Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Pro Choice - Bomb Own Clinics? & Abortion Violence (Page 1)

Aberdeen, south dakota
•1977. Abortionist benjamin munson was tried for manslaughter after killing linda padfield.

Boston
•january 1975. Abortionist kenneth edelin aborted a live 22-week baby boy and then left him to die. He was subsequently convicted of manslaughter.
August 1976. A 20-year old pro-abortionist beat 85-year old ignatius o'connor so badly that he was hospitalized for three months.

Buffalo
•abortionist jesse ketchum was convicted of criminally negligent homicide after killing 25-year old margaret louise smith.

Cherry hill, new jersey
•april 1988. An abortionist from cherry hill women's center ran over pro-lifer george krail twice with his car.

El paso, texas
•june 1983. Abortionist raymond showery was convicted of murder for drowning a five-pound viable baby who survived one of his third-trimester abortions.
•he also killed mickey apodaca during an abortion and was indicted for manslaughter.

Fort lauderdale
•april 1988. Abortionist theodore lehrer was charged with forcibly aborting his wife against her will after raping her, handcuffing her and tying her to a table.

Knoxville
•april 1990. Five pro-lifers found pipe bombs in their driveways. Police stated that this was retaliation for recent pro-life activities.

Las vegas
•november 1989. Pro-abortion arsonists burned pro-life andy anderson's car, which had been covered with pro-life bumperstickers.

Los angeles
•july 1991.Abortionist mahlon cannon lost his medical license july 1991 for gross negligence in numerous incidents, including the death of donna heim.
•march 1989. Three radical pro-abortionists were arrested after igniting an incendiary device in a church packed with pro-life activists.



•n.O.V.E.M.B.E.R. 1987. Pro-abortion activist frank mendiola was found .G.U.I.L.T.Y .O.F. Phoning .B.O.M.B. T.H.R.E.A.T.S. To .C.L.I.N.I.C.S..


•mendiola had also gained sympathy for the pro-abortion side with his heartrending stories about how his twin sister died on a kitchen table of a botched illegal abortion. It was later discovered that mendiola had lied; he has no sisters at all.


•january 1987. Abortionist steven pine punctured belinda byrd's uterus during a second-trimester abortion and then abandoned her to die of complications.
•october 1986. Abortionist edward allred was charged with providing substandard care, safety and health violations, and causing the death of mary pena at one of his 'assembly line' clinics.
•september 1971. Abortionist richard m. Neal was tried for manslaughter after killing janet foster.

Long beach
•august 1983. Abortionist strangled a 2-1/2 pound, 7-1/2 month baby who survived an abortion because he knew the 'mother' didn't want the baby and he feared a lawsuit. He was indicted for murder.

Miami
•1980-1983. Abortionist hipolito barreiro was charged with manslaughter after four women died at his clinic.

Midland, florida
•october 1992. Pro-abortion democrat eric capun fired five shots through the window of the home of his political opponent, pro-life republican robert stark, wounding stark's wife judith.

Newhall, california
•abortionist milos klvana was sentenced to 53 years in prison after being found guilty of the mass murder of eight newborn babies.

New york city
•abortionist ronald tauber raped a six-year old girl and spent seven years in prison.
•he had previously killed a woman in a botched abortion in florida. Now he is licensed to commit abortions in new york state.

Oakland
•march 1989. Pro-abortionists attempted to kill a disabled pro-lifer by kicking him repeatedly in the head with heavy boots, even after they had knocked him unconscious.

Oklahoma city
•september 1989. Abortionist joe bill reynolds tried for murdering his wife. 1983 to 1985.
•pro-abortion 'doctors' at oklahoma children's memorial hospital starved to death 33 newborn babies who were born with vary degrees of spina bifida. All would have lived if they had not been killed.

Philadelphia
•may 1990. Abortionist joseph melnick was convicted of allowing a 32-week viable baby girl to die by ordering 'no care' to be given her after she survived his third-trimester abortion attempt.
•january 1989. Abortionist connie tan yen was charged with infanticide after allowing a third-trimester baby to die.

Pittsfield, maryland
•august 1979. A pro-abortion arsonist destroyed the local right to life office.

Washington, dc
•march 1975. Abortionist robert sherman was tried for murder after killing 16-year old rita mcdowell.
•he also kidnapped a patient and pled guilty to 25 counts of lying under oath.
.......................................... .......................................... .......................

The dramatic mendiola case finally confirmed two facts that pro-lifers have known for many years:

1. That pro-abortionists threaten and carry out violence against their own clinics in order to discredit pro-lifers.

2. That many of the so-called "silent no more" stories about women who have had illegal abortions are outright lies.

According to the december 10, 1987 issue of the los angeles times, veteran pro-abortion activist and sodomite frank mendiola called in numerous bomb threats to clinics, abortionists, and even his own home so that "... You people, the media, will come down with a harder line on those people who are harassing the clinics."

