Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Terrorists Who Aren't in the News

By Jennifer L. Pozner, AlterNet. Posted November 11, 2006.


Anti-abortion fanatics spread fear by bombings, murders and assaults, but the media take little notice.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Jennifer L. Pozner

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This piece was originally published by Newsday.

On Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks that devastated our nation, a man crashed his car into a building in Davenport, Iowa, hoping to blow it up and kill himself in the fire.

No national newspaper, magazine or network newscast reported this attempted suicide bombing, though an AP wire story was available. Cable news (save for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann) was silent about this latest act of terrorism in America.

Had the criminal, David McMenemy, been Arab or Muslim, this would have been headline news for weeks. But since his target was the Edgerton Women's Health Center, rather than, say, a bank or a police station, media have not called this terrorism -- even after three decades of extreme violence by anti-abortion fanatics, mostly fundamentalist Christians who believe they're fighting a holy war.

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

Abortion providers and activists received 77 letters threatening anthrax attacks before 9/11, yet the media never considered anthrax threats as terrorism until after 9/11, when such letters were delivered to journalists and members of Congress.

After 9/11, Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups received 554 envelopes containing white powder and messages like: "You have been exposed to anthrax. ... We are going to kill all of you." They were signed by the Army of God, a group that hosts Scripture-filled web pages for "Anti-Abortion Heroes of the Faith," including minister Paul Hill, Michael Griffin and James Kopp, all convicted of murdering abortion providers, and a convicted clinic bomber, the Rev. Michael Bray. Another of their "martyrs," Clayton Waagner, mailed anthrax letters while a fugitive on the FBI's 10 most wanted list for anti-abortion related crimes.

"I am a terrorist," Waagner declared on the Army of God's web site. Boasting that God "freed me to make war on his enemy," he claimed he knew where 42 Planned Parenthood workers lived. "It doesn't matter to me if you're a nurse, receptionist, bookkeeper, or janitor, if you work for the murderous abortionist, I'm going to kill you."

That's textbook terrorism, defined by the USA Patriot Act as dangerous criminal acts that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

Which brings us back to car bomber, McMenemy. According to the Detroit Free Press (the only newspaper in the Nexis news database that reported his crime), he targeted the women's health center because he thought it provided abortions. It doesn't. (oops!) It provides mostly low-income patients with pap smears, ob-gyn care, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, and nutrition and immunization programs for women and children.

The attack caused $170,000 in property damage and left poor families without health care for a week. But long after Edgerton's water-logged carpets are removed, scorched medical equipment replaced and new doors reopened to the public, a culture of fear will linger among doctors, nurses, advocates and patients across the country, who will worry they could be next. Some frightened workers will quit their jobs; some women will be too scared to get the health care they need.

Every fresh incident of anti-abortion terrorism is a reminder that women's health supporters are not safe in a country where abortion is legal but mobilized zealots believe Jesus has empowered them to kill to prevent women from choosing it.

Is McMenemy a lone nut case, or a member of that network of violent extremists? We don't know, because journalists haven't investigated.

Nor have they reported that just last year, nearly one in five abortion clinics experienced gunfire, arson, bombings, chemical attacks, assaults, stalking, death threats and blockades, according to the 2005 National Clinic Violence Survey. Additionally, 59 percent suffered intimidation tactics such as photo/video surveillance.

Federal efforts to hunt down these terrorists improved with the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1994 and the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, established by the Department of Justice in 1998. The feds have taken over McMenemy's case, charging him with arson against a business affecting interstate commerce. Yet as of Oct. 5, no news outlet on Nexis reported this, despite a second AP story.

