? What about the MILLIONS of unborn children that were murdered...er, excuse me "terminated". Evil finds words to sooth the guilt of it's crime.

  2 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    Spadecaller

    Dec. 1, 2006, 1:18 p.m.

    Mertz

    "is that all?" What a sick remark.

    Would you say that to the mother, the spouse, or the chilren of one victim's family? Maybe you would.

    For someone who is a self-appointed protector of the unborn, how can you mitigate the value of human life at the same time.

    What a phony holly roller!

    1 Reply

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      vor

      Dec. 1, 2006, 1:26 p.m.

      I think there might by some actual terrorists on these boards. If nothing else they would surely offer their support. You hypocrites would be waving your Korans around if you were born in Baghdad, and building IED's in the backroom. Why? Because you are fanatics! Your religious belief has literally diseased your mind. Stop the religious intolerance and hatred. On both sides. Idiotic. just idiotic.

      It is not your body, not your life. The decision is purely between the woman and her maker. Whoever she may believe that is. They will suffer any future consequences. Not you. Quit interfering in others lives.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)

  Gransater

  Dec. 1, 2006, 12:45 p.m.

  What I find amazing is that in a country with religious freedom, freedom of spech, religious zealots can commit murder with the excuse that they will thus prevent murder. Neigther is this logical, or following the tenets of of christianity.

  The sad fact is that this behaviour isn't being condemned by the major "religious" leaders. In the name of God, everything is apparently ok.

  I hesitate in calling these criminals terrorist's, but, in reality they are waging terrorism.

  As for the media, they have long ago moved from reporting "news", to instead reporting, and at times aiding in creating "sexy" incidents, whereby their media can be better advertised and peddled. When tere aren't enough stories, they fill with, as an example, news of a bus crash in some country far away. All consolidations has left us, the consumer with less choice of true unslanted information. I regard failure to report an event, as a tool to slant public opinion one way or another.
• 
  Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)

  evolute50

  Dec. 1, 2006, 1:09 p.m.

  It is an interesting pursuit to try to distinguish between Christian fundamentalists attacking abortion clinics in a clear attempt to invoke terror against society and the acts of Muslim fundamentalists attacking ideological opponents over what they consider trangressions against their religion. On either side you'll find people saying "Well, there's is not the true religion. Ours is."

The first 97 comments are shown. Show all 219 comments »