“This Is Triggering”: UNC Student Attacks Pro-Life Students On Videotape

We have seen a litany of attacks on conservative and pro-life students on college campuses in the last couple of years. Even professors have joined in such attacks, including one who pleaded guilty to assault and was supported by other faculty members and even honored at other schools. The most recent example is an attack on a member of the pro-life group Created Equal at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. The attack was caught on video (below) and student Jillian Ward, 19, was charged.

On the video, Ward gave the same defense that we heard in other cases — that she was “triggered” by the pro-life displays. The group showed pictures of aborted children. Ward is shown walking up and asking them, “Did y’all put these up?” When Austin Beigel says that he did, she immediately punched him in the face and then repeatedly around the stomach.

Ward is heard screaming “F***ing terrible person. You’re a terrible person. You — this is not okay. This is not okay. This is not okay. Shut the f**k up right now. This is wrong. This is triggering. You’re not an innocent human being. You’re a terrible person.”

After years of some academics and administrators telling students that they should be protected from “triggering” views and microaggressive conduct, it is not surprising that some like Ward would believe they have license to act in this way.

Some faculty have shown students that they have a right to silence others or even attack those with opposing views. One incident occurred at the California State University where assistant professor of public health professor Greg Thatcher is shown on a videotape wiping out the pro-life statements written in chalk by members of Fresno State Students for Life.  The university is now being sued over the incident.

The incident also raises troubling memories of  the controversy surrounding the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young with pro-life advocates on campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women.  She was convicted and sentenced for the crime.  Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline. To make matters worse, Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, not only issued a statement that seemed to blame the victims but practically defended Miller-Young’s conduct. Faculty and student defenders attacked the pro-life advocates and one even referred to them as “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech.  Miller-Young should have been fired but was instead lionized by faculty and students.

This video shows a similar sense of entitlement and immunity in striking out at those with opposing views. Presumably, Ward will be expelled from UNC but that is far from certain. It did not happen with Miller-Young at UC-Santa Barbara as a faculty member who pleaded guilty to assaulting pro-life advocates.

387 thoughts on ““This Is Triggering”: UNC Student Attacks Pro-Life Students On Videotape”

  1. What the actual heck is wrong with people?

    Pro Life people feel that abortion is infanticide, and yet you don’t see them assaulting Pro Choice people on college campuses across America. There were some isolated cases of extremist activists who engaged in violence, and were universally condemned. In comparison, violence is expected now against Pro Life demonstrators.

    Most people fall somewhere in between the two extremities. Most people do, indeed, think that at some point, the mother should not have the legal right to kill her infant. For instance, 9th month abortions have very low public support, and that support would go even lower if people understood what was entailed, beyond all the euphemisms.

    So people have more in common than they think.

    Being upset is no excuse to hit someone. There are guys in prison across America because they got upset and lost their temper. I am glad she was charged. This needs to be treated like any other assault.

    Differing opinions are not, actually, dangerous.

    Universities who discriminate need to be sued.

    One final point is that the woman in the video was cowardly down to her bones to physically attack a man whom she clearly expected not to fight back. Equality of the sexes, except in a fight. It’s really brave to punch someone who will get in way more trouble than her if he punches her back. Women should never hit men, because I don’t want our society to devolve to the point that men just punch women in the face like they would another guy.

    Marvel, DC, and the other Hollywood studios are lying to you. Most women cannot beat up a man in hand to hand combat. Exceptions would be martial artists, highly trained fighters, and Gal Gadot. That’s why they don’t have co-ed boxing. The women would get murdered.

    1. Karen, this is an opportunity for ‘you’ to divulge your age. Women opposed to abortion tend to be past menopause with grown, married children. When the daughters are safely married, and, or, financially secure, parents have the luxury of being anti-abortion.
      It sounds very respectable in small, conservative towns.

      What’s more, Karen, I believe your use of “infanticide” borders on hate speech. It’s an effort to cast political liberals as actual murderers. If you honestly believe that we should have a civil war. That’s the level you’re coming from.

      1. Pete,

        Give me & Karen, et al, last month’s Price List from Planned Parenthood for “Fresh” Aborted Baby Body Parts!

        You know, Hearts, Lungs, Liver…etc.,

        If you don’t have the price list maybe I can check with James O’Keeffe, sic or some else.

        1. Oh gosh, Oky, I’m shaken by your put-down. Talk about moral outrage!

          Only a native of the Great Plains can express that level disgust and sound halfway serious. And it takes an seriously uptight nerd to perceive O’Keefe as a populist hero. To the rest of us O’Keefe is a dirty trickster.

          Seriously, Oky, that’s hate speech. Like Karen’s use of “infanticide”. Liberals can play that game as well. ‘Conservatives want cancer patients to die’.

          Before Obamacare, uninsured patients were more likely to die from cancer than patients with insurance. Obamacare sought to address that issue. But Republicans have tried repeatedly to dismantle Obamacare. So Republicans, in effect, want cancer patients to die.

          See how easy it is to cast opponents as murderers? Any moron can do it. Morons like ‘you’ and Karen, Oky. So take your stupid crap about Planned Parenthood to the outhouse of your farm.

          1. “To the rest of us O’Keefe is a dirty trickster.”

            Let us think about what O’keefe has done.

            Here is an example of teacher abuse of our school children:

            “In this undercover investigation, Hamilton Township Education Association President David Perry details the steps the teachers union would take to protect a teacher who physically abused and threatened middle school students from losing their job.

            Dr. Perry says he would misrepresent the events of altercations between teachers and students by “bending the truth” and back-dating reports and instructed the teacher to not tell anybody about incidents with students.

            The union president also stressed that a teacher who abuses his students needs to come to the union after any incident so that they can create a report that would best protect them from students that come forward about abuse.”

            Tell me what is wrong with putting light on this type of activity.

            Video of above and similar videos at: https://www.projectveritas.com/teachersunion2018/

            1. Unless Peter admits that this video is of great benefit to society then peter is one of those who doesn’t care when our young are molested by their teachers.

              Alternatively Peter can explain why the video is not worthwhile.

              The video is easily accessible for all so that Peter and everyone else can review it and discuss the identical thing.

              Loads of videos on different subjects are available at: https://www.projectveritas.com

              O’Keefe has done more real journalism than any journalist today and provides us with video proof of what is happening. What the left hates is seeing their actions on video and knowing that their bad behavior is being exposed.

              1. Alan, no video by project veritas is of benefit to anyone! O’Keefe is a slime bag who deceptively edits. He has no credibility in the mainstream universe.

                  1. Various people fund O’Keefe and provide him services. They have no influence on what he does or doesn’t do but everyone is able to participate. Koch financially supports and wants prison reform. Peter doesn’t want prison reform because Koch financially supports it.

                    The Koch’s personally don’t supply O’Keefe witht that much of his revenue. He gets money from a lot of groups supported by a lot of people and he gets money from individuals as well that aren’t in the billionaire class.

                    Your actual source is a rag. It doesn’t provide fact rather assumptions based on some fact. Compare that to a video where the facts are provided by the people directly involved. The former is trash. The latter is gold.

                  2. You voted with the Koch Bros. in 2016. Now the Kochs are bad guys? Which one is it?

                1. “Alan, no video by project veritas is of benefit to anyone!”

                  Knowing that teachers that abuse students are being protected by the teacher’s union isn’t of benefit? The school boards thought there was benefit when they fired the people that were hiding abuse. Why don’t think it is of benefit. Are you one that abuses students.

                  The videos are present for all to view. Take the videos on teacher abuse and tell us what had no credibility.

                  Your complaint of editing is BS. When you provide your evidence against Trump you are providing edited evidence where context has been intentionaly obliterated. This accusation that you make was met head on by providing full tapes and tapes on a subject involving many different times, locations and people without anonymity of persons in question.

                  You don’t like the video’s because the videos frequently prove that what you say is a lie.

                  1. Alan, O’Keefe gets no respect whatsoever outside the right-wing bubble. No serious news organization considers him a ‘journalist’.

                    1. Peter, that is a fairly stupid thing to say. O’Keefe’s content is extraordinarily good while the content of the MSM is op-ed content based on soft fact and mistruths, not journalism. You trust anonymous sources but you don’t trust your eyes or ears and you are unwilling to look past your nose. If you did you would review one of the videos and prove it has no value. You can’t and that is why you make comments that are stupid instead.

                      You talk about dialogue and complain that Estovir and other’s are off topic preventing dialogue. Here you make outrageous statements and I am willing to listen to you prove your case but you don’t. All talk. Little action.

        1. Excerpted from the first article linked above by L4D:

          For over four decades abortion providers throughout the United States have been under attack. There have been thousands of violent incidents including blockades, invasions, chemical attacks, arsons, bombings, death threats, sniper attacks, and cold-blooded murder. Since 1993, 12 abortion providers, first responders, patient supporters, and volunteers have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists; 30 others have been wounded, some critically.

          [repeated for emphasis]

          Since 1993, 12 abortion providers, first responders, patient supporters, and volunteers have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists; 30 others have been wounded, some critically.

          1. Using you imagination, picture in your mind the numbers cited above being attributed to . . . Tum, Tuh, Tum Tum . . . Antifa. Oh! No!

            Actually, No! is the correct answer with respect to Antifa and the numbers cited above. Did you know that anti-abortion activists have training camps for “irregular troops”? You can find that story and many more at the links within the links posted above.

            Contributed by The L4D–What Would Allan Say About That–Project

            1. Excerpted from the link within the link posted above:

              The Survivors, an anti-abortion group, announced THE BIRTH OF THE IRREGULARS on its website on August 26, 2015 in a blog post (that has now been taken down):

              “‘Irregulars are soldiers or warriors who are members of special organizations that employ irregular military tactics. This involves avoiding large-scale combat, focusing instead on small, stealthy, hit and run engagements’. . .”

              “The Irregulars . . . will excel at scouting out Planned Parenthood events, skirmishing at, harassing, pursuing and sabotaging Planned Parenthood’s evil plans at every turn…. The Irregulars will specialize in underground resistance!”