*peaceful protests are "harrasment" now! Freedom to choose abortion for women, but no freedom of speach for those who oppose it....I think they are just nazi's*

it is unclear if he did infact carry out any actuall attacks or has since his release but pro choice people like this are sure to progress to be a real danger.

Mendiola was given a one-year suspended sentence because, as the judge put it, he had "good intentions."imagine any judge suspending sentence on any pro-lifer threatening to bomb an abortion mill for "good intentions!"

pro-aborts packed the courtroom in mendiola's support. Many members of the "committee for reproductive rights" appeared at his trial, and sherna gluck of the crr said that "clearly, the whole thing is very sad. I just feel very badly for him. He is a very fine person, and I guess the worst one can say is he is just confused. I'm sure it was [done] with the very best of intentions."

mendiola had been very much in demand at pro-abortion rallies, where he would read his letter written to president reagan about how his sister "rose elizabeth" died from a botched illegal abortion. Mendiola sobbed about how "she bled to death on a kitchen table. Yes, mr. President, on a kitchen table."

this story was proven to be a complete lie when investigators discovered that mendiola had no sisters!

Mendiola's "silent no more" sob story was a big hit, and was even used in national fundraising letters by the national abortion rights action league (naral), until it was revealed to be a lie. Even when he was confronted with his lies, he changed his story to say that it actually had happened to a friend's sister, and that "i was her voice." naturally, he refused to identify the person in question.

This incident helps illustrate the incredible arrogance of pro-abortionists who will continue to lie like rugs even when they are caught, and shows how out of touch with reality they really are.
.......................................... .......................................... .....................
It seems to me, that with people like this in the ranks of the baby terrorists pro "choice" then it is more than concivable to imagine people put in place to bomb clinics to discredit the peaceful pro life civil rights movement. Of course, they will tell you it isnt them but...... Who can believe people like this... The likes of this person who lied about having a sister who died from an illegal abortion to further the right to kill babys......They bomb clinics blame it on us and kill babys and deny it....... They are sick sick people!
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied November 22nd, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
That site is clearly leaning towards prolife or they would not have used the terms "proabort" and "abortionist" only prolife people use those terms.. People of no bias or who are prochoice.. Don't.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 22nd, 2004
Experienced User
Cite your source izzy. This is breach of copyright of a pro-lie source.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 22nd, 2004
Experienced User
Why don't you have a read of this izzy:

http://www.Sen.Ca.Gov/sor/reports/reports_ by_subj/public_safety_judiciary/reprocrime s.Htm

and when you tell me what you think of that, why don't you cite the source for your stolen material, hmmmm?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 22nd, 2004
Experienced User
And where have I said it's a lie izzy? And you're in breach of copyright - you have to cite your source. If it's all true, what's the problem?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 22nd, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
Where did you say it was a lie..... Very cute!

Moira wrote

"of a pro-lie source"

the problem is you - telling me what to do.

There is no copywrite on it!

It is public domain

free to good home!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 23rd, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
So a couple of psychos pretended to be prochoice and then bombed things. There are crazies everywhere! Especially this forum!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 23rd, 2004
Experienced User
Izzy. You still have to cite your source, whether it's in the public domain or not.

And why aren't you? Apart from the pointless toddler stamping foot rebellion aspect, I suspect you know full well that this site is a lie. If it's not, then what is the harm of letting us know which site it's from?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 24th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
[="izzy"the problem is you - telling me what to do.[/quote]

pot, kettle, black.

Once again.. Shows what a hypocrite he is.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 24th, 2004
Experienced User
Let's Debate Abortion
I would greatly appreciate it if we could all stick to debating the issue, rather than attacking one another. I know that this is an emotionally loaded issue, and that it is often difficult to remain detached, but it is the issue of abortion that should be on trial here - not pro-choicers, pro-lifers, or any individual who holds to either view.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 24th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
Re: Let's Debate Abortion
prolife wrote:
but it is the issue of abortion that should be on trial here - not pro-choicers, pro-lifers, or any individual who holds to either view.
i disagree. Abortion is not on trial. Rather, it is the idea that it is ok to restrict women from obtaining legal medical procedures based on somebody's subjective amoral desire to enslave them and keep them from obtaining true independence.

(as you can see, we can't even agree on what the issue is :d )
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 25th, 2004
Experienced User
Re: Let's Debate Abortion
steen wrote:
prolife wrote:
but it is the issue of abortion that should be on trial here - not pro-choicers, pro-lifers, or any individual who holds to either view.

i disagree. Abortion is not on trial. Rather, it is the idea that it is ok to restrict women from obtaining legal medical procedures based on somebody's subjective amoral desire to enslave them and keep them from obtaining true independence.
(as you can see, we can't even agree on what the issue is :d )


if this is the issue you are debating, then you will get no argument from me. We are in total agreement - the debate is over. I don't believe that it is ok to restrict women from obtaining legal medical procedures based on somebody's subjective amoral desire to enslave them and keep them from obtaining true independence.*

the entire summation of the pro-life view is that the unborn should have the right to live, as all other persons do. So, if you were to debate with me, it would have to be on that point.

