Prolife protestors found guilty

JulesKorngold

@MichaelElpers
They blocked access to an abortion clinic.

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers Well its not a matter of double standards. Sure every one has a right to protest but here were looking at extreme pesty loonies who are intimidating other descent people going in to the clinics to get what is a completely legal and acceptable medical procedure done. And these nits are used to it any way because there hole lives are filled with trying to lay gilt trips on other people who dont agree with there loony tunes way of life. So I say why dont we abort those nits to the dessert so they can do their so called praying where no body is subjected to there ugly doom and gloom.

Factfinder

@MichaelElpers

Of course there's a double standard. You see the reality is though, it depends on who's in charge. And it depends on the party affiliation of the person the question is directed to. (Generally) Let me explain, the crime your seeking in your question is they sat in front of an entrance of a medical clinic, blocking access and judging people. Unlawful assembly is usually the charge I believe. That is because it's legal to kill babies in the womb on demand where the arrest took place. Double standard? I don't know at this point. Definitely calls for a birds eye view. In 2020 cities burned, sections of city blocks turned into terroristic militarized zones. No arrests were being made. Yeah, I'd say there's a double standard in the mix somewhere.  

Openminded

@MichaelElpers

From All Sides Balanced (from the right´s perspective)

https://www.allsides.com/news/2024-01-31-0830/general-news-six-pro-life-activists-convicted-federal-face-act-charges-face

Catholic News Agency:

¨Half a dozen pro-life activists on Tuesday were found guilty of violating a federal law that forbids protesters from blocking the entrances to abortion clinics. 

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a press release that the six defendants in the Nashville, Tennessee, federal trial were “each convicted of a felony conspiracy against rights and a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act offense.
The federal FACE Act prohibits “violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.” It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

More than two dozen House Republicans in September introduced a resolution to repeal the FACE Act. Texas Rep. Chip Roy argued at the time that American citizens “should never live in fear of their government targeting them because of their beliefs.” 

Just as American citizens who are seeking healthcare should never live in fear of citizens targeting them because of their beliefs.

Catholic News Agency:
Yet, Biden’s Department of Justice has brazenly weaponized the FACE Act against normal, everyday Americans across the political spectrum, simply because they are pro-life,” he argued. ¨

Yet, Pro-Lifers have brazenly weaponized their beliefs against normal, everyday American women across the political spectrum, simply because they are pro-choice.

They ignored the police officers´ request to vacate from the entrance of a healthcare facility.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Associate Justice, US Supreme Court) said  ... The right to swing your fist ends where the other man´s nose begins.

MichaelElpers

@Barnardot

That would make it seem like you consider any form of protest you disagree with intimidation.  A guilt trip is not intimidation.

I want to see the evidence they made any sort of threats.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

"Violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services."

Have you seen any evidence presented of violence or threats? Did you see them continually try to prevent anyone from entering or leaving?
Otherwise I think they are using a very loose terminology of intimidation or interference.
Makes it seem like they just wont allow protest of abortion.

I agree with fist ends at others nose.  So I just want to see evidence they swung their fists at anyone.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MichaelElpers ; Murdering babies is not "healthcare." It is a demonically sick society and a demented, spiritually ill people who support the mutilation of children and fight for the legalization of same. This is why our Creator has walked away from America and why your mindset is allowed to exist among those of us who seek sustainable norms, mores, values, ethics.

 

Openminded

Argument Topic: "Violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services."

@MichaelElpers

"Violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services."

Have you seen any evidence presented of violence or threats? Did you see them continually try to prevent anyone from entering or leaving?
Otherwise I think they are using a very loose terminology of intimidation or interference.
Makes it seem like they just wont allow protest of abortion.

I agree with fist ends at others nose.  So I just want to see evidence they swung their fists at anyone.

There appeared to be no evidence of violence or threats. But there was evidence of obstructive conduct (blocking the entrance to a healthcare facility) intended to either intimidate (coerce, menace, compel) or interfere (infringe, intrude, intervene) with the right to seek reproductive health. The ¨prevention¨ was their coercion and intrusion by blocking the entrance. This was not loose terminology of intimidation or interference. The FACE law is designed to strongly discourage obstructive behaviors while still allowing the freedom to peacefully protest. The federal jury found them guilty. I do not believe they want to criminalize abortion protests; these have been occurring for decades in America.

¨The right to swing my fist ends where the other man´s nose begins.¨  A metaphor expressing the principle behind individual liberty.

The evidence they ¨swung¨ their fists? They imposed (swung) their fists (beliefs) at others noses (their rights) to seek healthcare.

They imposed their beliefs to suppress anothers rights.

We can apply this metaphor to both sides - the protesters and those seeking healthcare.
We have the freedom to act as we please until our actions infringe on anothers rights or well being. 

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Beliefs or Speech cannot be equated to swinging fists; it is not metaphorically equivalent. Do you know how many people protest against gun laws which are currently rights.  Why arent those beliefs considered to be illegal?

Video evidence showed people entering and leaving.  Some were sitting in fron tof the doorway buts its not as if they refused to move or actively blocked people from entering or leaving.
Also if it is the blocking of the doors why not only apply to the couple individuals blocking the door.

Bogan

A small group of protestors illegally blocked the entrance to an abortion clinic, in clear violation of the law.     They were arrested and shall be punished.

A large group of protestors illegally laid siege to the homes of US Supreme Court justices, in clear violation of the law.    None of them were arrested and none of them were punished.

Yes, there is a clearly a two tiered justice system depending upon which causes that you support.       

Openminded

Argument Topic: Beliefs or Speech cannot be equated to swinging fists; it is not metaphorically equivalent. Do you know how many people protest against gun laws which are currently rights.  Why arent those beliefs considered to be illegal?

@MichaelElpers

Beliefs or Speech cannot be equated to swinging fists; it is not metaphorically equivalent. Do you know how many people protest against gun laws which are currently rights.  Why arent those beliefs considered to be illegal?

Video evidence showed people entering and leaving.  Some were sitting in fron tof the doorway buts its not as if they refused to move or actively blocked people from entering or leaving.
Also if it is the blocking of the doors why not only apply to the couple individuals blocking the door.