As we continue national debates on how to keep America safe from terrorism, journalists do us -- and especially women -- no good pretending that the threats come only from radical Muslims outside our borders.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion, terrorism

Jennifer L. Pozner is founder and executive director of Women In Media & News, a national media analysis, education and advocacy group. She lectures about women, media, politics and popular culture on college campuses across the country, and can be reached at director@wimnonline.org

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Despicable
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 11, 2006 1:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is sheer hypocracy for the Bushies and their allied media to be fighting terrorists everywhere and not lift a finger to publicise and prosecute anti-abortion terrorists right here in the USA. Despicable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good observations
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 11, 2006 3:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a double-standard that you rarely hear about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll bet the government paid for this just like they did for allowing 9/11 to happen.
Posted by: NDnative on Nov 11, 2006 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No wonder this country will be torn from within than from outsiders. Remember what happened to Rome? First it was the insiders who screwed it up and then the outside invaders happily cashed in. I wonder who's pro-life now, the faux "pro-lifers" or everyone else.

It's time to FIGHT FOR MEDIA REFORM !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's another example across the pond
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 11, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Media Hypes Nutcase Scribblings as "Terror Plot Admission"

"Admits no funding, no bombs, no vehicles, but still saturates fairy tale story while ignoring biggest explosives find in British history"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

White Evangelical Christian are patriots, not terrorists
Posted by: mat38 on Nov 11, 2006 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can you imagine Paula Zipper or any turd brain on Fox telling the truth aobut this? I can't. If they are not brown skinned people they just aren't terrorist.
The truth is that our government and corporate world is infected with these freaks and they ARE at war with anyone who is an infidel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

double standards
Posted by: jcutler9 on Nov 11, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And yet, "eco-terrorists" who damaged or destroyed timber harvesting equipment face 20 years or up to life for their "terrorism?" Although no lives were threatened?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Right has Osama bin Laden; the FakeLeft has Bubba bin Fundamentalist
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Nov 11, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ohh....the terrorist/antiabortionist gonna get ya! Ya better do what I say or you are gonna die!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» STFU, clown Posted by: LMNOP
he who owns the gold makes the rules
Posted by: cosmicgold on Nov 11, 2006 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let us not get too caught up in the victory of politics..regardless of the party..our country is still being ruled by corporate socialists who are still hell bent in the name of any god..to terrorize,intimidate,repudiate, anything from aniti-abortion,anti-women,anti-elderly,anti-immigrant, anti-reasoning. The media is still owned by the Rupert Murdoch empire..who calls all the shots of what will be aired..from Fox News to Hollywood..from the Anne Coulters to the Carl Roves...the minions of the wounded GOP are endless..and for any price..they will continue to propogate the fascist behavior we have been subjected to for the past 6 yrs...remember absolute power creates absolute corruption...goodnight and good luck!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're way too trusting Posted by: LMNOP
zero tolerance for anti-choice violence
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 11, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see from some of the comments posted this morning that our conservative friends are already starting in with the deversionary tactics...fakeleft, ecoterrorists etc. The real abusive anti-abortion freaks apparently haven't had their coffee yet and so aren't posting right now. Thank God for small favors. The point is to demand that these home grown terrorist groups (and they are organized groups) be investigated and prescuted for their criminal activities. The tyranny of the religious right is finally beginning to crumble and it is high time we go after them with everthing we've got. Let's pressure the mainstream media to cover this appalling crimewave and our local and national law agencies to do the same. On personal level, telling them to go straight to hell works real well and should be done frequently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE DO NOT NEED NANCY PELOSI!!!!!!!
Posted by: mdruss42 on Nov 11, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 72 hours since she has taken the mantle of the next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi repeated her pledge that “impeachment is off the table.” In her victory press conference, she didn’t speak of the need to repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that revoked habeas corpus and legalized torture. She didn’t decry the unending death and destruction that is daily terrorizing the people of Iraq. She did not pledge to stand firmly against the new war being prepared against Iran. Nor did she make a peep about defending women’s right to abortion and gay rights – even as Roe V. Wade is under increasing threat and gay marriage bans passed in an additional seven states.

Instead, she recast this election as a mandate on manners and effectiveness: "The American people spoke out for a return to civility to the Capitol in Washington and how Congress conducts its work…And Democrats pledge civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here, and we pledge partnerships with the Republicans in Congress and the president, not partisanship."