              The Survivors was co-founded by Jeff White, who was the President of Operation Rescue West with Troy Newman as his second in command in the 1990s. Troy Newman is frequently a featured speaker and a trainer at Survivor events and at its pro-life summer bootcamp.

  2. Pro-Life..??

    Gun Violence Statistics..

    And The Rise Of Hate Crimes In The Trump Era

    There is a certain perverse logic when we look at the numbers, the macabre math of murder. A US Centers for Disease Control report concludes that gun deaths in the US are at a 20-year high at nearly 40,000 people in 2017. A previous CDC report placed homicide by firearm as the second-leading injury category for Americans between the ages of 15 and 24. Given these statistics – and many more – it seems less “senseless” that these shootings take place, than inevitable. The senselessness is in our drowsy reaction.

    Gun violence is of particular interest to athletes of color because they are more in danger of being victims than their white teammates. African Americans comprise only 13% of the population, yet as of 2017, players of color made up 42.5% of the MLB, 80.7% of the NBA, and over 70% of the NFL. At the same time, blacks make up 58% of gun homicide victims while guns are the leading cause of death of black males between 15 and 34. Among whites, 77% of gun deaths are the result of suicide, while among blacks 82% of gun deaths are the result of homicide. This is especially worrisome when you realize that while 41% of white households own guns, only 19% of black households do. Fewer blacks have guns but they are much more likely to catch a bullet.

    Interwoven in this tapestry of sports and gun violence in the US is our current political landscape. Under the Trump Administration, rational discourse has been under direct attack. The president has called the press the “enemy of the people” and encouraged supporters to verbally and physically harass reporters. Instead, disinformation is given out to the public (Trump recently passed his 10,000th lie as president) directly and through what amounts to the public relations branch of the White House, Fox News.

    The result is that the most uninformed, irrational, and violent among us are encouraged to express their rage. This has led to increased attacks on Muslims, Jews, and others. Hate crimes increased nationwide in 2017 and then again in 2018. Of course, those without the ability or inclination to articulate issues and discuss them rationally will want to support their opinions with guns. And guns need targets. In the past few years, athletes have become more outspoken in protesting the rise in perceived social injustices and in doing so have made themselves targets. Most of these outspoken athletes – Colin Kaepernick, LeBron James, Stephen Curry – are black, which statistically already makes them bigger targets anyway.

    Edited from: “Athletes Are Shot Dead All The Time In The U.S. It Makes Grim, Tragic Sense”

    By Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Today’s “Guardian”

    1. Speaking of racial violence, according to the FBI’s uniform crime-reporting data for —> 2016,<— BEFORE TRUMP WAS ELECTED, UNDER OBAMA, 90.1 percent of black victims of homicide were killed by other blacks. And I think when you say while 41% of white households own guns, only 19% of black households do, what your really mean is only 19% of black households REGISTER their guns.
      The fact that there are so many shootings of unarmed victims is proof that the higher the probability the victim won't shoot back the lower their chances of survival.
      You don't seem to get the picture.
      Evil men are evil. They do not operate on a moral code that changes their heart if the victim is innocent, helpless or doesn't stand a chance. It just makes the perps feel lucky they found such an easy mark.

    2. Actually only about a third or 40% of deaths are due to violent attacks of one person or another. That would make the number around 15,000. The question then arises as to how many lives are saved with the use of a gun or someone knowing a gun is available? That is followed by the fact that most gun deaths of this type are illegal and unlicensed guns. Killers that have no regard for life certainly are not stopped by laws on the books banning guns, but good people are. That means a law against guns leaves guns in the hands of killers rather than good people that wish to protect themselves.

      Now, let us deal with real hate and a lot more deaths. The most recent statistics I remember 72,000 deaths were due to drug abuse. These hateful people wish to not prevent drugs coming across the border along with human trafficking. Their political aims let them spew out hate so much so that building a wall might place Donald Trump in a good light. Therefore, they accept an ever rising number of drug deaths (and deaths of illegals trying to cross the border) just to satisfy their hate.

      Anonymous 1,2,3, etc.couldn’t give a da-mn about life whether it be an almost newborn, a black kid in a ghetto, or a lot of children that die from drugs. Their attitude is disgusting.

    3. It looks like deaths by firearms spiked in the last 2-3 years of the Obama Administration.
      If the occupant of the White House is to be held responsible for gun deaths, then it looks like Obama gets “the blame” for the dramatic increase in gun deaths.

      1. Tom, Congress must legislate on gun regulations. But Republican refuse to even hold hearings.

    4. Nice made up put up job which means in the end nothing. No references, no nothing to connect it to anything valid just the usual useless words connected to nothing. Seig Me No Heils Comrade we serve The Constitution not some half baked manifesto.

    5. The farther left than NYT is not a credible source.It’s one persons personal opinion and that of his or her editor. Prlnting it here without a delete function is the exact opposite of erasing anothers opinion. Not acceptable in a free speech society. Claiming it is somehow factual without back up is also not acceptable.

  3. Hysterical and incoherent Feminazi White Shirts being “enabled” by parasitic anti-American communists – the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Thou shalt not kill (i.e. abortion)

    Thou shalt not covet – Thou shalt not steal (i.e. redistribution of wealth, social engineering)

    Communists, in all their various forms, are empowered by the unconstitutional 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments and the removal of restrictions on the vote. They must be vigorously disabused of their uppity parasitism. Discipline is a virtue. Had the Founders intended communism, they would have codified it. They did not. They concluded with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a citizenry of “…free white person(s)…and voters who were Male, European, Age 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. Subsequent amendments are mortally injurious to the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional. Amendments that destroy the constitution are manifestly unconstitutional.

    Congress has the power to tax only for “…general Welfare…” and NO power to tax for INDIVIDUAL WELFARE or redistribution of wealth. Congress has no power to REGULATE anything other than trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States,…” to preclude bias or favor by one state over another.

    Article 1, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance. Individuals were provided maximal freedom and government was severely limited and comprehensively restricted.

    The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin

  4. Alabama’s New Abortion Ban Would Allow No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest

    Alabama’s House passed the bill last week. As NPR’s Debbie Elliott reported, the House version would mean a near-total ban on abortion: “The bill criminalizes abortion, meaning doctors would face felony jail time up to 99 years if convicted. The only exceptions are for a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, or a lethal anomaly of the fetus. There are no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. A woman would not be held criminally liable for having an abortion.”

    Edited from: “Amid Chaos, Alabama Senate Postpones Vote On Nation’s Strictest Abortion Ban”

    Today’s N P R

    No exceptions for rape or incest! Why is that, anyway?? ‘Conservatives support rape and incest’..?? As I noted below, the anti-abortion forces consist of ghoulish creeps.

    1. If a woman is raped, why, as a natural consequence of the rape, should the State have the lawful right to allow the mother of an unborn human being a “medical” procedure in which the human being is killed? The meme that pregnancy is such a curse well correlates with our nation’s declining birth rate.

      Tell the millions of readers, without legal mumbo jumbo, what separates your humanity from that of a zygote, AKA a one-celled human being? A zygote needs nothing more to survive and flourish into old age than any other living human being: food, shelter, and loving care. It’s not a “fault” of the unborn that only the mother is able to supply such needs. In cases of rape, the State can and should supply required care for the mother and child during pregnancy and for some time beyond; the Federal Government can and should also help in this regard.

      In Will and spouse Ariel Durant’s epic multi-volume text book series “Caesar And Christ,” Durant documents that even ancient Rome’s Senate went back and forth between abortion being legal/unlawful.

      1. Princess, I can only assume you’re one of those conservatives who ‘supports’ rape and incest.

        1. Translation: “Anyone who prefers not to murder an innocent unborn baby supports rape and incest.”

          Thanks for proving you lack a coherent argument. Thanks for agreeing with me that the unborn are human.

  5. Alabama Abortion Ban Would Allow No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest

    Alabama’s House passed the bill last week. As NPR’s Debbie Elliott reported, the House version would mean a near-total ban on abortion: “The bill criminalizes abortion, meaning doctors would face felony jail time up to 99 years if convicted. The only exceptions are for a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, or a lethal anomaly of the fetus. There are no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. A woman would not be held criminally liable for having an abortion.”

    Edited from: “Amid Chaos, Alabama Senate Postpones Vote On Nation’s Strictest Abortion Ban”

    Today’s NPR

    No exceptions for rape or incest! Why is that, anyway? And why should Anti-Abortion forces be taken seriously as ‘guardians of life’..??

    1. I reposted after the first try seemed to fail. At least 3 minutes lapsed before that first post showed up.

      1. “I reposted after the first try seemed to fail. At least 3 minutes lapsed before that first post showed up.”

        I guess you feared the first post was aborted.

          1. Anonymous, nice video of yourself. Hou weren’t even wearing clothes.

    2. “And why should Anti-Abortion forces be taken seriously as ‘guardians of life’..??”

      Because millions upon millions of soon to be born children are killed in utero while the abortion crowd gets violent when seeing pictures of a developing future child.

      I think those opposed to abortion for rape or incest amount to a relatively small number of those whose position on abortion is identical but varies only as to the number of months of life.

      1. ‘Millions’, Alan. Show us that statistic. You are so far off-base that it’s ridiculous.

        1. This issue is clearly “triggering” for the old boy, Allan. He’ll be here all day, braying in response to each and every comment.

          1. Anonymous, I would call you a jackas$ but that would be an insult to those braying creatures. You seem to take an unusual interest in my work habits. You should pay more attention to your own life because based on your statements you don’t seem like a happy person. That is not atypical of leftists who are more frequently angry and unhappy.

            1. “You seem to take an unusual interest in my work habits. ”

              Nope. You’re giving yourself way too much credit, but I’m not surprised.

        2. Dumb one. How many abortions do you think took place since Rowe vs Wade?

          1. Alan, you said “millions and millions of soon to be born children”. That only describes late term, emergency abortions.

            1. Anonymous, the way you look at things is quite odd. Killing babies must be eating away at your brain. You have a problem understanding the vastness of the moral dilemma you refuse to face because you are selfish and self-centered.

      2. Since 1993, 12 abortion providers, first responders, patient supporters, and volunteers have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists; 30 others have been wounded, some critically.