The facebook link below is video that was posted on facebook of the protest. It is long but verifies that the protesters did in fact block the entrance and ignored the polices´ several attempts to clear the hallway and entrance. Also is another article that differs from your Federalist article.

https://www.facebook.com/dennygreen/videos/10164856272565537

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/tennessee/articles/2024-01-31/6-activists-convicted-of-illegally-blocking-abortion-clinic-in-tennessee

You´ll see they positioned a woman in a wheelchair in front of what looks like the entrance. In the video, about 23 minutes in (it is long), police came. You can hear one telling the protesters (peacefully) to move outside and do not block the entrance. It is hard to hear with the singing, but there sounded to be several attempts by the pastor warning his people that they may face prosecution if they decide not to leave. 

¨The right to swing my fist ends where the other man´s nose begins.¨ is a metaphor - a figure of speech that describes a comparison between two things. In this case the action of physically swinging a fist that hits another´s nose is compared to pushing one´s beliefs on another persons freedoms. It was written by an associate justice and Ruth Bader Ginsburg used similar concepts when discussing individiual rights and freedoms. 

If there are people protesting peacefully outside a gun shop, that is legal. However, if protesters BLOCK the entrance to a gun shop so a citizen is unable to buy a gun, they would likely face the same punishment because of the FACE act. Not allowing a citizen entrance to a gun shop infringes on their right to buy a gun legally and exercise their freedom.

The FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act is extremely important especially now as Roe V Wade has been challenged. This incident is over three years old and happened before Roe V Wade was overturned. While the punishment of the six found guilty may be excessive in the eyes of some (sentences in July) it is likely in response to the extreme abortion laws in TN now. New TN laws put the health care providers at risk also; it´s crucial to regulate now. Before Roe V Wade was overturned, there were a handful of FACE Act violations; they have increased since then. Stay tuned for new laws that republicans may put in place banning women from leaving the state for their healthcare. Ain´t America sweet?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/tennessee/articles/2024-01-31/6-activists-convicted-of-illegally-blocking-abortion-clinic-in-tennessee

In my opinion and from the evidence I´ve seen and read from numerous articles, the protesters imposed their beliefs on others to suppress the rights and freedoms of others. They broke the law.

We have the freedom to act as we please until our actions infringe on anothers rights or well being. 

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

The issue is I havent really seen any evidence provided from any of the articles.  The provide under what terms they were charged but I dont see great supporting evidence.
If this is a private bld. I could definetly see them charged for tresspassing.

In the video i didnt see them actively block anyone from entering or leaving.  Did you see any reporting or evidence that someone tried to enter and they actively blocked them?

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers That would make it seem like you consider any form of protest you disagree with intimidation. A guilt trip is not intimidation.

There are protests and every one has a right to protest as I all ready said. We are talking here about an incident that was planned by the group to deliberately block people from going in and out of the clinic. That is intimidation and these people were convicted in a court of law and I don't need to submit the evidence again that was submitted to the court and has all ready been pointed out by others in this topic. Sure these people prayed and sang hims but what you didn't mention that they also broke the law and intimidated people. And you didnt mention also that the report you posted was extreme and biased.

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers @Openminded ;The issue is I havent really seen any evidence provided from any of the articles.

Well if any of articles you talk about are any thing like the extreme biased trash that you posted its no wonder you did not see the evidence. 

So the real issue is that you did not see and or didnt want to see the evidence that was reported by responsible unbiased press.

So the question is. Did you read the evidence from responsible unbiased press and did you read the unbiased reporting of the evidence?

Barnardot

@Bogan ;Yes, there is a clearly a two tiered justice system depending upon which causes that you support.       

No its just a one tired system. And weather your extreme to the left or extreme to the right your completely wrong and off the planet with your views. So wheres your evidence that there is a court that deals with lefty half brain nits and another court that deals with righty half brains nits?

Openminded

@MichaelElpers

The issue is I havent really seen any evidence provided from any of the articles.  The provide under what terms they were charged but I dont see great supporting evidence.
If this is a private bld. I could definetly see them charged for tresspassing.

In the video i didnt see them actively block anyone from entering or leaving.  Did you see any reporting or evidence that someone tried to enter and they actively blocked them?

The video I posted is long but you´ll get more insight into this if you watch. Because a group of religious people were peacefully singing (the short clip you posted) does not mean they did not break the law. Seems you´ve lost trust or may be a bit paranoid about our judicial system? Or possibly you´ve been brainwashed by the thousands of ¨Fake News¨ mentions.  I´m positive (as one who still trusts the government) the jurors, the lawyers and the judge made their decision based on evidence they´ve seen and as law abiding citizens. 

I agree with Barnadot. The source you posted was an extreme right wing religious news site and very biased. All Sides Balanced is a great news site and gives opinions from Left, Center and Right and other trusted information.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)

The Federalist is an American conservative online magazine and podcast that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion, and publishes a newsletter.[1][2][3][4] The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013.[4]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published many pieces that contained false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations of the recommendations of public health authorities.[5][6][7] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 United States presidential election, The Federalist made false claims that there had been large-scale election fraud.[8][9]

We have the freedom to act as we please until our actions infringe on another's rights or well being.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded @Barnardot

I think your confused on what evidence is.  What I mean by evidence is I want to see the exact moments they were in violation of what they were being accused of, not just reporting of what act they violated. 
The main claim is they blocked people from entering or exiting.  On the tape did you see a single person that tried to enter or exit they refused to let through.  Standing in front a door is one thing, but not sure you can say they are preventing entering and exiting if no one walked up trying to enter or exit.

As far as my source being trash, Im not making a claim it was perfect but not sure it presented any falsehoods. Even the video snippet showed the lady in the wheelchair in front of the door, which is one of things openminded pointed out.I used it mainly to just inform the story.  I searched about 6 or 7 different articles and not a single one points to the exact moments they were in violation.  From my perspective all the reporting is pretty trash, but ill persume innocence until provided good evidence.

So ill ask again.  Wheres the evidence someone was physically blocked from entering or leaving.  Did you ever see someone approach the door that wasnt allowed access?