´SCUSE ME, LADY, I DID NOT MENTION CIVILITY OR BIPARTISANSHIP THE WHOLE CAMPAIGN, AND DID NOT HEAR IT FROM ANYONE ELSE!

WHAT I HEARD AND READ WAS...

GET US THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ. WE PREFER OUR CHILDREN ALIVE AND UNINJURED AND WE CONSIDER A MILLION DEAD OBSCENE, AND A MILLION DEAD IN OUR NAME JUST PISSES US OFF.

REVERSE PATROIT AND THE TORTURE LAW. WE REALLY DO VALUE OUR RIGHTS, EVEN IF WE WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION WHEN YOU PASSED THEM.

REVERSE THE NOTION THAT IT IS OPEN SEASON ON WOMEN AND THEIR RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR BODIES. YOU ARE A WOMAN...WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

CUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY GOING TO THE MILITARY...NOW....THERE IS NOT THAT MUCH DANGER IN THE UNIVERSE...ESPECIALLY IF WE MAKE THE EFFORT TO RECOGNIZE THAT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD HAVE AS MANY RIGHTS TO THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES AS WE DO TO OURS. IF WE WANT SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY BUY IT. IT IS MUCH CHEAPER IN THE LONG RUN THAN ALL THIS LOOTING.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.....WE DO NOT TAX THEM LIKE PEOPLE......WE DO NOT MAKE THEM LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS LIKE A PERSON........THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. the only way we treat them like people is with welfare that we have cut to the real people in our society who need it.

IF WE DO NOT DO WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT THEN ALL THE REST WILL NOT MATTER MUCH LONGER.

IF YOU DO NOT FEEL UP TO THE TASK TO DEALING WITH A BUNCH OF NASTY BASTARDS THEN YOU NEED TO STEP ASIDE FOR SOMEONE WHO CAN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pardons Posted by: LeaderofMen
» dream on Posted by: goatini
» oops, my bad Posted by: goatini
» chill, it's only been 4 days Posted by: goatini
» RE: chill, it's only been 4 days Posted by: dangerouslysane
» 1. Strategy 2. Patience Posted by: andyc
» WAY OFF TOPIC Posted by: russianblue1
pro-lifers/terrorists
Posted by: saltillosuzy on Nov 11, 2006 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in all of my research and reading, as well as talking to pro-life people, i still do not understand why they want no abortions for anyone. yet, they will kill by bombing abortion clinics. they kill innocent people without a thought. my thinking is that if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but allow those who want an abortion to have freedom over their bodies as well. if pro-lifers have a problem with that, which they clearly do, let them take all of the children is this country who would have been aborted and raise them themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pro-lifers/terrorists Posted by: sailor50
» RE: pro-lifers/terrorists Posted by: pomes
I need clarification please
Posted by: scott balogh on Nov 11, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please tell me when, that is, at what point in the development of a human being, is it not ok to terminate that human being? Why is it ok to terminate a human being before birth but terrible to do it after birth? A human being begins development at conception, is this not true? I truly and humbly do not understand why it is impossible for pro-abortion people to comprehend why those against abortion believe abortion is nothing less than the willful destruction of a human being. If one believes abortion is in fact,the willful destruction of a very young human being,(homicide) one should feel compelled to try to stop that willful destruction. The anti abortion people believe, and there ARE non god people in this camp, that abortion is murder, period. Change their minds and they will change their position.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Clarification about what? Posted by: tlCampbell
» Clarification? Posted by: ReallyBearish
» You Need a Lesson in Biology Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: You Need a Lesson in Biology Posted by: ReallyBearish
» your need Posted by: goatini
» RE: Here's your clarification - Pt II Posted by: icemilkcoffee
» RE: Here's your clarification - Pt II Posted by: icemilkcoffee
Home Grown Terrorists
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Nov 11, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Directly after 9/11 we had two acts of domestic terrorism that did NOT get reported that way, altho they indeed were.

To wit:

1. John Mohammed and his young Jamaican charge went on a random shooting spree up and down the East Coast.

2. Anthrax was delivered to several locations in DC and in FL.

Barely a word was mentioned about this being TERRORISM as opposed to simply criminal behavior.