        Allan said, “. . . the abortion crowd gets violent when seeing pictures of a developing future child.”

        Classic blaming the victim trope from Allan. 12 people murdered and 30 wounded, some critically, by anti-abortion extremists who get homicidal when shown pictures of a developing fetus.

        Contributed by The L4D–Antifa Still Hasn’t Murdered But One Single Person Yet–Project

        1. Diane, along with other detestable things you are a baby killer.

          I don’t believe in any of the violence going on outside the abortion clinic or inside of it. Violent protestors should be put in jail. I remember the video’s of Milo being evacuated on a campus and I believe they had to put a bullet proof vest on him and surround him with police. I also remember a burning building.

          Take those protesters and the violent protesters at the abortion clinics and put them together in jail, perhaps mixing them so they are in the same cells.

          You only want protesters you disagree with to go to jail. That is part of your Stalinist heritage.

          1. Alan, that’s hate speech, pure and simple. What the hell give you the right to call Diane a ‘baby killer’.

            And I recall not long ago you identified yourself as being ‘not opposed to abortion’.

            It’s funny how conservatives who keep wanted to cut the social safety net for the less fortunate have the audacity to use that ‘baby killer’ label on liberals. It’s the most sickening form of hypocrisy.

            1. Peter, it is by definition. If one believes in infanticide one is a baby killer.

              “you identified yourself as being ‘not opposed to abortion’.”

              I have corrected you more than once on this subject. I am pragmatic and flexible with regard to abortion. My personal feelings are my own.

              It’s funny how Liberals are so concerned over a violent black person who attacks a cop but don’t care about the thousands of young being killed in the streets or the problems faced that so many abortions occur in black families.

              Sickening hypocrisy is what you bring to the table.

              1. Alan, you should tour Black communities in effort to convince them abortion is an evil, racist plot.

                1. Actually, I have in ithe past in depth experience in this area not specific to abortion but to life, health and wellbeing. Your comments are mostly garbage provided by elitists that live in elite communities and learn what they know through tertiary and perhaps secondary sources. Even those that were broght up in some of those communities don’t represent them and wish to distance themselves from that community except where it provides them credence when promoting their BS.

  6. As a product of the 60’s, I guess I will never understand the need of men to tell women what to do with their bodies. I have also observed, before, that unless/until the speaker has adopted an unwanted child, his/her observations on abortion are meaningless, obscene, and spouted only to the unknowing few supported by the uncaring many.

    1. how about if your wife aborted a pregnancy and lied about it? is that ok with you chuck to have an opinion about losing a potential child to a bad woman’s whims?

      of course husbands in that position often don’t worry too much since the same kind of wretched woman who does that probably may not even know which of her liasons the seed came from in the first place.

      “name withheld by request”

      1. Using your imagination, picture in your mind the L4D comment that Smith would delete or block to protect your delicate sensibilities, Mr. Name Withheld By Request.

        Contributed by The L4D–Gird Your Loins–Project

    2. I have also observed, before, that unless/until the speaker has adopted an unwanted child,

      because relativism is such a rationale way to debate issues of life and death

      “No one ever asks critics of capital punishment how many murderers they’re willing to bring into their homes. Thus your argument is sophomoric. “ Kevin Williamson

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above by L4D:

        Under Nicolae Ceauşescu, both abortion and contraception were forbidden. Ceausescu believed that population growth would lead to economic growth, which is what the country needed. In October 1966, the Decree 770 was enacted, which banned abortion except in cases in which the mother was over 40 years old or already had four children in care. Birth rates especially rose during the years of 1967, 1968 and 1969. By 1977, people were taxed for being childless. Children born in these years are popularly known as decreței (from the Romanian language word “decret”, meaning “decree”, diminutive “decrețel”). This increase in the number of births resulted in many children being abandoned in orphanages, which were also occupied by people with disabilities and mental illnesses. Together, these vulnerable groups were subjected to institutionalized neglect, physical and sexual abuse, and drug use to control behavior.

        1. Thanks, L4D.

          Highlighting this:

          “This increase in the number of births resulted in many children being abandoned in orphanages, which were also occupied by people with disabilities and mental illnesses. Together, these vulnerable groups were subjected to institutionalized neglect, physical and sexual abuse, and drug use to control behavior.”

    3. The 30 million aborted American females since Roe take exception to your progressive illogic. All penal law imposes a physical pain or suffering. A pro-life law is no different in that way. It is pure fallacy and illogic to state that only women may vote on a criminal law affecting only women.

      I suggest you take this opportunity to tell Turley’s millions of readers exactly and specifically what separates your humanity from that of a one-celled human being known as a zygote. Use your own terms, and omit the legal mumbo jumbo. If legality equals justification, then you’re either a hypocrite or you really believe that only a few years ago blacks were “three fifths” human, and homosexuals and inter-racial couples should be imprisoned.

      1. Her Royal Highness asked, “what separates your humanity from that of a one-celled human being known as a zygote?”

        Answer: Typing skills. (Helpful Hint: When formulating an unanswerable question, check, double-check and, if needs be, triple check that supposedly unanswerable question for possible answers)

        1. Thanks for confirming that a zygote is a human being.

          When you’ve really lost the argument, argue grammar.

          1. Her Royal Highness is illiterate. But if she saw a zygote walking down the street . . . She probably would chime in with a chorus or three of . . . Doo Wah Ditty Ditty Dum Ditty Doo.

    4. ” men to tell what to do with their bodies…”

      We tell people what to do with their bodies all the time. Many drugs are illegal. One must wear some sort of clothing in public. One is not permitted to urinate on the street in most cities.

      The question that is being raised is whether or not women have a right to take the life of the yet unborn child even after it is out of the womb.

      1. A more cogent and pertinent example of telling people what to do or not to do with their bodies would have been prohibiting or regulating the sale of contraceptives as well as the instruction in their proper use.

        D’oh! I’m guessing that Mr. Aspinwall favors broad access to contraception. (He’s from the Sixties. And he rides a cool yellow trike. D’oh! There I go again stereotyping complete and total strangers on a blawg. My apologies Mr. Aspinwall.)

        1. “A more cogent and pertinent example of telling people what to do or not to do with their bodies would have been prohibiting or regulating the sale of contraceptives”

          Diane, that is the type of government you want to live in but you wish to be the only one to retain the right to act on any disagreement you might have. Your ideology is big governement with a lot of power over the individual. My type of government is small government where the individual has a lot more power.

          1. A_L_L_A_N said, “My type of government is small government where the individual . . .”

            ” . . . is prevented from gaining access to contraceptives or the instruction in how properly to use them.”

            1. …and “is prevented from gaining access to” affordable “quality care.”

            2. Diane likes to purposely misquote others. She thinks that makes her look smart. It makes her look like a liar but who cares. Diane is a crazy character who fortunately is locked away.

    5. “until the speaker has adopted an unwanted child, his/her observations on abortion are meaningless…”

      So someones elses bad choices have to become my problem for me to have an opinion of those bad choices? And since you are a product of the 60’s are you apposed to war? If so, did you go?? If not then by your logic, you shouldn’t be able to protest them.

    6. that unless/until the speaker has adopted an unwanted child, his/her observations on abortion are meaningless, obscene, and spouted only to the unknowing few supported by the uncaring many.

      You realize that ridiculous opinion would necessarily cut both ways? If someone that supports abortion has never adopted an unwanted child, then his/her observations on abortion are meaningless, obscene, and spouted only to the unknowing few supported by the uncaring many.

      Is that where we’ve devolved as a society, that we are not called to defend the life, liberty and property of others if we haven’t any first hand experience in the loss of life, liberty and property?

      1. A woman’s uterus is that woman’s property in the same way that anyone’s physical body is that person’s property, in the same way that anyone’s life is that person’s property; and in the same way that that person’s liberty is that person’s property. The property right is the surety for all human rights. And . . . No person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

        Any State that bans abortion outright must pay rent to the woman for the use of her uterus (property) even whilst providing an escape clause for defensive abortions to protect the life and health of the woman since she’ll need to maintain the life and health of her property (uterus) for future private or public use.

        Contributed by The L4D–What’s This Property Right Thing, Anyhow–Project

        1. Well . . . Some observers have previously held that “property” is that which one owns to the exclusion of all others. For instance, given any man whosoever, that man owns his own gallbladder [euphemism alert] to the exclusion of all other owners of gallbladders. Other observers might hold that the spleen is a better euphemism for whatever galls one’s bladder.

        2. There’s always some other angle to consider. And there’s usually somebody, somewhere (I can’t imagine who) willing to work that angle:

          Surrogate motherhood | Britannica.com


          Apr 12, 2019 … Surrogate motherhood, practice in which a woman (the surrogate mother) bears a child for a couple unable to produce children in the usual …

          1. So, anyway, if a State, any State, bans abortion outright, then that State necessarily enters into a contract for surrogate motherhood with the pregnant women in that State whose property that State has confiscated with due process of law (“?”). This could get expensive. In fact, this could be real budget buster for most States. The Sovereignty could be bankrupted. Who takes receivership when a State is insolvent? I seem to remember something or other about the full faith and credit of the . . . What did those guys call themselves?

        3. A woman’s uterus is that woman’s property…

          And a plantation was that slaveowner’s property.

            1. You said it yourself, a woman’s uterus is her property. A woman has rights in that property and so did the plantation owner have rights in that property. If the woman or the plantation owner brings a human into that property, does that make them property?

              1. Olly, the woman’s uterus – unlike a plantation – does not exist unless she exists. These are not equivalent terms.

                  1. Chief Olly worships The Earth Mother. She is land. When someone takes ownership of Her, She becomes his property.

                1. The unborn zygote and unborn later term humans reside within the uterus. That fact has no correlation to the magnitude of the humanity of the unborn. Your argument is moot.

                  A male unborn human residing within a uterus comprises all 46 male human chromosomes. Please explain to millions of readers: if the unborn male human being is not a separate human being, how do you account for the woman’s body comprising all 46 human chromosomes of a woman (herself) and all 46 chromosomes of a male human being (the unborn human baby)? If it’s just a part of her body, how do you explain that fact that the woman temporarily is neither fully exclusively only one gender? You can’t because she’s not. She a woman carrying around a male human in “her” uterus.