Openminded

Argument Topic: I think your confused

@MichaelElpers @Bardardot
I think your confused on what evidence is.  What I mean by evidence is I want to see the exact moments they were in violation of what they were being accused of, not just reporting of what act they violated. 

I´m not confused about evidence. Evidence is what is needed to either find someone guilty or not guilty. 

The main claim is they blocked people from entering or exiting.  On the tape did you see a single person that tried to enter or exit they refused to let through.  Standing in front a door is one thing, but not sure you can say they are preventing entering and exiting if no one walked up trying to enter or exit.

No I did not see someone who was refused entry.  I did see a group of protesters who refused to leave the hallways and free the entry. But the footage you´re yearning for likely does not exist. You think all court case decisions are reached solely because of cell phone video footage? 

As far as my source being trash, Im not making a claim it was perfect but not sure it presented any falsehoods. Even the video snippet showed the lady in the wheelchair in front of the door, which is one of things openminded pointed out.I used it mainly to just inform the story.  I searched about 6 or 7 different articles and not a single one points to the exact moments they were in violation.  From my perspective all the reporting is pretty trash, but ill persume innocence until provided good evidence.

The Federalist is a known, extreme right-wing media outlet. I wouldn´t call it trash but it is certainly biased. It did post a cherry-picked snippet of a peaceful display of reverent citizens. There are several articles that mention they blocked entry to the building. I´ve posted a few. Now the prosecuting lawyer must have had fool-proof evidence of that suggesting they were in violation. The jurors and the judge found the protesters violated the FACE act. I do believe you have a trust issue in our judicial system. YOU´LL presume the protesters are innocent? Who died and canonized you Judge?

So ill ask again.  Wheres the evidence someone was physically blocked from entering or leaving.  Did you ever see someone approach the door that wasnt allowed access?

I say this with respect. Is it possible that you have some irrational trust issues in our Government? Are you suggesting that the case was rigged and all that were involved were lying? Why all the suspicion? I will try to find more evidence for Judge Elpers but I´m guessing that we´ll just have to trust that while America has its problems, it still has the most trusted justice system in the world. 

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

I assume there was cameras that captured the moments.

What right wing sources would you not consider extreme right or far right? Also do you have any you consider far or extreme left?
You claim it cherry picked a snippet of them being peaceful, but to my knowledge you havent found any video evidence of them doing anything worse than whats included in the snippet.
So I dont believe its fair to say it was cherry picked.  That does seem to be what they were doing almost the entire time.

I have a trust issue anytime there is federal prosecution of a highly politicized issue. Yes.  I wouldnt say those are irrational.
Im guessing youll then agree that blacks issue with harsher sentencing and being targeted is completely hogwash too? Or can the situation only be questioned when you deem it to be justifiable.

Youll note that I am not saying they are most definetly innocent.  Im just saying I see no evidence provided from video or evidential reporting that they are.

just_sayin

Openminded said:

@MichaelElpers

From All Sides Balanced (from the right´s perspective)

https://www.allsides.com/news/2024-01-31-0830/general-news-six-pro-life-activists-convicted-federal-face-act-charges-face

Catholic News Agency:

¨Half a dozen pro-life activists on Tuesday were found guilty of violating a federal law that forbids protesters from blocking the entrances to abortion clinics. 

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a press release that the six defendants in the Nashville, Tennessee, federal trial were “each convicted of a felony conspiracy against rights and a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act offense.
The federal FACE Act prohibits “violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.” It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

More than two dozen House Republicans in September introduced a resolution to repeal the FACE Act. Texas Rep. Chip Roy argued at the time that American citizens “should never live in fear of their government targeting them because of their beliefs.” 

Just as American citizens who are seeking healthcare should never live in fear of citizens targeting them because of their beliefs.

Catholic News Agency:
Yet, Biden’s Department of Justice has brazenly weaponized the FACE Act against normal, everyday Americans across the political spectrum, simply because they are pro-life,” he argued. ¨

Yet, Pro-Lifers have brazenly weaponized their beliefs against normal, everyday American women across the political spectrum, simply because they are pro-choice.

They ignored the police officers´ request to vacate from the entrance of a healthcare facility.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Associate Justice, US Supreme Court) said  ... The right to swing your fist ends where the other man´s nose begins.

The protesters were praying in the abortion clinic.  They may be sentenced up to 11 years.  That seems extreme for sitting and praying in an abortion clinic.  I do not condone their actions - they broke the law.  But when you think of the crimes that BLM rioters committed and  were absolved of, this seems extreme.  

By the way, they didn't swing fists, they sat and prayed.  They didn't burn buildings down like BLM rioters did.  They didn't run over lady police officers and kill them like BLM rioters did.  They didn't do billions and billions of dollars of damage like BLM rioters, who had their charges dismissed, did.  

In DC, everyday we have to deal with leftists who commit crimes for their causes.  They block bridges and roads, they jump the fence at the white house, they protest in places illegally, they show up on the doorsteps of politicians and judges, and they think they are righteous for doing so.  They are lawbreakers and should be held accountable.  The rules can't just apply to one side.

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers Openminded I think your confused on what evidence is. 

Were not confused at all. It was court evidence and those people were convicted.

It is you who are confused as to what evidence is. The link you gave is not evidence at all because it is extreme and manipulated and biased as you know and pointed out to you all ready. You can keep on asking the same questions over and over again but that doesnt changed the fact. Those people are extremists who force there whacky cruel beliefs on normal descent society and they were dealt with the right way. They have no right at all to do what they did.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;By the way, they didn't swing fists, they sat and prayed.

All the BLM protesters were doing was walking and breathing but those religious wackos were praying and singing morbid deathly songs and threatening people so they were much worse than the BLM.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;By the way, they didn't swing fists, they sat and prayed.

The BLM protesters were walking and breathing and those religious wackos were praying and singing morbid deathly songs so they were much worse than the 

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;By the way, they didn't swing fists, they sat and prayed.

The BLM protesters were walking and breathing and those religious wackos were praying and singing morbid deathly songs so they were much worse than the BLM protesters by the same token.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I assume there was cameras that captured the moments.

@MichaelElpers

I assume there was cameras that captured the moments.