Those who run the news mouthpieces don't want you to know that we don't need OUTSIDE influences to be called terrorists. We have plenty of them right here inside the country.

And the fundie Christians (see Wikipedia under 'mentally ill') are part of this group of fanatics that have no interest in patriotism, reality or morality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "we are the terrorists"? Posted by: goatini
"terrorist" is and has always been a subjective term.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Nov 11, 2006 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So it is no surprise that W.orthless uses it to his advantage. He is not the first... but he is one of the worst.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holy shit!!!
Posted by: scott balogh on Nov 11, 2006 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My previous post sure evoked some angry reactions. Only one response offered an answer to my question, it suggests that the beginning of brain activity may be the beginning of personhood and perhaps that is the point beyond which an abortion would be unethical. Every other response was little more than an emotional reaction that belies your prejudice against what you perceived as an attack on your beliefs. I did not state my position on abortion nor did I indicate my religiousness. I did state that a human life begins to develop upon conception. Conception is the moment the sperm cell penetrates the egg cell with the intention to divide repeatedly and eventually, if all goes well for it, be born. But that is not the end. It continues to develop until it dies. Conception is the beginning of development of a life. Deny that! So, if a person believes that aborting a developing human in its womb is tantamount to murder and then tries to stop the practice even if it involves violence, then that person is being true to their convictions. Stop! Am I stating my position here? No. I challenge anyone to read both of my posts and deduce any of my beliefs. Do not be frightened by abstract logic, it can help you understand the other side of any issue. Question: At what point in the development of a human being is it not ok to terminate it. This seems like a clear question, is it not?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Real Pro-life Posted by: andyc
» RE: eal Pro-life Posted by: mjabele
» at this point Posted by: yogurteater
» RE: at this point Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: at this point Posted by: yogurteater
» RE: at this point Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: at this point Posted by: yogurteater
» RE: at this point Posted by: yogurteater
» RE: at this point Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: at this point Posted by: yogurteater
» RE: at this point Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: Holy shit!!! Posted by: HeroesAll
» Thanks Posted by: scott balogh
» Holy shit, indeed... Posted by: mjabele
» You are correct, mjabele, thanks Posted by: scott balogh
» RE: Holy shit!!! Posted by: morticia
» No, natural shit. Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Holy shit!!! Posted by: jonestown kool-aid
» RE: Holy shit!!! Posted by: Ames
fresh thinking, anyone?
Posted by: yogurteater on Nov 11, 2006 9:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
something that srikes me--the abortion clinic bomber is the ultimate example of someone displaying a lack of ability to love unconditionally. it's easiest to love people who haven't even come into the world yet--to see a fetus as an "innocent" baby--as opposed to a person on death row (never mind that s/he may be mentally ill or have been abused as a child).

if a fetus develops, is born, and grows up to be a murderer--or, merely someone with radically different beliefs--that love will turn to condemnation.

if we cannot love each other unconditionally in this world (including taking necessary actions when we notice abuses), we cannot grow personally, societally, or internationally.

I intercept myself if I find myself lashing out or Othering the people around me. what's truly scary about "terrorists" is their utter entrenchment in their automatic thought patterns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fresh thinking, anyone? Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: fresh thinking, anyone? Posted by: yogurteater
» RE: fresh thinking, anyone? Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: fresh thinking, anyone? Posted by: yogurteater
» RE: fresh thinking, anyone? Posted by: Landbaron
hmm
Posted by: yogurteater on Nov 11, 2006 10:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe I'm making so many posts on this topic.

I guess I want to notice how the vast majority of posts I am seeing reflect a sort of dogma, automatic thoughts that lack nuance or reflection.

politics can be black-and-white, but life is not. if we're trying to get away from the mentality that can breed the sort of zealot described in the article above, we need to work really hard.