                  1. unless if there are 47 chromosomes which is what makes Trolls like Anon, Peter Shill, L4D, et al

                  2. Red herring cross bred with a straw man. The woman is not the fetus. The man is not the fetus. The fetus is not the mother. The fetus is not the Father. Not even is Royal lineages (such as honey bees, for instance) does inbreeding get that close.

                    Are the chromosomes the mother? Are the chromosomes the Father? Are the chromosomes the fetus? Are the chromosomes the human being?

                    1. Allan has a gallbladder. L4D has a gallbladder. Are our gallbladders human? Where does the human gallbladder come from without the human chromosomes? If the human chromosomes are human, then why can people have their gallbladders removed but not their fetuses?

                      Has anyone else out there ever really thought about this thing before?

              2. You are avoiding the consequences of your own statement. The woman is not the property of the man who “sows” his “seed” in HER “plantation”. Not HIS plantation. Nor is HER “plantation” ever the “property” of the State without due process of law and just compensation.

                As for the fetus, when the fetus is capable of living, growing and developing outside of the woman’s uterus, then the fetus has acquired squatter’s rights and the State can regulate the process for evicting that squatter from the woman’s property by dues process of law and with just compensation, provided that those of the woman’s additional properties known as her life and her health are preserved and protected by the State’s regulation of the eviction process.

                1. Correct. The woman and her uterus are not the property of anyone other than herself.

                  As for the fetus, when the fetus is capable of living, growing and developing outside of the woman’s uterus,

                  Notice how similar your defense of your property is to those defending slavery. Until that fetus (property) leaves your property, it has no legal standing as a person (human). How antebellum of you.

                  Defenders of slavery turned to the courts, who had ruled, with the Dred Scott Decision, that all blacks — not just slaves — had no legal standing as persons in our courts — they were property, and the Constitution protected slave-holders’ rights to their property.

                  1. Olly, you want to put women in slavery while referencing the abolition movement as your inspiration. What a jerk!

                    1. You had the opportunity to read the entire thread for comprehension before making such a patently false statement. Put down the paint chips, stop whining about your login problems and get back to me when you get up to speed.

                      Good luck.

                    2. Olly, all I needed to see were those pretentious references to the civil rights movement. Like denying women’s rights is a civil rights cause. That argument is a non-starter with me.

                    3. Damn, you really are a glutton for punishment. Paint chips will do that to you. LOL! On a Triggering post you freely admit you were triggered by words I didn’t write. You may want to make a better effort to direct your misdirected triggered attention to whomever wrote about the “civil rights movement.” Based on your history here, I won’t hold my breath.

                    4. Olly, if you’re whole argument hinges on a stupid paint chip joke, you’re really out of your league on this thread.

                    5. if you’re whole argument hinges on a stupid paint chip joke, you’re really out of your league on this thread.

                      Ironically, if it weren’t for your diet of paint chips as a kid, you’d understand just how out of your league you’ve been on this blog.

                  2. An otherwise perfectly intelligent man said, “Notice how similar your defense of your property is to those defending slavery.”

                    Pay attention, Chief. Are you paying attention? Well, then pay attention.

                    The African slaves were kidnapped by force of arms, place in chains, boarded upon ships, transferred across the ocean, sold into chattel slavery, and their progeny, almost in perpetuity, sold and resold into the peculiar institution of chattel slavery.

                    When you deny history Chief, you become an ABSOLUTE IGNORAMUS.

                    Now. you will presently show a Woman who kidnapped somebody else’s fetus, placed that fetus in chains, transferred that fetus across the ocean, sold that fetus into chattel slavery on Her own “plantation,” as well as all of the progeny, seemingly in perpetuity, of that original “captive fetus” into the peculiar institution of chattel slavery.

                    And that is in fact an order Chief. Failure to execute that order will necessarily result your complete and toal exposure as an Absolute Ignoramus.

                    Are we clear on that? Or would you like me to go over it one more time more slowly until you catch on, Chief?

                    1. You can change your name, but that won’t change your losing record. 🤣

                    2. You’re still not paying attention, Olly.

                      Show me a Woman who petitioned a United States Court to issue a writ of habeus corpus to the United States Marshall Service for the arrest and return to that Woman of somebody else’s fetus so that that fetus could be enslaved in/on Her uterine “plantation”.

                      You’d have better luck locating a surrogate mother who contracted with somebody else for the use of her uterus to gestate and deliver somebody else’s child. Under those circumstances, aborting the fetus would probably constitute breach of contract, I would imagine.

                      Are you paying attention yet, Chief?

        4. “A woman’s uterus is that woman’s property in the same way that anyone’s physical body is that person’s property,”

          On the issue of abortion I have a lot of wiggle room but your comments, Diane, are insane.

          A woman’s uterus is private property and access to it is limited to whom she permits access. When the woman permits access to her uterus and creates a living being, that being is no longer her’s alone. Her complete sovereignty ended when she permitted access.

          1. Alan, you want to make women the property of men. That’s the primary goal of the anti-abortion movement. But they won’t ever, ever admit it. Instead they cloak themselves under the noble sounding “pro-life” banner.

            1. Peter where are women the property of men? It is not just men that are against abortion but women as well. In fact most of the population is against abortion at will at any gestation. You refuse to consider the idea that a pregnant woman is carrying a living creature in her belly. You consider pregnancy a disease similar to cancer so you advocate cutting it out.

              I don’t have as much objection to some of your desire to permit abortion. What I object to more is your lack of morality.

              1. Right, Alan. You and every conservative would deny healthcare to the poor. Yet we should look to you for moral leadership…??

                What a joke you are; a senile old fool!

                1. Peter, you know almost nothing about healthcare or Obamacare. You just talk through your orifice that resides lower down.

                  You want to speak about health care? Let’s do so in depth and not just to the point where you run out of talking points.

                  The US has the best healthcare in the world. That is one of the reasons that when ill the richest and most powerful will head in this direction rather than our rich and powerful heading in the opposite direction. The data exists but the left doesn’t bother using it and forgets about it even though many things the left has said was proven wrong decades ago.

                  I await for your in depth discussion of healthcare.

                  1. The US does not have the best health care in the world, but even if it did, many can’t afford it and as a nation we can’t either. With out anticipated medial cost increases – not demographics – we don’t have a long term federal budget problem We are the best in certain areas – cancer in particular – but not so much in other areas. We are about average in the level of patient satisfaction. While there is medical tourism into the US by the rich, middle income medical tourism leaves the US for much better prices and quality care in Central America, Thailand, etc

                    1. Overall the US has the best healthcare in the world. Some countries will be superior to the US in certain instances but overall the US is at the top.

                      Tell us the coutry you think is the best in the world and is better than the US.

                      You are full of generalities but lack any specific knowledge.

                    2. Anon writes: “Sure, here are 3 different rankings of the best health care systems:” I guess ignorance is bliss. Anon learn the difference between a puff piece that has criteria to list things in the order desired and real studies.

                      This is just one of the parts in the rating system that makes such rating so stupid.

                      equal access to healthcare: That means if everyone receives a bullet to the brain to cure cancer they get 100 out of 100 points added to their score.

                      The key to determine healthcare quality is outcomes, will I live or die, will I get better or worse. When that type of ranking is used the US comes out on top.

          2. The Gentleman Caller said, “When the woman permits access to her uterus and creates a living being, that being is no longer her’s alone.”

            Dear Sir, the fetus is never the woman’s property. Never. The fetus is never the man’s property, either. Never. Her uterus is the woman’s property along with her life, her liberty and her health. When the fetus becomes capable of living, growing and developing outside of the woman’s uterus, then the fetus has acquired a property right of its own–namely, squatter’s rights. At that point and beyond, the woman cannot evict the fetal squatter from her uterus except to preserve and protect her own life and her own health–including the future reproductive health of her uterus. Also at that point and beyond, The State may regulate the eviction process so as to protect and defend the squatter’s rights of the fetus; provided that the State also preserves, protects and defends the woman’s rights to her life and her health–including the future reproductive health of her uterus.

            At no point whatsoever along the way is the fetus the property of any other “being” nor “person” nor “entity”. Because, amongst other things, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall prevail in any of The States. And because newborn children are neither slaves nor involuntary servants to their parents nor to anyone else. Newborn children are, instead, wards and charges of their parents or of someone else.

            1. P. S. Parents cannot sell their children into bondage to anyone else.

            2. And here’s another curious fact, no one can sell his or her vital organs to anyone else here in America. You can, under certain circumstances, donate one of your kidneys or a lobe of your liver to someone else while you are still alive. Otherwise, you have to die, first, before you can donate any of your vital organs or other body parts–such as corneas–to another person or to medical science.

              Even so, since a woman could still rent her uterus to gestate and deliver someone else’s child, her uterus is still that woman’s property. IOW, it is not strictly necessary for all “property” to be “sellable.”

            3. “At that point and beyond, the woman cannot evict the fetal squatter from her uterus except to preserve and protect her own life and her own health”

              “At no point whatsoever along the way is the fetus the property of any other “being” nor “person” nor “entity”.”

              Diane, you have moved the conversation to a rational dialogue. In the second statement you all but admit the fetus is a human life (that at a point in time) cannot be taken without cause and the cause would be the life of the mother.

              The question that remains is up to what point in time can that being be deprived of life. Your answer is “When the fetus becomes capable of living, growing and developing outside of the woman’s uterus, then the fetus has acquired a property right of its own–namely, squatter’s rights.” I believe your position is defendable and rational. That does not necessarily reflect on my personal opinion. That leaves some secondary problems: 1) how does one define a threat to the woman’s health and life? 2) When does one consider the being viable? The technology of the future will have a lot to do with that.

              Good to have a reasonable discussion.

                1. “[Barf-o-rama]”

                  I don’t understand Diane. I hope you aren’t calling your own words barf. Were you intending this as an insult? Did you not want productive dialogue?

                  1. [Barf-O-Rama] is . . . Self Explanatory . . . to all save Allan.