The only moments captured that day were from protester´s cell phones and I do believe someone held a video camera on that FB video. I mean if you post footage of Facebook, you paint yourself in the best light right?

What right wing sources would you not consider extreme right or far right? Also do you have any you consider far or extreme left?

I use All Sides Balanced Site for my news. It gives different perspectives of the same story from the L, C and R. It also has a handy guide posting far right to far left. 

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias

Oh yeah - extreme on both sides. Trying to stay toward the Center is obviously the best. The daily deluge of extremist news being propagated is shocking. It´s no wonder we´re so culturally divided. I received an email from TruthSocial (Trump´s site). You know I´m no Trump supporter. The headlines read:

Oregon Supreme Court BLOCKS 10 Republicans from running for re-election

At first I thought it was because some may have participated in the insurrection. I looked further into this and found several posts that say:

Post-GOP Walkout, Oregon Elections Chief Says Lawmakers With 10 or More Absences Can't Run Next Term

Not the most shocking headline, but obviously you see the difference between the two. The first is missing context and its post seemingly is meant to incite and confuse its readers.

You know as well as I do that EVERYTHING needs to be vetted, double vetted and even triple vetted! It´s exhausting and time consuming and navigating the media to find the truth can be a full time job!

You claim it cherry picked a snippet of them being peaceful, but to my knowledge you havent found any video evidence of them doing anything worse than whats included in the snippet.

What I meant was you posted a cherry picked snippet that does not accurately depict the extremeness of the protesters were based on. In the Facebook video (the two hour long one) there appeared to be several requests by police to clear the hallway. I also saw a very reverent group (some young children) singing and worshipping for hours. To me, as someone not familiar, it says ¨they are religious zealots¨. But that´s not the point. The articles I sent said they were blocking the hallway and the entrance. The below article goes into more depth and paints an uglier picture of the protesters but alas it is MS magazine - a feminist magazine - obviously biased. I think more information will be posted in the future. The below excerpt is more incriminating.

https://msmagazine.com/2024/01/30/anti-abortion-tennessee-clinic-biden-department-of-justice-face-act/

¨During the carafem blockade, OSA extremists harassed patients and employees for almost three hours. Patients inside were physically intimidated and verbally assaulted by the blockaders who, according to court documents, yelled such things as, “See, what you got here is a mom who’s coming to kill her baby.” Patients with appointments tried unsuccessfully to access the clinic, while those who made it inside were ultimately pressured to leave. One employee who had come out to help patients could not get back inside. Anti-abortion extremists also directed their minor children to join the blockade.

Extremists also used a strategy called “blowfishing,” wherein certain protestors occupy an area inside the clinic—indistinguishable from committed blockaders—and appear willing to get arrested, but leave before arrests are made. Blowfishing is designed to discourage, stall, and delay law enforcement action, prolonging clinic obstruction and barring patient access to critical health care.¨

So I dont believe its fair to say it was cherry picked.  That does seem to be what they were doing almost the entire time

I have a trust issue anytime there is federal prosecution of a highly politicized issue. Yes.  I wouldnt say those are irrational.
Im guessing youll then agree that blacks issue with harsher sentencing and being targeted is completely hogwash too? Or can the situation only be questioned when you deem it to be justifiable.

I believe many Americans have a heightened anger and suspicion of our government entities (the DOJ) and news now. I do not want to turn this into a trump rage, but I do believe Trump stoked extreme distrust and anger from day one - that was his winning game ... ¨I alone can fix it.¨  But I´m not interested in debating trump further. I believe America has reached an impasse, we´ve all made up our minds. 

You´re wise to question everything. But there´s a difference between critical thinking and irrational distrust.

Youll note that I am not saying they are most definetly innocent.  Im just saying I see no evidence provided from video or evidential reporting that they are.

The federal FACE Act prohibits “violent, threatening, damaging, or obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.”

They blocked the entrance of a healthcare facility. The protesters are from a group called OSA - Operation Save America - an extreme religious group that opposes abortion, Islam and homosexuality. 

Here is more information I just saw when looking up OSA. You will want to read this.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/08/02/operation-save-america-nashville-2022-restraining-order-mt-juliet-tennessee/10213431002/

We have the freedom to act as we please until our actions infringe on anothers rights or well being. 

They imposed their beliefs onto another´s rights and well being and violated the FACE act.

Factfinder

Openminded said:

@MichaelElpers

I assume there was cameras that captured the moments.

The only moments captured that day were from protester´s cell phones and I do believe someone held a video camera on that FB video. I mean if you post footage of Facebook, you paint yourself in the best light right?

What right wing sources would you not consider extreme right or far right? Also do you have any you consider far or extreme left?

I use All Sides Balanced Site for my news. It gives different perspectives of the same story from the L, C and R. It also has a handy guide posting far right to far left. 

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias

Oh yeah - extreme on both sides. Trying to stay toward the Center is obviously the best. The daily deluge of extremist news being propagated is shocking. It´s no wonder we´re so culturally divided. I received an email from TruthSocial (Trump´s site). You know I´m no Trump supporter. The headlines read:

Oregon Supreme Court BLOCKS 10 Republicans from running for re-election

At first I thought it was because some may have participated in the insurrection. I looked further into this and found several posts that say:

Post-GOP Walkout, Oregon Elections Chief Says Lawmakers With 10 or More Absences Can't Run Next Term

Not the most shocking headline, but obviously you see the difference between the two. The first is missing context and its post seemingly is meant to incite and confuse its readers.

You know as well as I do that EVERYTHING needs to be vetted, double vetted and even triple vetted! It´s exhausting and time consuming and navigating the media to find the truth can be a full time job!

You claim it cherry picked a snippet of them being peaceful, but to my knowledge you havent found any video evidence of them doing anything worse than whats included in the snippet.