I am pro-choice. I also believe in souls. I also believe that a soul is not dependent upon one unique physical body--if it wants to come into the world, it will find a way (ie if a woman has an abortion, and if that fetus already has a soul attached to it, that soul can simply move to another fetus). I also believe that it is entirely unethical to screen the sex of a fetus and abort if it's a girl--a practice that's responsible for a skewed gender balance in india, for instance. I could go on.

in all of this, our intuitive inclinations matter, and they are also not everything. all I know is that I get tired of talking to people who don't take in a word anyone else says, whether I agree with them or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hmm Posted by: HeroesAll
Worst terrorists OWN the MEDIA
Posted by: Reader11722 on Nov 12, 2006 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst terrorist are the neo-con/zionist who control the media and never report on Israeli aggression, US aggression and loss of Constitutional rights. Censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protestors, ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. At least we all know about the K-fed/Britney divorce. Now go back to sleep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take Jesus off the table
Posted by: Aimee on Nov 12, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus is not a terrorist but His believers seem to be terrorists.

If impeachment is not on the table then Jesus should not be on the table either. Jesus is not supposed to be a government issue. Jesus is a private issue - He is in the churches and hearts of His believers. Jesus is not a terrorist but His believers seem to be...

Take Jesus off the table and out of government. Pregnancy and lifestyle issues are personal. Bye bye Jesus in government.

Aimee
DataOptions.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Take Jesus off the table Posted by: peacemama
Abortion is not always right and best choice.
Posted by: peacemama on Nov 12, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get tired of those pro-abortionists who say abortion is a right simply because of the right of control over one 's body, etc. I don't agree with the extreme pro-lifers either. I get tired of the religious arguements because you get no where arguing from a relgious viewpoint and laws should not be based on the
ideas of any religion

As a mother of two this is my question. How can one explain this. As a society and as a government (legally) we promote the care of the unborn (warnings on cig packages and alcohol, etc) and pre natal care etc, and at the same time allow destriction of the fetus. By these action and statutes are we not implying that there is human life and it should be and must be protected? That is why I have always questioned abortion rights as some sweeping right without regarding this situation.
I am not a rabid fundamentalist and belong to no organized church so don't accuse me of using a religious arguement. I am in favor of stem cell research and vote on the moderate to liberal side. But abortion at some point is a serious ethical issue.
When choosing abortion it must be for a very serious reason and not some excuse that it should be allowed simply because the person wants to terminate a pregnancy because of a mistake or some flimsy reason.

BTW Nancy Peluso voted for Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2001, legislation that made it a federal crime to commit violence against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy. Doesn't it imply that she and others are recognizing the value of an unborn human life. even though she is pro-abortion.

Any other thoughts on this?

Brenda

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holier than shit.
Posted by: scott balogh on Nov 12, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So far, I have been told to go back to my temple, go to hell, to crawl back under my rock and other such chastisement. I will stand by my statement that, "when a human sperm cell enters a human egg, it marks the beginning of the development of a human being". Also, if one believes that aborting that development is the same as killing a human, then that person should feel obligated to do something about it. I am not in any way defending those committing violent acts against anyone involved with abortions, including threats. To those who have taken the time to respond to my previous posts, thank you. Especially those who were sincere in attempting to answer or to criticize me. To those who found it necessary to berate me, you should think or at least try to understand what is being said before you toss curses and insults. As for myself, I believe abortions have their place among our options to chose how we would like our lives to be ordered. Regarding religion, there is a place for it if it is used for peaceful purposes only, and not imposed on anyone else. I try to understand what drives a person to act the way one acts. It is a difficult task to place oneself at the other side of an emotional impasse between two parties, but we must do it in order to get to a peaceful agreement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Holier than shit. Posted by: RudiTuzla
» RE: Holier than shit. Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Holier than shit. Posted by: purplelotus13
This is what is comes down to...
Posted by: WyrdSister on Nov 12, 2006 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Choice.

Scott has raised interesting questions and has had some interesting replies to them. But, what it really comes down to is this; one half of the population has to bear the burdon of reproduction and therfore, should have all the choices legally available. ALL the choices, regardless of personal views.

I believe that it IS possible to hold the view of personally against abortion, but for Choice.

That would mean that not having an abortion would be your CHOICE.