                    1. Diane, I guess what you are saying with the use of Barf o Rama that any intelligent discussion is barf to you. We had what I thought was some agreement and could begin a new and better type of discussion but it appears that is not what you are on the blog for.

                      Correct me if I am wrong.

            4. the fetus is never the woman’s property. Never. The fetus is never the man’s property, either. Never. When the fetus becomes capable of living, growing and developing outside of the woman’s uterus, then the fetus has acquired a property right of its own

              Not property huh? You’re saying, until that human “fetus” is safely freed from the woman’s uterus (plantation) to live, grow and develop, it has no property rights of its own. It would be in fact a slave (property) to the owner(s) until the owners of that property recognize them as equal in rights as the owner(s) themselves.

              In the cases of rape and incest, the woman’s property rights were violated and she should have the right to evict immediately. However if she made the choice not to immediately, then that choice is waived. In the case of the physical health of the mother, the woman should have the choice to secure her own life first.

              1. You are still not paying attention. Perhaps you never will.

                Do landlords own renters (tenants) as property? If not, then why not? What “property” does the landlord own? How would a woman own the fetus as “property,” if the landlord does not own the renter (tenant) as property?

                Are you still not paying attention, Chief?

                1. The answer is way too obvious. What can a tenant do that a slave cannot?

                  Come on, expand your mind.

                  1. Are you suggesting that slaves cannot be evicted from the plantation?

                    Or are you suggesting that fetuses can be bought and sold in the market or down the river?

                    I told you before what happens when you deny history. I’d be happy to explain it to you again. But you’d have to start paying attention rather than “expanding your mind” so evasively. Are you even capable of paying attention?

                  2. You know what? It has become clear that Chief Olly requires an explanation in order to pay attention. Here goes.

                    The fetus begins its gestation in the uterus as a trespasser. If the woman declines to evict the trespassing fetus from her uterus, or if the woman expressly invites the fetal trespasser to stay in her uterus for the full gestation period, then the fetus is no longer a trespasser, but has become either a squatter or a guest.

                    Neither the fetal squatter nor the fetal guest are the “absolute property” of the woman who declines to evict them from her uterus. In fact, neither the squatting fetus nor the guest fetus are even “qualified property”–such as a herd of deer living in the woodlot on The Lady’s Manor who might thereby be protected from poachers so long as they reside on The Lady’s Manor.

                    There is no legally recognized form of “property” that applies to a fetal guest or a fetal squatter residing in the woman’s uterus. We know this because there are no legally recognized forms of property that apply to either ordinary human house guests or ordinary human squatters. The woman has no exclusive right to the use of the fetus residing in her uterus. Instead, the woman has only an exclusive right to the use of her uterus which she can share with the fetus as she sees fit until the guest fetus is born into the world or until the squatting fetus acquires its own property right by means of adverse possession.

                    Either way, her uterus is the woman’s property. The fetus is never the woman’s property–least of all her chattel.

                    1. The fetus begins its gestation in the uterus as a trespasser.

                      In the case of rape or incest, yes. However, with any other reason this human came into existence to live on that property, the owner is responsible; and it is the natural right of that human to remain until it can survive on its own off the property.

                      Now if the owner still decides to evict the human they were responsible for bringing to live on that property, they would be knowingly causing the death of that human. If they didn’t recognize that human as anything other than property to dispose of, then they would be no better than slaveholders.

        5. Nothing in the science world contradicts that a zygote is human; a zygote comprises every single quality that differentiates a human being.

          The fact that human being A resides within another human being B does not diminish A’s humanity nor give society (nor B) the right to remove A’s life and liberty.

          If you logic held sway, then a landowner can lawfully kill those who unlawfully enter his/her property.

          To me, the only lawful case of abortion is if the mother’s life is in serious jeopardy. In this case, one or both persons might die. Person A can not vote, and if A could vote, they might vote to give up their life to spare person B.

          In cases where person B gave up their life to save person A’s life, hospitals and schools and other institutions could and should be name after person B. And maybe, if person B saved their own life and in that process person A died, person A could be named (if person B so desired), and have institutions named after person A.

          As it is now:
          First trimester: no reason needed for abortion
          2nd trimester: any reason needed for abortion
          3rd trimester: any specific reason needed for abortion (the baby gives me a headache, etc.)

          1. All human zygotes have human specific genes.
            All human beings have human specific genes.
            Ergo, there is no valid conclusion to be drawn from that Major and Minor premiss in that mood.

            Here’s what you were thinking:

            All human zygotes have human specific genes.
            All organisms with human specific genes will eventually develop into human beings.
            Ergo, All human zygotes will eventually develop into human beings.
            Given anything whatsover will eventually develop into a human being, that thing is already a human being.

            Is Dolly The Sheep a member of your Royal lineage?

            Doo Wah Ditty Ditty Dum Ditty Doo.

            1. i am glad i am not missing anything interesting over the weekend. listening to you insult people is boring

          2. Her Royal Highness said, “If you logic held sway, then a landowner can lawfully kill those who unlawfully enter his/her property.”

            Land owners do have the right to evict trespassers from the land owner’s property. Ordinarily, evicting a trespasser from one’s property does not entail the death of that trespasser. In the case of a fetus trespassing upon a woman’s fetus, the process of eviction known as abortion does presuppose the death of that fetal trespasser because the fetus cannot yet sustain its own life nor continue its growth and development without remaining in the woman’s uterus for the full, or for very nearly the full, gestation period.

            However, if the fetus poses no threat to the life and health of the woman in whose uterus the fetus resides, and if the woman had not originally invited the fetus to remain in her uterus for the full gestation period, then that squatting fetus might acquire a property right of its own through adverse possession of the woman’s uterus up until such time as the fetus has become viable for live birth and life outside the woman’s uterus.

            Of course, the existing laws for adverse possession (a.k.a. squatter’s rights) would have to be changed to accommodate the much shorter time period involved in the gestation process for humans. (The typical time period for existing adverse-possession laws is seven years of continuous residency on the property.)

    7. Charles Aspinwall,
      “I have also observed, before, that unless/until the speaker has adopted an unwanted child, his/her observations on abortion are meaningless, obscene, and spouted only to the unknowing few supported by the uncaring many.”

      That is an anti a intellectual thing to say. It is a means of ending a conversation instead of listening and trying to understand.

      An acquaintance of mine, an older woman, was the product of a rape. Her grandfather encouraged her mother to get an abortion when it was discovered she was pregnant. Her mother refused and gave the baby, my acquaintance, up for adoption following the birth. You better believe the lady has strong opinions about abortion. She is very definitely pro-life.

      One of my cousins is a special needs adoption out of the foster care system. He is brain damaged because his mother’s boyfriend slammed him up against a wall when he was little. He seems pretty happy to be alive, despite the abuse and trauma of his early childhood.

      I am a pro-life centrist.

      1. Thank you for commenting. You are precisely the person I was addressing in my comment. It stands. I have empathy for the examples you cite (real or contrived), but for you? If you have not adopted an unwanted child, your compulsion to inflict your beliefs upon others is a waste of my time and an imposition upon those who actually care. Until you have lived your life as a special needs child, you are unqualified to decide to impose that life upon others.

        1. Until you have lived your life as a special needs child, you are unqualified to decide to impose that life upon others.

          You sure about that? Are there no other ways one can become qualified other than by living the life of those they will impact? How many judges would be removed from the bench under that standard? Do we require jury members to share in the experience of the defendant and/or the victim of a crime?

        2. Part of living a life in a social society is to be able to learn right from wrong without experiencing everything that occurs in society. Your approach, Charles, is an anarchistic type of approach where each individual acts as he will without concern until he personally experiences the problem himself. That doesn’t work and that is why it is so important for people in a social society to learn the difference between right and wrong from the start and limit the need for experience.

        3. “A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies, said Jojen. The man who never reads lives only one.”

          George R.R. Martin

          “Until you have lived your life as a special needs child, you are unqualified to decide to impose that life upon others.”

          Then no decisions can be made at all. There can be no thinking. Did the Lorax have to be a barbaloot or a tree to speak for them?

          You are foolish.

          I speak for my cousin because he does not have the capacity to effectively speak for himself. He is happy and loving. You are cruel and willfully ignorant.

          My aquaitance voted for Trump, too.A nice flip of the bird to attitudes like yours.

  7. If prolifers arm themselves this would not happen.
    When a proabort assaults a peaceful demonstrator, the latter has every reason to defend herself with her 2nd Amendments Rights.

    If praying the rosary peacefully wont prevent this type of Brown Shirt Thuggery then guns will

  8. If You’re Carrying Posters Of Aborted Fetuses..

    You’re Trying To Incite People

    The entire purpose of those signs (with aborted fetuses) is to trigger an assault. ‘I’ have been tempted to assault people carrying those signs. Anti-Abortion protestors are generally ghoulish creeps seeking to bring about an oppressive society where women’s rights are trampled.

    Those same ghoulish creeps vote for politicians impervious to gun violence. Most Republicans would have us believe that gun violence is strictly a’ mental health issue’. Yet Republicans are hell-bent on dismantling Obamacare. In short Republicans have no sincere desire to extend mental healthcare to the masses.

    After the Sandy Hook Massacre in December of 2012, most Americans assumed that the moment had come when Republicans would acknowledge that gun violence was a genuine issue. At the very least, Americans expected Congressional hearings of some kind. But ‘noooooo’, Republicans simply denied that guns are a public safety hazard!

    The Sandy Hook Massacre was 6 1 /2 years ago. Since then this country has experienced numerous mass shootings while Republicans continue denying guns are a public safety hazard. Conservatives maintain that gun violence in Chicago should be addressed by allowing gun sales in that city. Meanwhile Donald Trump got the White House with active support from “Info-Wars” which actively promoted Sandy Hook Conspiracy hoaxes.

    Last week the U.N. released a 1,500 page report showing that Climate Change is a major threat to biodiversity across the globe. The earth’s ecosystems are breaking down at an alarming rate. Yet on the same week this U.N. report was issued, the Trump administration announced a rollback of rules regarding the safety of offshore oil rigs. Rules that were enacted after the disastrous B.P. oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. So anyone who thinks this administration cares about ‘life’ is in total denial..!!