What I meant was you posted a cherry picked snippet that does not accurately depict the extremeness of the protesters were based on. In the Facebook video (the two hour long one) there appeared to be several requests by police to clear the hallway. I also saw a very reverent group (some young children) singing and worshipping for hours. To me, as someone not familiar, it says ¨they are religious zealots¨. But that´s not the point. The articles I sent said they were blocking the hallway and the entrance. The below article goes into more depth and paints an uglier picture of the protesters but alas it is MS magazine - a feminist magazine - obviously biased. I think more information will be posted in the future. The below excerpt is more incriminating.

https://msmagazine.com/2024/01/30/anti-abortion-tennessee-clinic-biden-department-of-justice-face-act/

¨During the carafem blockade, OSA extremists harassed patients and employees for almost three hours. Patients inside were physically intimidated and verbally assaulted by the blockaders who, according to court documents, yelled such things as, “See, what you got here is a mom who’s coming to kill her baby.” Patients with appointments tried unsuccessfully to access the clinic, while those who made it inside were ultimately pressured to leave. One employee who had come out to help patients could not get back inside. Anti-abortion extremists also directed their minor children to join the blockade.

Extremists also used a strategy called “blowfishing,” wherein certain protestors occupy an area inside the clinic—indistinguishable from committed blockaders—and appear willing to get arrested, but leave before arrests are made. Blowfishing is designed to discourage, stall, and delay law enforcement action, prolonging clinic obstruction and barring patient access to critical health care.¨

So I dont believe its fair to say it was cherry picked.  That does seem to be what they were doing almost the entire time

I have a trust issue anytime there is federal prosecution of a highly politicized issue. Yes.  I wouldnt say those are irrational.
Im guessing youll then agree that blacks issue with harsher sentencing and being targeted is completely hogwash too? Or can the situation only be questioned when you deem it to be justifiable.

I believe many Americans have a heightened anger and suspicion of our government entities (the DOJ) and news now. I do not want to turn this into a trump rage, but I do believe Trump stoked extreme distrust and anger from day one - that was his winning game ... ¨I alone can fix it.¨  But I´m not interested in debating trump further. I believe America has reached an impasse, we´ve all made up our minds. 

You´re wise to question everything. But there´s a difference between critical thinking and irrational distrust.

Youll note that I am not saying they are most definetly innocent.  Im just saying I see no evidence provided from video or evidential reporting that they are.

The federal FACE Act prohibits “violent, threatening, damaging, or obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.”

They blocked the entrance of a healthcare facility. The protesters are from a group called OSA - Operation Save America - an extreme religious group that opposes abortion, Islam and homosexuality. 

Here is more information I just saw when looking up OSA. You will want to read this.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/08/02/operation-save-america-nashville-2022-restraining-order-mt-juliet-tennessee/10213431002/

We have the freedom to act as we please until our actions infringe on anothers rights or well being. 

They imposed their beliefs onto another´s rights and well being and violated the FACE act.

Right, you use critical thinking. It's just dumb luck you always land fringe left, eh?

Openminded

Argument Topic: The protesters were praying in the abortion clinic. They may be sentenced up to 11 years.

@just_sayin
The protesters were praying in the abortion clinic.  They may be sentenced up to 11 years.  That seems extreme for sitting and praying in an abortion clinic.  I do not condone their actions - they broke the law.  But when you think of the crimes that BLM rioters committed and  were absolved of, this seems extreme. 

Yes, protesters were praying. I believe 11 years is extreme also.  Women in America think being stripped of their right to take ownership of their own bodies is extreme. Perhaps the DOJ has used this case to deter further future threats? The group, Operation Save America (OSA), a national anti-abortion group, may be getting more extreme. One of their emblems states ¨Ïgnore Roe, Establish Justice, Abolish Abortion¨. Their group has the authority to Establish Justice? They violated the FACE act by blocking the entrance to a healthcare facility. We´re not talking about BLM here. You can start a new debate if you want to talk about that though.

By the way, they didn't swing fists, they sat and prayed.  They didn't burn buildings down like BLM rioters did.  They didn't run over lady police officers and kill them like BLM rioters did.  They didn't do billions and billions of dollars of damage like BLM rioters, who had their charges dismissed, did.  

The swinging fist line is a metaphor that I´ve explained in this debate a few times.You can look for it if you care.

In DC, everyday we have to deal with leftists who commit crimes for their causes.  They block bridges and roads, they jump the fence at the white house, they protest in places illegally, they show up on the doorsteps of politicians and judges, and they think they are righteous for doing so.  They are lawbreakers and should be held accountable.  The rules can't just apply to one side.

Rules and punishment should be the same for all.  It is a shame that leftists commit so many crimes. One can safely assume though that crimes are being committed on the right. And in this case, OSA imposed their beliefs onto others and impeded their rights. But alas, lefties don´t use their religion as a fascade for their misdeeds. Lefties don´t disguise their crimes with prayer.  

Both sides are extreme and polarized now. The left is too compassionate and lacks decisiveness which can lead to the enabling of others. The right is too conservative and lacks adaptability which can lead to resistance to social progress. There´s too much tension and conflict. Something´s gotta give. We all need to compromise.

We have the freedom to act as we please until our actions infringe on another´s rights or well-being.

Barnardot

@Openminded @MicaelElpersThey imposed their beliefs onto another´s rights and well being and violated the FACE act.

That pretty well sums up the hole thing accurately and @MichaelElpers has to realize that hes flogging a deed horse on this one by trying to make out that those people were there peacefully. They are horrible nasty sower vengeful more ons and they have no place in our descent civilized society. If he wants to associate with those sorts of anti social low lifes thats his business but Jee Ziz he aint going to get no where is society if he keeps on hanging on to that sort of crap in his mind.

MichaelElpers

@Barnardot

"The BLM protesters were walking and breathing and those religious wackos were praying"

I guess you forgot to mention billions of dollars of damages they cost. People boarding up their businesses trying to prevent wreckage. But youre not biased at all. They did the damage by breathing I guess.

"Those people are extremists who force there whacky cruel beliefs"

Since when are you not allowed to state your beliefs?  I dont care how cruel or wacky you think they are.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MichaelElpers ;   Pro Life advocates are fined and incarcerated while the demons of ANTIFA, BLM, Islam, Baby murders/Planned Parenthood, march, burn, riot, murder, steal, nothing is done...some are granted millions of dollars in court settlements by insane Mayors of "sanctuary cities." This is the resultant of a weaponized DOJ run by filthy, corrupt, evil, Progressives; namely, Biden, Harris, Garland. This is wickedness run amuck and those who support them have the blood of babies on their hands and they will be most haunted and tortured at Judgment in Hell.

just_sayin

@Openminded
The left is too compassionate...