Most, and I say this IMHO through experience, are against abortion due to religious views. This is why, Scott, most replyers to your posts bring that into your argument. It becomes, religion v.s. science. So far, the Church hasn't embraced too much of Science, which is why some can conclude that there is religiousness in your questions.

Regardless of religious viewpoints, the REALITY is that women have abortions whether legal or not. We HAVE to deal with reality, or women die. The Anti-choicers do not have any regard for grown women because of the way the christian religion has deemed them the ultimate sinner. This view has no place in law making. Period.

Government should not be used to promote hate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People always want to HAVE freedom, not allow it
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Nov 12, 2006 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A handful of cells and some slime is no more a person than a pile of bricks, wires and pipes are a house. Period. These so-called "Christians" are self-contradictory all down the line in this, also. A lot of them wanr contraception out of the picture as well as abortion, making sure that even acts that were never intended to produce children still result in pregnancy. I don't understand how the world is better of, or even how "right" or "goodness" are served by increasing the number of unwanted children in the world, or of poor.

And how they square serving God in saving lives by murder I'll never figure out.

Abortion is a personal choice - it MUST be. There's just too much that is totally personal that goes into it to hand it over to the law or another person. Anyone who wants to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term should think about how it would be to have to raise each one of the results.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

honest questions; "quickening"
Posted by: quisquose on Nov 12, 2006 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scott,

Right before the start of the war in early 2003 I tried posting --on a pro-military forum-- an honest, neutral question about why people supported invading Iraq. I, too, got mostly angry, reactionary repsonses from people who clearly saw my question as cover for a sneaky political statement (I guess that's the nature of the Internet).

But I did get a few thoughtful, reasoned responses that made it worth it. I learned something about their point of view, and I hope I got them thinking about things a little differently, too. If nothing else, I felt I had at least demonstrated to them that there were people out there who weren't necessarily all pro-war or all anti-war, and were instead thinking and questioning. So kudos to you for posing your question on abortion on a lefty website! I wish people would do this sort of honest questioning and debating more often on the Internet (I've found salon.com to be fairly good for this).

To bring this to the issue at hand-- I personally think this centrist, seeing-the-grey-areas perspective is as valuable and sane a position on abortion as it is for the Iraq war. These issues --even though they are life-and-death issues-- are simply NOT black-and-white.

Someone earlier made the comment (I think) that it's acceptable for one's personal views to differ from one's political stances. I take this idea to mean that your personal view may be what you feel is right for your own life and morals, but your political view is what you feel makes the most sense for society at large. For example, violent movies, hard drugs, guns and abortion are all things I personally abhor, but I also feel it would be _worse_ for society if government banned them outright (and interestingly, largely for the same reason: if were banned, then they would go underground and become more harmful).

My take on abortion: On the question of when "life" begins, reasonable people will fall anywhere on the spectrum between conception and birth (in modern times, that is; in the past, the goalposts have been as wide as "every sperm is sacred" and "those not of my race/tribe are sub-human") -- that says to me that we will never have an answer for _that_ question, and therefore should try to define the bounds of what's acceptable within that spectrum.

Personally, I like the millenia-old concept of "quickening," which says that the fetus has individual life when it begins to really move as a separate organism (traditionaly measured by when most mothers first feel the fetus move, generally around 18 weeks). It's a bit of a grey area, but that's kind of the point -- there is no scientific test we can do to measure when a mass of cells is imbued with its own life, or to use more spiritual language, when the soul enters the body; so we have to make a reasonable guess. In this case: roughly midway throught the pregnancy, but ultimately decided by the mother.

So my ideal abortion policy would be --in addition to extensive sex education in schools-- that abortion is legal and easily available for the first trimester, and then generally more restricted up until the point that the fetus would be viable outside the mother. That won't please either the 100% pro-choice crowd or the 100% anti-abortion crowd, but the best social solutions are often in the middle.