    Therefore, when Professor Turley tells us we should be concerned about the safety of ghoulish protestors seeking to trample women’s rights, it’s an insult to people who really care about life. Conservatives like Turley should be confronted by protesters carrying photos of children killed in mass shootings. However parents of those victims might be offended if their murdered children were exploited in that manner. What’s more, most liberals have more class than to exploit murdered children for political purposes.

    1. I have no idea why my email keeps showing up in comments. I wasn’t using auto-fill. Has some dirty trickster altered this platform to deter my participation?

      1. Peter,

        Have you tried leaving your email address blank? If you haven’t done so already, try entering PH (or whatever name you’d like, in the field labeled “Name”), and leave the other two fields* blank. I don’t know if this will work for you, but it’s worth a try if you haven’t tried it already. On the first go around, uncheck the “Save my name, email…” box.

        You might want to clear your cache, history, and cookies, first, which can create problems because you’ll have to reenter and restore basic info, including user names and passwords on other sites that you use. I’d do this last, after trying the other things first. Shut down your browser and restart it, each time. Good luck.

        *Email and Website

      2. “Has some dirty trickster altered this platform to deter my participation?”

        Maybe, but it’s easier to assume interference than to actually try to fix the problem.

          1. Testable hypothesis Test No. 2 (Email field): Result: Failure.

      3. Your email and name may have gotten switched around somehow. The email is now above “Name” instead of below like it used to be.

    2. Carrying a sign with an offensive image justifies physical violence? Hahahahahahahahah

    3. “If You’re Carrying Posters Of Aborted Fetuses. You’re Trying To Incite People”

      That is the idea of violent people on the left that want an excuse to commit violent acts.

      Actually showing such pictures is an attempt to show a human being in development inside of the mother. The only reason one would be incited to violence is if the person seeing those pictures recognizes that one side of the argument is that abortion (at whatever date is chosen) is killing a yet to be born human. If the pictures are so revolting perhaps the anti-abortion crowd has a good point.

  9. Bitc! isn’t going to learn from this unless the penalty is a couple of days in jail and a semester on suspension.

    1. Suspension should be the minimum. That will do the most good for her and any of those that think she was a hero. An alternative would be an ankle bracelet which permitted her to go to class and scholastic events but prevented her from all other forms of entertainment outside the home. (of course no parties at home)

      Her grades would probably go up.😀

    2. This is absurd x 5 says: May 10, 2019 at 11:52 AM

      Bitc! isn’t going to learn from this unless the penalty is a couple of days in jail and a semester on suspension.

      Another highly refines comment brought to you by Smith’s astigmatic blog maintainance project.

  10. Not hard to find 19 year old youths on the distaff side who are rather loosely wired. I’d expect research university campuses to be below the median in that respect.

    The drop in the quality of human being we raise in this country can be seen in comparing the standards of conduct observed in the 1937 cohort as compared to the 1952 cohort. You’ve had a gradual supplementary decline since then, with some metrics improving while others decayed. Let’s hope we’ve hit bottom.

    As for what it says about the political culture, it’s another indication, in case we needed one, that the social nexus around the Democratic Party cannot tolerate debate and discussion (for all their shuck-and-jive about having a ‘conversation’).

  11. Her violent behavior and her crude language are quite triggering…

    1. She’s just a jerk. The trouble starts when jerks are succored by people in gatekeeper positions (as they commonly will be in various ways when they’re dealing with school administrators and the legal profession).

  12. Woman want to be treated equally, he should have knocked her on her assets.

  13. Regarding the rationale for the 2nd amendment, some of you geniuses might want to read Federalist 46.

  14. I am beginning to see that JT likes to post incendiary information about fairly trivial events, and mostly those that trigger the righties. One wonders what sites he must be visiting regularly to come up with this stuff.

    On this one:

    1. Members of the “pro-life” movement have murdered, assualted, and bombed those they have deemed to be on the wrong side of this issue, and have been doing this for decades. See my post elsewhere on this page.
    2. The attack above was of course outrageous and the woman should face serious punishment. But come on – it’s a woman attacking a seemingly fit man who admirably restrains himself. It was for that reason, not seriously threatening as are the violent attacks I posted elsewhere on this page, which have resulted in deaths and destruction.
    3. There is no equivalency between the 2 sides of this issue on physical attacks, much as JT’s posting tries to pretend.

    What is he thinking, or is it all feeling?

    1. But come on – it’s a woman attacking a seemingly fit man who admirably restrains himself.

      Is that the point, she’s physically smaller, so no big deal? The last time people took sides regarding people treating human life like disposable property, there was war. Pick a side.

      1. I didn’t say no big deal. In fact I said she should be prosecuted. But she was not a dangerous threat like the numerous, sometimes murderous attacks by some pro-life advocates.

        1. Allow me to finish your sentence…

          But she was not a dangerous threat like the numerous, sometimes murderous attacks by some pro-life advocates on pro-death advocates.

          I’m reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin right now and I see many similarities with the issue of abortion and slavery; most of it rooted in the concept of property vs human rights. Slaveholders were the abortionists of their day. Dehumanizing the slave or the unborn baby is not a rational argument. Just as there were extremists on both sides of the slavery issue, there are extremists on the issue of abortion. That will never change, certainly not as long as there exists the belief in the natural right to life.

          1. Olly. Like the woman in the video, you are saying the righteousness of your position justifies violence.

            1. Can’t speak for Olly but it seems that the pro-death side has done way more damage to life than pro-lifers.

              1. Like Olly, Jim22 is surrendering on the issue at hand, which is violence against those one disagrees with based on the supposed righteousness of the cause.

                1. Surrendering? Pointing out the fact that extremists will always exist is living in reality.

                  1. Violence is violence. Anon wants to choose when and where the violence is justified. Then Anon starts with his rationalizations and excuses.

                    1. In this post we have the issue of free speech and the issue of abortion. Both sides have the natural right to peacefully express their arguments. We should be able to agree that no violence of any kind is justified.

                      So that leaves us with the issue of abortion. How can we ever resolve this? Wouldn’t we need to agree when a human is a human? Or when is a human is no longer property? And if we cannot agree, do we err towards greater security of life or towards lesser, at least until that is resolved? Does banning abortion turn the mother into property for the sake of securing the life of the unborn child? Does allowing abortion turn the unborn child into property that the mother can merely dispose of? Why isn’t the focus more on preventing the creation of unwanted property (humans) in the first place?

                    2. “So that leaves us with the issue of abortion. ”

                      Olly, The abortion question will never end which extends to the belief that the child being born out of rape shall live even if that ends the life of the mother. Few people will agree with that so there is an entire spectrum to debate when the subject is discussed.The first thing that needs to be recognized by all is that abortion is the killing a child yet to be born. It is not a good thing whether justified or not. It should not be a way of life. It is dehumanizing.

                    3. It is dehumanizing.

                      Any rationalizing that the thing growing inside a woman is anything other than human is necessarily dehumanizing. They have to begin there, because to acknowledge it is human and still believe it is okay to kill it would make someone a monster. So to argue it’s not human is to argue it’s something else…property. And as we saw with the issue of slavery, the owners of that property were then considered morally justified to do as they please with that property. So the question has become, when does that thing growing inside a woman transition from property to human? The extremes are; at the moment of conception and post-birth.

                    4. Olly, I think we agree that violence against those we disagree with is not justified. Above you seemed to be justifying violence on one side based on the what you saw as the righteousness of their cause, and I suppose that wasn’t your meaning.

                      On abortion, I think we also agree that furthering behaviors and technologies which. prevent unwanted pregnancies is the best solution to avoiding abortions. From there the issue does become very complex and with much higher stakes.

                2. No, just trying to point out that your side has been way more violent towards life if you are really looking at it honestly.

            2. Like the woman in the video, you are saying the righteousness of your position justifies violence.

              Point out where I said that or implied that, then I’ll address your comment.

              1. Olly, you are asking Anon to prove his case. That won’t happen as seen all over the blog where Anon is concerned. He keeps telling Karen he can’t respond to what she said because he never saw it even after it is reposted.

    2. Yes, thank you. I remember George Carlin pointing out in the early 90s that “these people don’t care about life, they’re killing doctors.” I think Turley needs to be taken to task for this double-standard. Just because this kind of right-wing “violence” hasn’t been perpetrated on college campuses by “pro-life” (always in quotes) advocates to the same extent (or at all) as it has been perpetrated by those on the left does not mean that it isn’t happening at a much greater scale elsewhere to the much graver detriment to the freedom of speech. It might be dramatically more interesting to point out threats to freedom of speech on college campuses, because of their ostensible commitment to academic freedom, but they are not the only places where threats to freedom of speech in relation to the abortion issue are disconcerting or alarming. I don’t think, for example, that I’ve ever seen a Turley post opposing, with the same consistency and vehemence as he brings to bear here, attempts to invade the free speech rights between doctor and patient at Planned Parenthood and the like through the use of federal money attaching restrictions on what information about abortion can be conveyed. This nonsense from the left happens on college campuses, but the real threat of violence, and the actual real violence so far with respect to abortion and its adverse effects on freedom of speech, comes (and has always come) from the right-wing “pro-life” movement and its underlying religious zealotry and fascism, which is really opposed to abortion because, as John Irving once observed, they can’t stand the fact that women can have sex without having to suffer for it afterwards.

      1. “actual real violence so far with respect to abortion and its adverse effects on freedom of speech, comes (and has always come) from the right-wing “pro-life” movement”

        I would think the 60 million or so aborted lives would disagree. Was it not worth killing those who defended concentration camps of WWII?

        1. This is an argument from ignorance. You have no knowledge of what “the aborted lives” would think or not think about anything whatsoever. What you’re referring to is what living people with opinions think and then absurdly projecting those opinions onto fetuses. There is simply no legitimate moral comparison that can be made between killing Germans manning death camps, a clearly defensive act that no one would deny the validity of, and terminating a pregnancy. If you disagree with that proposition, then I’ll just consider you a political opponent, as there’s no negotiating this fundamental disagreement, although it represents the whole abortion controversy in a nutshell, at least at the level of ethics and morality.