* in agreeing with you here, I am assuming that you would define 'amoral' as 'lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.', and that a 'subjective amoral desire' would be a desire that originates in the mind, and is not tempered by concern for right and wrong.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 25th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
Re: Let's Debate Abortion
prolife wrote:
the entire summation of the pro-life view is that the unborn should have the right to live, as all other persons do. So, if you were to debate with me, it would have to be on that point.
ah, but the point is that "all other persons" do not have that right. I can not stay alive by using other people's bodily resources regardless of how ill I am or how much I need their particular bodily resource. So the "right to life" you claim the fetus has, that right is not even held by any born person to begin with. That is the point you need to address.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 25th, 2004
Experienced User
Re: Let's Debate Abortion
steen wrote:
ah, but the point is that "all other persons" do not have that right. I can not stay alive by using other people's bodily resources regardless of how ill I am or how much I need their particular bodily resource. So the "right to life" you claim the fetus has, that right is not even held by any born person to begin with. That is the point you need to address.


i've addressed this point in my last post in 'mothers body mothers right?'(post date: 11-23-04 2:12am). I'm not sure whether or not you've had an opportunity to review this post, but would be interested in your response.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 26th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
If your addressing it has anyting to do with the "it's different if it's a fetus", then you might need to try again.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied November 26th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
Re: Let's Debate Abortion
prolife wrote:
steen wrote:
ah, but the point is that "all other persons" do not have that right. I can not stay alive by using other people's bodily resources regardless of how ill I am or how much I need their particular bodily resource. So the "right to life" you claim the fetus has, that right is not even held by any born person to begin with. That is the point you need to address.

i've addressed this point in my last post in 'mothers body mothers right?'(post date: 11-23-04 2:12am). I'm not sure whether or not you've had an opportunity to review this post, but would be interested in your response.
i did indeed miss that. I just replied, and showed that you were in error.

You did fail to show where a born person has the right to use other people's bodies against their will, in the same way you insist the woman be forced to.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 4th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
I really enjoyed prolife's summation of the prolife stand. The only thing he/she will debate (and all prolife people indeed) is that everyone has the right to live.
Shows the ignorance right there. You cannot debate an issue when all you know/care about is one thing in such a broad spectrum. A fetus is not a human being. It is like an egg. Yes, a fertilized egg. How do you know that some of the eggs that you eat have not been fertilized? Right, you don't know. So, we should stop eating eggs because they could, in fact, be a a duck someday?
A fetus is not a life. It is human, yes. It is a human fetus, but it is not a human being! And if you are arguing that everyone has the right to life, then why doesn't the pregnant woman have the right to abort when the pregnancy is killing her? Where is her right? You see, that way of thinking doesn't work. Thus, why abortion is legal.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 4th, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
If you give the fetus a "right to live", will you be giving *everyone* a right to live? What about criminals the state kills? They are obviously being denied their "right to life". What about the people we bomb and call collateral damage? Whatever happened to their "right to life"? What about the people in our own country who starve to death or freeze to death because we turn our back on them? Does this mean because we could care less about them, we are denying their "right to life" and in essence, killing them? What about the people insurance companies *refuse* to cover and they cannot get proper treatment and die? Is the insurance company then responsible for denying their "right to life"? What about the people killed everyday by drunk drivers? They were denied their "right to life" but often the drunk driver can get away with it and no one dares to blame the alcohol at all. What about people who die waiting for a kidney? Are we all to blame for denying their "right to life" because we did not donate one of ours to them? If everyone, born and unborn is entitled to a vague "right to life", when does that right end? Will we be hooking up terminally ill people up to healthy bodies because they have a "right to life"? If a woman must donate her body for the fetus' "right to life", then everyone must donate his/her body for other, *already born* people who are dying everyday. After all, everyone has an *equal* "right to life", right?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 5th, 2004
Experienced User
This is especially interesting because of the cases where women had ivf because of having cancer, so they fertilised some eggs to create embryos which were frozen later, but then they split up with the father, who withdrew consent for the ivf to continue. And the law doesn't allow the embryos to be used, they have to be destroyed, by law. Definitely no right to life!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied December 6th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
I didnt read this all but: it is true pro-lifers have caused women who are considering abortion to miscarry or die when they bomb, ummm hello maybe they woulda changed there minds? That I dont agree with
|
Did you find this post helpful?
12