I think Bill Clinton encapsulated the issue and its solution perfectly when he said, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: honest questions; "quickening" Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: honest questions; "quickening" Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Religion is a mental disorder that causes terrorism
Posted by: Francisco on Nov 12, 2006 10:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one thing both brands of terrorism have in common is religion. The belief in some supernatural entity that commands terrorists to kill those who don't follow the commands of some ancient book. The Bush contingent can't see this because they are religious nutcases, and the left can't see this because they think it's all the right's fault, so they tend to sympathize with the Islamist side. The truth is religion is dangerous, it is a mental disease that in most cases is harmless, but in extreme cases is very dangerous for its carrier and those around him. What would any psychiatrist tell you if you show up claiming that you speak to an invisible person every day? That is what prayer is! Children should be innoculated against this from an early age with a good dose of science in order to prevent the creation of more terrorists. The spread of religion should be contained like the spread of any other disease would be contained. The benign forms of religion could be dealt with by simple innoculation, but the more virulent and lethal forms should be treated like we would treat ebola.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is just the means
Posted by: purplelotus13 on Nov 13, 2006 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to defer to Reza Aslan on this one:
"Religion provides a language through which you can justify any ideology". Religion itself is not the domain of the mentally ill. Many people use it as simply a guide through life. And let's face it, life ain't easy, so a little help goes a long way. So calling all religious people mentally ill is just about as logical as calling all non-christians satanists. It doesn't help your argument in anyway. But religion is a dangerous thing when used to justify violent behavior. Most people who commit violent acts try to justify it in some way or another, it's not just religious people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Religion is just the means Posted by: TheNamelessCity
Hello again
Posted by: scott balogh on Nov 14, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading past my third post, whew, I found some concise, thought through comments that helped me understand a few things better. Thank you all and thank you alternet and the internet. It is incumbent on us all to question the motives behind the terrorists acts and address their grievances in order to deter future acts. However misguided the anti-abortion terrorists are, I believe they think they are, by killing an abortion performing doctor, actually saving peoples lives. Right or wrong, they are serving their beliefs and laying their own lives on the line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hello again Posted by: morticia
» RE: Hello again Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Hello again Posted by: morticia
» RE: Hello again Posted by: Ian MacLeod
well...
Posted by: glitchsystem on Nov 16, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ok, i only made it half way through all these comments, but i have to go home from work and wanted to say - everybody has to see both sides of this... i am far from religious and 100% believe in a womans or a couples choice to terminate a pregnacy, but you cannot be so cold hearted as to say that this is just a piece of meat or a piece of matter that is nothing... it obviously has the oppotunity to turn into a living human being wh will have a life... talk to any woman who has had an abortion and you will find most did not enjoy having an abortion and essentially ending a potential life...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: well... Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Lets get back on the topic
Posted by: solorepub on Nov 16, 2006 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a little confused why people are questioning these types of issues versus confronting the media sources. Once again we are steering away from the main issue, which is that the media takes little notice on numerous topics.

Although I think there is a lot to be said on the topic of abortion I think there is a more important underlying issue and it is media coverage. From having had experience in a newsroom, it is safe to say that they are biased and pushed by political agendas.

I think what this article points out is that our reliance on news is negatively correlated with our knowledge on world events. The article brings up the point that we as viewers are easily manipulated.

This story, along with thousands of others, are absent in everyday articles because the powerful media conglomerates behind these news stations feel viewers should hear something else.

I encourage you to check out this article where managing editor, Jill Abramson, from the New York Times participates in a question and answer forum with readers. The article mentions issues like the future of the industry, how news affects people, reporting on the party in power, blogs, etc.
Overall I think it gives a lot of insight into the relationship between journalists, news media, and viewers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/
business/media/13asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=1

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

safety and alternatives
Posted by: yogurteater on Nov 17, 2006 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the politicized flurry surrounding the topic of abortion, I hope that women are able to get the information they need to make the best and safest choices for themselves, whether they want to have babies or not. I have a friend who took the abortion pill and almost died--the surgical procedure would have been a safer option for her.

For that matter, women can avoid allopathic medicine and the threat of clinic bombers altogether by taking herbs to initiate early abortions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]