Now I am sure that the baby killing that you support, is to you, compassionate baby killing.  And I don't doubt that you think that when you fight to prevent the death penalty for rapists, that get women pregnant, and then fight to kill the innocent unborn baby, that is a product of that rape, that you consider yourself good and compassionate for saving that rapist and killing that innocent child.  And I have no doubts that you think the racism that you support, which discriminates against Asians and whites while denying them the opportunities at admission, jobs, promotions, or benefits, is done with compassionate racist intentions.  And I am sure that leftists see themselves as the good guys when they deny poor Black children educational freedom, and deny them a good education, as they keep them trapped in bad Democrat run public schools.  

They say the secret to writing a good villain is to write them as though they see themselves as the hero.  Thanos sees himself as the hero for trying to wipe out half of all life, so that the other half can thrive in a better ecosystem.  The Joker sees himself as the sane one who is fighting the insanity of the world.  

I don't doubt that you see yourself as the compassionate one.  It is just that so many of the policies that you support, I see as harming and hurting people.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Since when are you not allowed to state your beliefs? I dont care how cruel or wacky you think they are.

@MichaelElpers

When are you not allowed to state your beliefs? When your actions and beliefs infringe on another´s rights to freedom and well-being.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

I think your words infringe on my well being.  See how that doesnt work? Anyone can be offended by anything.

During slavery, your argument could be used against anyone speaking out against slavery. It would be against slaveowners freedom and well being to do so.

Factfinder

Openminded said:

@MichaelElpers

When are you not allowed to state your beliefs? When your actions and beliefs infringe on another´s rights to freedom and well-being.

So you admit you do not have the right to tell texas they can't protect the unborn because you do not want to infringe on texas's freedom and well-being?

MayCaesar

This kind of thing shows the advantage of private courts over public courts. Public courts abide by a set of very arbitrary laws (changing randomly, based on whoever is currently in the House/Senate) and tend to impose severe punishments for fairly minor offenses: there is almost nothing one can do at an abortion clinic short of shooting it up to which a measured response would be imprisonment for 11 years.

Private courts, on the other hand, abide by restitution requirements and impose penalties that generally are determined by the market. In this case, for instance, the owners of the clinic could hire a couple of analytics, estimate the amount of damage the protesters have dealt, and then go to the private court with their results and try to get an equivalent compensation.

Someone who really wants to block entrance to the clinic and protest against abortions would know well that he will have to pay up afterwards, and the more disturbance he causes, the higher the amount would be. He would very directly make a material sacrifice in order to stand by his principles. It would be his call to make, and he would have to take into account the damage his actions are going to deal to everyone involved.
But when the government runs everything, then he can always just hope that the police officers will be merciful and tell him, "Just go, buddy, and do not come back here again". And if it does not work out, then he risks having his life destroyed, being sent to prison over nothing. Everything is arbitrary, it is not clear what is permissible and what is not in practice - so everyone violates the law. People speed on highways, underpay taxes, trespass on private property... because, hey, most of the time the government is too busy with other things to punish us, so why not?

If I were an abortion clinic owner, I would rather look each protestor in the eyes and say, "I will let it slide if you pay me $10,000 - which I will spend on the well-being of the patients - and make a public post on your favorite social media platform apologizing for your actions. Otherwise, I will see you in a couple of months in court. Which do you prefer?" - than have this mess happen at its doorsteps.

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers @Factfinder "The BLM protesters were walking and breathing and those religious wackos were praying" I guess you forgot to mention billions of dollars of damages they cost.

Thats right and I guess you forgot to mention that those protesters as you wrongfully call them attacked the rights and offended and intimidated descent noraml people.

And I guess you also forgot to mention That the link you gave was extreme activist reporting and was wrong.

And I guess you also forgot to mention that the evidence that you keep asking for was all ready given by 3 members here and it is correct.

Do we really have to resort to making baited posts to get you to even partially under stand that your argument is off the planet?

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;"I will let it slide if you pay me $10,000 - which I will spend on the well-being of the patients - and make a public post on your favorite social media platform apologizing for your actions. Otherwise, I will see you in a couple of months in court. Which do you prefer?" - than have this mess happen at its doorsteps.

I reckon if the clinic owners really wanted to take the bull by the horns they would look at those more ons in the eyes and say. Obviously your parents had an abortion.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I think your words infringe on my well being.

@MichaelElpers

I think your words infringe on my well being.  See how that doesnt work? Anyone can be offended by anything.

How does using speech ONLY infringe on your freedom and well being?  If it´s speech only, you don´t have to listen. Now this could be a case of bullying, but has nothing to do with violating the FACE act. If that were the case, we´d all be incarcerated.

But if my words of irreverance were muttered along with the action of blocking you from entering your church, I would be violating the FACE act. Because my blocking the entrance infringes on your ability to enter the church and worship, thus stepping on your freedoms and well being.The six arrested belong to Operation Save America - an  extreme religious group with a history of antagonizing citizens seeking healthcare. I think they were given a hefty fine (jurors will decide in July) to deter them from future violations. Much like Trump - he was given an insignificant fine the first time he defamed Carroll. But he continued defaming her so they slapped a hefty fine the second time as a deterrence to keep him from continuing his defamation of Carroll and to not waste any more of the judicial system´s time. It seemed to work this time. 

During slavery, your argument could be used against anyone speaking out against slavery. It would be against slaveowners freedom and well being to do so. 

Speaking out against slavery, is protected speech under the 1A of the Constitution and is not impeding another´s freedom. If you spoke out against slave owning AND stole a man´s slave or helped him escape, that would be infringing on the slaveowner´s freedom to own a slave. 

The principle behind individual liberty is that we have the freedom to act as we please until our actions infringe on anothers rights or well being.

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers ;Anyone can be offended by anything

More to the point any body with a right mind finds any thing that those extreme religious nits say is offencive if you really want know.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

"Speaking out against slavery, is protected speech under the 1A of the Constitution and is not impeding another´s freedom."

Yeah, then so is speaking out against abortion.