          1. ah, but the allies chose not to interdict the labor camps. one often wonders why. there may be many explanations none of which people would like to discuss.

            best leave WW2 alone

          2. Are you arguing that you knew what those millions at concentration camps would think or not think? You only think there is validity in killing within the womb since you agree with it. You’ve dehumanized the life of the pre-born human much as the Germans dehumanized the Jews. To me, the line you draw is just in a different place.

            “a clearly defensive act that no one would deny the validity of”
            Really? Are you sure that there were not a lot of Germans who supported this?

      2. We have seen pro-lifer’s that caused violence and violated the law go to jail. Most people on the right agreed with the sentences based on the law. The left is constantly trying to excuse itself for its violent actions while they blame someone else.

    3. 1. Members of the “pro-life” movement have murdered, assualted, and bombed those they have deemed to be on the wrong side of this issue, and have been doing this for decades. See my post elsewhere on this page.

      They get prosecuted for that too, stupid.

      In case you hadn’t noticed, the subject of the post is one of interest to the professor because he is a professor, which is the quality of public discussion, particularly on college campuses. Understanding that isn’t that difficult.

      1. DSS, Anon thinks the world revolves around the trivial experiences of Anon and that he is at the center of knowledge. That type of attitude makes me laugh.


      because they think they have a license to break the law because they are little


      the smart lawyer thing to say, is don’t retaliate against a crazed woman like this because cops may mistrust your side of the story

      but the smart thing to do in an environment where false accusations against you are not an issue, is to give them a very hard slap in the jib, which is a reasonable non-lethal response to the mosquitolike slugs of a college aged brat-girl

  15. It is unfortunate that the police did not put her in handcuffs and march her off. The lesson would have been much much better learned that way.

    1. Agreed. There was violence and violent people should end up in handcuffs.

      That woman seemed unable to look at what she supports.

      1. One of the brief profiles of he says she lists herself as a ‘feminist’ and ‘mental health’ advocate on her Facebook page (which is now confidential). The smart money says her parents and their insurance companies have shelled out a packet for the services of counselors and therapists (who are adept at generating iatrogenic problems).

        Someone who watched an interview with Barbara Bush noted afterward that she did not repair to the phrases ‘I feel’ and “I have the sense that..” Her most notable phrase was ‘we were brought up to…’. Barbara Bush saw the midpoint of her upbringing around about 1936. Different era.

        1. Part of the offshoot of the feminist movement is bad behavior. During the height of the feminist movement my wife was an executive of a major corporation in a male dominated field and had a lot of male employees that had to answer to her. She is and was a feminist but thought much of the movement was cr-p and the rationals provided cr-p as well.

    1. Indy, you say “when we start responding .. with violence”?


      Maybe JT needs to read a newspaper occasionally too.

      “In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort;[I 17][I 18] Seven murders occurred in the 1990s.[I 19]

      March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn’s murder and was sentenced to life in prison.[I 20]
      July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before in 1984 and was also bombed subsequently in 2012.[I 21]
      December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.[I 21]
      January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Rudolph admitted responsibility; he was also charged with three Atlanta bombings: the 1997 bombing of an abortion center, the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, and another of a lesbian nightclub. He was charged with the crimes and received two life sentences as a result.[I 22]
      October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian’s murder after being apprehended in France in 2001.[I 23]
      May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at a church in Wichita, Kansas.[I 24] This was not Tiller’s first time being a victim to anti-abortion violence. Dr.Tiller was shot once before in 1993 by Shelley Shannon, who was sentenced 10 years in prison for the shooting.
      November 29, 2015: A shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, left three dead and several injured, and a suspect Robert L. Dear was apprehended.[I 25][I 26][I 27] The suspect had previously acted against other clinics, and referred to himself as a “warrior for the babies” at his hearing.[I 28][I 29] Neighbors and former neighbors described the suspect as “reclusive”,[I 26] and police from several states where the suspect resided described a history of run-ins dating from at least 1997.[I 27] As of December 2015, the trial of the suspect was open;[I 28] but, on May 11, 2016, the court declared the suspect incompetent to stand trial after a mental evaluation was completed.[I 30]
      Attempted murder, assault, and kidnapping
      According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[13] 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats,[14] and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[I 31] Between 1977 and 1990 77 death threats were made with 250 made between 1991 and 1999 .[13] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:[I 17][I 6][I 7] IN 1985 45% of clinics reported bomb threats, decreasing to 15% in 2000. One fifth of clinics in 2000 experienced some form of extreme activity.[15]

      August 1982: Three men identifying as the Army of God kidnapped Hector Zevallos (a doctor and clinic owner) and his wife, Rosalee Jean, holding them for eight days.[16]
      June 15, 1984: A month after he destroyed suction equipment at a Birmingham clinic, Father Edward Markley, a Benedictine priest who was the Birmingham diocesan “Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities”.[I 32][I 33] (and perhaps an accomplice[citation needed]), entered the Women’s Community Health Center in Huntsville, Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers.[citation needed] Kathryn Wood, one of the workers, received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae while preventing Markley from splashing red paint on the clinic’s equipment. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief, one count of third-degree assault, and one count of harassment in the Huntsville attack.[17]
      August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was convicted of the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
      July 29, 1994: June Barrett was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
      December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
      December 18, 1996: Dr. Calvin Jackson of New Orleans, Louisiana was stabbed 15 times, losing 4 pints of blood. Donald Cooper was charged with second degree attempted murder and was sentenced to 20 years. “Donald Cooper’s Day of Violence”, by Kara Lowentheil, Choice! Magazine, December 21, 2004.
      October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York sustained serious injuries after being targeted by a sniper firing through a window in his home.[I 34]
      January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed off-duty police officer Robert Sanderson.
      Arson, bombing, and property crime
      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”).[I 31] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[I 35] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[I 36] Incidents have included:

      May 26, 1983: Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when a patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[I 37]
      May 12, 1984: Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic on Mother’s Day weekend shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:25 A.M. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,500 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine priest who was the Birmingham diocesan “Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities”. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. The following month (near Father’s Day), Markley entered a women’s health center in Huntsville, Alabama (see above).[I 33]
      December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians’ offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings “a gift to Jesus on his birthday.”[I 38][I 39][I 40] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
      March 26, 1986: Six anti-abortion activists, including John Burt and Joan Andrews, were arrested after invading an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida, causing property damage and injuring two women (a clinic manager and a member of the local NOW chapter).[18][19] Burt was convicted of attempted burglary of an occupied building, assault, battery, and resisting arrest without violence, and was sentenced to 141 days already served in jail and four years of probation; his 18-Sarah Burt, year-old daughter, who also took part in the invasion, was sentenced to 15 days in jail (with credit for two days already served) and three years of probation.[19] Andrews refused to pledge not to carry out such actions in the future and was convicted of burglary, criminal mischief and resisting arrest without violence. She was sentenced to five years in prison, which she spent largely in self-imposed isolation, refusing a mattress and all medical care.[20]
      July 27, 1987: Eight members of the Bible Missionary Fellowship, a fundamentalist church in Santee, California, attempted to bomb the Alvarado Medical Center abortion clinic. Church member Cheryl Sullenger procured gunpowder, bomb materials, and a disguise for co-conspirator Eric Everett Svelmoe, who planted a gasoline bomb. It was placed at the premises but failed to detonate as the fuse was blown out by wind.[21]
      July 3, 1989: A fire was started at the Feminist Health Center clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, on the day U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law banning funding of public facilities as related to abortion. The clinic was set afire again in 2000.[I 41]
      March 29, 1993: Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients’ records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[I 42][I 43][I 44][I 41]
      January 1997: Eric Rudolph admitted, as part of a plea deal for the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games to placing a pair of bombs that exploded at the Northside Family Planning Services clinic in the Atlanta suburb of Sandy Springs.[I 22]
      May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[I 45]
      October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[22]
      May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars’ worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[I 46][I 47][I 48] This was the second arson at the clinic.[I 41]
      September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[I 49]
      June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[I 50]
      July 4, 2005: A clinic in West Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an probable arson.[23][24]
      December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.[I 51]
      September 11, 2006: David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women’s Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[I 52] Time magazine listed the incident in a “Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots” list.[I 53]
      April 25, 2007: A package left at a women’s health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[I 54]
      May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[I 55]
      December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd’s clinic in Albuquerque. Baca’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[I 56][I 57]
      January 22, 2009: Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness,[I 58] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Saint Paul, Minnesota,[I 59] causing between $2,500 and $5,000 in damage.[25] Derosia, who told police that Jesus told him to “stop the murderers,” was ruled competent to stand trial. He pleaded guilty in March 2009 to one count of criminal damage to property.[25]
      January 1, 2012: Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[I 60]
      April 1, 2012: A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that caused minimal damage.[26]
      April 11, 2013: Benjamin David Curell, 27, caused extensive damage to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, vandalizing it with an axe.[I 61][27] Curell was convicted in state court of felony burglary, and pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. In the federal case, he was sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to pay restitution.[28]
      September 4, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman, Washington was intentionally set on fire. No injuries were reported due to the time of day, but the FBI was involved because of a history of domestic terrorism against the clinic.[I 62] The crime was never solved. The clinic reopened six months later.[29]
      October 22, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Claremont, New Hampshire was vandalized by a juvenile intruder. Damaged in the attack were computers, furniture, plumbing fixtures, office equipment, medical equipment, phone lines, windows, and walls. The flooding that resulted from the vandalism also damaged an adjacent business.[I 63][I 64]
      February 24–25, 2016: Travis Reynolds, 21, vandalized a Baltimore-area women’s health care clinic with anti-abortion graffiti.[30][31] After being arrested, Reynolds “admitted to police that he defaced the clinic’s doors, walls and windows because he thought that it would deter women from using the clinic.”[31] Reynolds pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in October 2016.[31]
      March 7, 2016: Rachel Ann Jackson, 71, vandalized a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbus, Ohio, with the message “SATAN DEN OF BABY KILLERS…” She pleaded guilty to felony counts of breaking and entering and vandalism and a misdemeanor count of aggravated trespass.[32][33] Jackson was sentenced to probation, with the judge citing her struggle with serious mental illness as a mitigating factor.[33]…”


      1. 🎶🎻🎶🎻🎶🎻🎶🎻🎶🎻🎶🎻
        🎶 🎻🎶🎻🎶🎻🎶🎻🎶🎻🎶🎻

        1. I’m to bored to locate the talking-point mill from which he cadged that particular text wall.

          I think in his orientation at Correct-the-Record he was told whatabouttism was as useful a tactic as any.

          1. I appreciate absurd’s flattering assumption that someone pays me to comment. No one would make that mistake about his posts.

            As to the list, I posted the link – as I always do – and it’s a wiki-pedia page on anti-abortion violence. The article lists documentation for each of the incidents.

            Absurd, a “link” is a thingy you can do on the interweb where you “copy” a source and then “paste” it in your “post”. Readers can then “click” on the “link” with their “mouse” left button and it will take them to the source.

            1. Allan says: May 10, 2019 at 11:43 AM

              “That woman seemed unable to look at what she supports.”

              L4D says Quintuply Absurd seemed unable to look at what he supports.

      2. Put these killers in jail but stop making excuses for violent actions by people on the left.

        Some thought that slavery was an assault on the life of other human beings and they were correct.

        Some people think that late term abortion is killing a human being and I believe them to be mostly correct as well.

        In fact many laws in this country have stated that such killing was muder and those laws have good justification.

        Though the above people probably deserve their sentences one can rightfully say that to many the people killed were mass muderers. I won’t provide an opinion, but since Anon likes rationalizations he can look at how rationalizations can be used to promote the wrong thing. That woman became violent over a simple picture. What wasn’t true about the picture?

        1. People who commit extra-judicial slayings cannot claim the vaunted Rule of Law bestowed upon The State by the consent of the governed. That is also why lynching was wrong.

          1. “People who commit extra-judicial slayings ”

            Diane, I think we might have agreement here and that is why protesters at abortion clinics that kill should be put in jail alongside those that commit infanticide.

            1. Name someone who committed infanticide and who is not yet in jail. Don’t give me the name of someone who committed infanticide and was put in jail. Give the name of someone who committed infanticide and has not yet been jailed.

              You know, Allan, I seriously doubt that anyone else on this blawg commits the existential fallacy more often than you do.

              1. Diane, it is becoming difficult to understand what you are trying to say. I think your logic behind what you say isn’t applicable to what is contained in your reply. I’ll hold off responding further on this posting since it appears an earlier posting was an attempt to have reasonable discourse.

                1. Give her some credit for getting in the flow of a reasonable and rational debate. Many others on this blog aren’t willing and/or able to give it a go. It appears however that the process takes her up to the point where she recognizes she has been cornered. Instead of conceding the reasonable and rational conclusion, she attempts to escape by erasing the points that got her into the corner in the first place. I believe that is called denialism.

        2. Nor are anti-abortion extremists like unto civil rights marchers.

          1. Civil rights marchers and those trying to protect the life of a living being have some similar traits.

            By the way the number of black abortions is huge compared to the rest of the population and when we marched for black civil rights we marched for black people that today some are encouraging the killing of while that being is still in the womb.

            1. Allan refuses to say what similar traits anti-abortion activists and civil rights marchers have in common. Instead, Allan merely asserts the supposed existence of similar traits between anti-abortion activists and civil rights marchers. Allan is constantly running the existential fallacy up the flagpole to see how many people might salute it.

              1. “Allan refuses to say what similar traits anti-abortion activists and civil rights marchers have in common.”

                You are generalizing to such an extent that the conversation can go anywhere. What you are doing is creating a question whose answers are forced to be akin to an overgeneralization fallacy.

                I won’t go further at this time as mentioned just a few minutes ago. You seemed to have progressed in one recent reply so that reasonable dialogue can take place.

          2. The anti-abortionist extremists that act violently towards others are much the same as civil rights marchers that act violently.towards others.

            1. I was a civil rights marcher before the CR Act of 1964.. I am not a pro-life marcher.

              1. “I was a civil rights marcher”

                Who cares? Men march all over the world mindlessly into battle so it is not unlikely that you marched in the same fashion without learning anything.

                It might be good for your resume convincing people that you are a true leftist but it doesn’t prove that you didn’t think you were superior to blacks or truly understood the suffering of other human beings.

                1. Allan, you are stone cold idiot. I grew up and lived in the segregated south and feeling superior to blacks – and worse – among whites was the rule not the exception, which is why I did participate in the CR movement. You are such a small man that you constantly make claims about the personal lives of people you don’t know as a means of furthering your lame opinions. Much as others here disagree or not, you are unique in this regard.

                  1. “Allan, you are stone cold idiot.”

                    Back with the insults.

                    “feeling superior to blacks – and worse – among whites was the rule not the exception”

                    Anon, that describes you perfectly.

                  2. I grew up and lived in the segregated south and feeling superior to blacks – and worse – among whites was the rule not the exception, which is why I did participate in the CR movement.

                    Again, no one knows …. oh, you know the drill.

                  3. I grew up in actual segregation in the South being somewhat more advanced in age than you. I still live here and wouldn’t consider venturing off to the wild hinterlands of the North, West or Heartland. Like most folks here, we’re here ’cause we wanna be and that includes lots of A-A citizens. I can tell you from experience that whites’ attitudes about blacks varied and vary from compassion to kinship to outright animosity then and now. The segregation was de jure but the attitudes didn’t track the law. My family had a small businesses that catered to as many A-A customers as white ones. And we employed lots of A-As who still remain friends as close as family. That’s the South you never read about from the Northern press. No difference in treatment, bathroom availability or drinking fountains. We thought skin color distinctions were stupid and still do. That said, there are differences in people but those differences have nothing to do with pigmentation. To deny that, denies reality.

                    1. I still live here in the deep south. If your families small business served black clientele as you describe, good for you, but that would be the exception, bot the rule prior to the CR Act of 1964. I lived it and joined protests against it. There “colored” drinking fountains, bathrooms, entrances, and seating at places like movie houses and public transportation, and almost all restaurants not in “the quarters” did not serve blacks except maybe at the back door.

                      Don’t sugar coat it mespo. I don’t question your accounting of your family business or legitimate feelings toward black friends, but it’s a lie to say this dehumanizing treatment was not real in the south or that any blacks who lived through it would want to go back there. I was there. I still am.

                    2. PS Lynchings occurred in the south into the 1950’s. Devil In the Grove is a recent Pulitzer Prize winning account of one such incident in Lake County, Florida, about 50 miles from Disney World. Common practice in those days also included the effective continuation of slavery by arresting black men and then having them “work off” their “sentence” on the farms or factories of prominent white residents. The most well off white men leveraged their power to keep comely black mistresses, thus maintaining that other remnant of slavery. This practice up into the 1950’s was covered in The Family Tree: A Lynching in Georgia, by a daughter dimly aware growing up of her white mother’s hidden shame.

                      These were not good times.

                    3. What many fail to realize is that the leftist zeal created a dehumanizing influence on the black population all over the country.

            2. Allan says: May 11, 2019 at 10:44 AM

              “The anti-abortionist extremists that act violently towards others are much the same as civil rights marchers that act violently.towards others.”

              Name one. Name a civil rights marcher who acted violently toward others.

              1. Evidently Allan thinks that things exist simply because Simon Said, “Simon Says,” things exist.

              2. “Name one. Name a civil rights marcher who acted violently toward others.”

                Diane, if you were more than superficially involved in the Civil Rights marches of the 60’s (some braggarts claim to be, to enhance their ineffectual standing on this blog ) then you would recognize that there was an inherent split in philosophy. Martin Luther King’s underlying principle was nonviolence. Others like Stokely Carmichael considered nonviolence a tactic rather than an underlying principle.

                I won’t name one marcher since thousands and thousands of marchers joined at one time or another. Many supported Carmichael’s philosophy rather than MLK and in the ensuing years we saw the results of that philosophy.

      3. how many dead unborn babies are there on the other side? really, it is perhaps embarrassing to some pro lifers, how little the pro-life side has used force in defense of life. i have heard that opinion stated before.

        perhaps people hesitate because the unborn child that is integral to the mother’s own body until the delivery. So it is not as clear cut a situation as force used in defense of another’s life under other circumstances.

        I don’t have easy answers for this subject. and of course it’s not up for a vote, SCOTUS lays down the law on this subject.

        I can only say easily that the violent girl should be severely punished. This is important to educate her. Heaven for bid that one day, she may punch a man, who is not a caring soul like these prolifers, who may then give her a severe thrashing.

        I might add that when other people use violence to advance their political goals, I hear people call it “Terrorism.” is that not same? Im just asking

        I think we should aim more resources at stopping awful parents from abusing their kids once they are born. that is not a political issue. it should be easy for everyone to agree on that, but somehow, child protective services are always tight on funding. horrible parents are out there abusing the hell out of their born children and breeding the next generation of sociopaths.

        “women’s Rights” blabberers need to also accept that women-parents abuse just as much as men do. this attitude that women are “weaker” and therefore less dangerous is wrong. no they are weaker physically but from an early age they learn to take more lethal shots in the first place, to compensate.

  16. I am pro death. We need a death penalty for those who trample on other people’s rights. I am not sure that we need the government to implement this. God gave us rifles.
    –just kidding

  17. So much for the adage “you never hit a woman.” In this case, a physical response was more than justified and she should have been led away in chains — or a straight jacket. She’ll get off with some mealy-mouthed judge ordering community service at some abortion clinic and paying $35.00 in court costs all for this obvious hate crime. She’ll also get some anger management class where kumbaya moments will be the highlight all provided by some court vendor at inflated rates. The best punishment for someone like this is still the hoary method of humiliation. The stocks were employed in England for centuries and their policemen never had to carry guns. There’s a message there.

    1. The English theories and practices encouraged us to enact the Second Amendment. The right to arm bears should never be denied. Except maybe not arm polar bears.

    2. I agree. One indicator of the ineffectuality of Republican state legislators is that that initiatives to clean up penal codes are few and far between. One reform would be to re-introduce the birch, the cane, and the pillory-and-stocks. Especially for defendants under the age of 25.

Comments are closed.