Your argument may be the protestors were blocking freedom to access and that may or may not be true but then why bring up speech as a factor at all.
The words of irreverance have nothing to do with anything.

And now completing the circle i just figured there would be some presentable evidence these protestors actually did block from entering or leaving.  You may be standing in front of my church doors preaching God doesnt exist.  But until you physically get in my way, threatened me,  refuse to let me enter the door you have not commited any unlawful act.

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers @Openminded ;Your argument may be the protestors were blocking freedom to access and that may or may not be true

Its not a matter of it may or may not be true. It is true and thats what they were convicted of. Yes or No?

Openminded

Argument Topic: And now completing the circle ...

@MichaelElpers

And now completing the circle i just figured there would be some presentable evidence these protestors actually did block from entering or leaving.  You may be standing in front of my church doors preaching God doesnt exist.  But until you physically get in my way, threatened me,  refuse to let me enter the door you have not commited any unlawful act.

The evidence was presented in the court.  You´ll just have to accept and trust that the case was fairly tried by prosecuting lawyers, judge and jurors; the six defendants were found guilty of violating the FACE Act. Maybe further researching the history behind Operation Save America will help you understand the court´s decision.

Openminded

@Barnardot

Could it be possible that Michael Elpers cannot reconcile that people who pray can be found guilty of crime? Where does all this mistrust come from?

Openminded

@just_sayin

Now I am sure that the baby killing that you support, is to you, compassionate baby killing. 

I do not support baby killing. That is a disturbing term you choose to use. I believe that women should have control over their own bodies especially when it involves their own reproductive health. With science behind my convictions, I believe that a fetus is potential life. And while the potential life of a fetus should never be taken lightly; potential life should not supercede the life and health of the existing mother. I also believe a man can never fully understand the complexities behind a woman´s reproductive challenges and men who espouse extreme views would benefit from further educating themselves on this complex issue.

And I don't doubt that you think that when you fight to prevent the death penalty for rapists, that get women pregnant, and then fight to kill the innocent unborn baby, that is a product of that rape, that you consider yourself good and compassionate for saving that rapist and killing that innocent child. 

It sounds like you´re comparing the death penalty for one who commits evil and heinous acts --  to the death penalty for a conflicted mother who makes the agonizing decision to end the potential life of a fetus. Both involve the end of (existing or potential) life but the motivations behind these two are vastly different. This, in my opinion, is a false equivalency and not worth entertaining. 

And I have no doubts that you think the racism that you support, which discriminates against Asians and whites while denying them the opportunities at admission, jobs, promotions, or benefits, is done with compassionate racist intentions.  And I am sure that leftists see themselves as the good guys when they deny poor Black children educational freedom, and deny them a good education, as they keep them trapped in bad Democrat run public schools. 

Ii do not support racism. Yes, compassion was behind Affirmative Action´s goals. You may want the motivations behind AA to be evil and nefarious, but they just weren´t. You may want them to be racist, but they just weren´t. Honestly, based on all your posting on this site, your loyalty and compassion for Blacks and Asians just does not add up and sounds disingenuous. Again, a discussion that will be fruitless.

They say the secret to writing a good villain is to write them as though they see themselves as the hero. 

Thanos sees himself as the hero for trying to wipe out half of all life, so that the other half can thrive in a better ecosystem.  The Joker sees himself as the sane one who is fighting the insanity of the world.  

I don't doubt that you see yourself as the compassionate one.  It is just that so many of the policies that you support, I see as harming and hurting people.

Perhaps you are the villain in this scenario; you are the one seemingly using your own motives and righteousness to whitewash morality. Why all the demonizing? Where does all this distrust and suspicion in humanity come from? Why are you insistent on labeling those with opposing viewpoints as villainous and morally corrupt? Why do you look at things through a black/white perspective? A Villain/Hero world? A Zero-sum view? When disregarding opposing viewpoints, you are assuming moral superiority. That´s not a good look and it´s especially harmful to a severely divided America.

just_sayin

@Openminded

I do not support baby killing. That is a disturbing term you choose to use. I believe that women should have control over their own bodies especially when it involves their own reproductive health. With science behind my convictions, I believe that a fetus is potential life. And while the potential life of a fetus should never be taken lightly; potential life should not supercede the life and health of the existing mother. I also believe a man can never fully understand the complexities behind a woman´s reproductive challenges and men who espouse extreme views would benefit from further educating themselves on this complex issue.

I'm going to break up my comments to your post in multiple comments.  First, if abortion were really about a woman's body, then the woman would be the one who dies after an abortion.  Instead, abortion is about the killing of an innocent human life that is not the progenitor.  The woman is not killing her body, but the body of her unborn child.

You claim that a fetus is a 'potential life'.  Where did you get that anti-science view?  It is not the view of biologists.  According to the American College of Pediatricians:

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

According to 'The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins':

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

According to Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'

 Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). 

Here are some scientific journals and biology text books on when life begins:

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”

Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

 “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

 “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”

Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”

Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013). National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013).

“The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, ‘fertilization’ is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) ‘whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.'”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and  Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

 “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

“Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”

Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

“Zygote is a term for a newly conceived life after the sperm and the egg cell meet but before the embryo begins to divide.”

From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

 “Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”

Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980)  P 136

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body.

“Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body, (New York: Rand McNally and Company, 1980) 139, 144.

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

“… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”

Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983

“Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide.”

From Newsweek, November 12, 1973: Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

“Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.”

“The Biology of Prenatal Development”, National Geographic, 2006 (video):

I could literally give you 50 more scientific or biology textbook quotes showing that life begins at fertilization.  I strongly suspect that people have denied the scientific view that life begins at fertilization because it helps them to rationalize their view of abortion.  When you dehumanize the unborn child and treat her as less than human you can then rationalize killing her.  This has been a common tactic of oppressors to dehumanize their victims throughout time.  Slave owners saw slaves as less than full persons, Nazis saw Jews as unable to be citizens.  Science does not agree with your position.

And yes it is correct to say that you support the killing of babies.  The term baby is a generic term, like child, that includes the time in a womb.  Its why when a pregnant woman says 'the baby just kicked" we know what she means and aren't confused.  

The unborn child is an innocent human being.  She is fully human from the moment of conception.  Zygote and fetus are not different types of beings, but stages of human development.   

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@Openminded

I do not support baby killing. That is a disturbing term you choose to use. I believe that women should have control over their own bodies especially when it involves their own reproductive health. With science behind my convictions, I believe that a fetus is potential life. And while the potential life of a fetus should never be taken lightly; potential life should not supercede the life and health of the existing mother. I also believe a man can never fully understand the complexities behind a woman´s reproductive challenges and men who espouse extreme views would benefit from further educating themselves on this complex issue.

I'm going to break up my comments to your post in multiple comments.  First, if abortion were really about a woman's body, then the woman would be the one who dies after an abortion.  Instead, abortion is about the killing of an innocent human life that is not the progenitor.  The woman is not killing her body, but the body of her unborn child.

You claim that a fetus is a 'potential life'.  Where did you get that anti-science view?  It is not the view of biologists.  According to the American College of Pediatricians:

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

According to 'The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins':

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

According to Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'

 Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). 

Here are some scientific journals and biology text books on when life begins:

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”

Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

 “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

 “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”

Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”

Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013). National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013).

“The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, ‘fertilization’ is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) ‘whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.'”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and  Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

 “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

“Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”

Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

“Zygote is a term for a newly conceived life after the sperm and the egg cell meet but before the embryo begins to divide.”

From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

 “Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”

Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980)  P 136

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body.

“Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body, (New York: Rand McNally and Company, 1980) 139, 144.

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

“… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”

Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983

“Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide.”

From Newsweek, November 12, 1973: Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

“Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.”

“The Biology of Prenatal Development”, National Geographic, 2006 (video):

I could literally give you 50 more scientific or biology textbook quotes showing that life begins at fertilization.  I strongly suspect that people have denied the scientific view that life begins at fertilization because it helps them to rationalize their view of abortion.  When you dehumanize the unborn child and treat her as less than human you can then rationalize killing her.  This has been a common tactic of oppressors to dehumanize their victims throughout time.  Slave owners saw slaves as less than full persons, Nazis saw Jews as unable to be citizens.  Science does not agree with your position.

And yes it is correct to say that you support the killing of babies.  The term baby is a generic term, like child, that includes the time in a womb.  Its why when a pregnant woman says 'the baby just kicked" we know what she means and aren't confused.  

The unborn child is an innocent human being.  She is fully human from the moment of conception.  Zygote and fetus are not different types of beings, but stages of human development.   

Well said. I'm impressed. 

Openminded

Argument Topic: @just_sayin

We will agree to disagree then.

Barnardot

@Openminded ;Could it be possible that @MichaelElpers cannot reconcile that people who pray can be found guilty of crime? Where does all this mistrust come from?

I think it’s more a matter of being extreme and extreme people think extreme things about situations and it basically comes down to telling a pack of lies. He knows very well that those activists actually planned on being malicious. It was proven in court . And trying to point out that they were there just to pray and sing is only kidding himself. It’s sad that these people can’t admit to being the bad aces that they are and making up stories about being peaceful protesters is just pathetic.

Openminded

@just_sayin

Since you obviously did some work on this and I feel your passion .....https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096676197/7-persistent-claims-about-abortion-fact-checkedSince over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks), we´ll use that as a starting point. I will share with you a story I was told by a close friend a few years ago. Her daughter was having a somewhat normal pregnancy, the usual nausea, tiredness, but with some spotting. Her daughter called her Mom one morning and said she felt cramping, went to the toilet and had a miscarriage in the toilet. She was 11 weeks pregnant. Not to get graphic, (but to put this in a more realistic perspective for you) she felt compelled to look. What she saw was not a baby, no hands, feet, head, toes, or fingers. What she saw was lots of blood, tissue and cells, gray and white matter - nothing that resembled a fetus at that early stage. Now I´m sorry if this was graphic and cold sounding, but there are some extreme views on abortion that are just plain unfounded. Now, does that mean in that mix of blood, tissue and cells, that perhaps a tiny finger bud couldn´t be detected with a magnifying glass? Perhaps. But pro-life extremists have taken a stance that has clearly gotten out of hand. Calling anguished women ¨murderers¨ is simply desperate and ugly. Do you think that if abortion (within the first trimester as 90% of them are performed) were actually murder, that it would have been allowed for fifty years? Why not fight for the living child? Fight for children in adoption homes or for homeless children. Sweet J_E_S_U_S. Stop hating on anguished women. Do something worthy with all that religious extremism.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/miscarriage/1775089-How-do-I-know-when-I-have-passed-the-foetal-sac-during-miscarriage

Factfinder

Openminded said:

@just_sayin

Since you obviously did some work on this and I feel your passion .....https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096676197/7-persistent-claims-about-abortion-fact-checkedSince over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks), we´ll use that as a starting point. I will share with you a story I was told by a close friend a few years ago. Her daughter was having a somewhat normal pregnancy, the usual nausea, tiredness, but with some spotting. Her daughter called her Mom one morning and said she felt cramping, went to the toilet and had a miscarriage in the toilet. She was 11 weeks pregnant. Not to get graphic, (but to put this in a more realistic perspective for you) she felt compelled to look. What she saw was not a baby, no hands, feet, head, toes, or fingers. What she saw was lots of blood, tissue and cells, gray and white matter - nothing that resembled a fetus at that early stage. Now I´m sorry if this was graphic and cold sounding, but there are some extreme views on abortion that are just plain unfounded. Now, does that mean in that mix of blood, tissue and cells, that perhaps a tiny finger bud couldn´t be detected with a magnifying glass? Perhaps. But pro-life extremists have taken a stance that has clearly gotten out of hand. Calling anguished women ¨murderers¨ is simply desperate and ugly. Do you think that if abortion (within the first trimester as 90% of them are performed) were actually murder, that it would have been allowed for fifty years? Why not fight for the living child? Fight for children in adoption homes or for homeless children. Sweet J_E_S_U_S. Stop hating on anguished women. Do something worthy with all that religious extremism.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/miscarriage/1775089-How-do-I-know-when-I-have-passed-the-foetal-sac-during-miscarriage

I agree killing babies is an ugly business.