C
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
OK, the Doctor should have to pay some penalty for an assault, jail time and/or a fine.
But I feel a bit uncomfortable with the antics of the photographer…not unlike the paparazzi; goading or antagonizing some celebrity until they snap.
Yes, the doctor had less time in the clinic and fewer abortions were (presumably) performed, and that’s a good thing.
I suppose there’s an element that will claim that we should use any and all legal means to slow or stop abortions, and they’ve got a point.
But in this case…if the licensing of the doctor was in question…there are legal ways of filing a complaint with the State Physician’s licensing board and accomplishing the same thing.
Turn the tables for a second…if you were going to church, and someone got in your face with a camera when you didn’t want to be photographed, say during a relative’s funeral…I’m sure that there are more than a few people who would snap and go after the photographer.
I’m not sure…I don’t think the end always justifies the means…and I’m not quite sure that I agree with these tactics.
D
Dale_M
Guest
M
marietta
Guest
California Penal Code section 646.9(e) defines “Harassment” as:
“A knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and must actually cause substantial distress to the person.”
The doctor was operating within the bounds of law. The photographer was not. And as for the “legitimate purpose”, his could be either pursuit of his 15 minutes of fame or recompense for the photographs. Who here believes that this intrepid photographer should be rewarded in any way for his behavior?
And the *doctor *should go to jail? I vote the photographer should be assigned 100 hours community service picking up the demonstrators’ tear-stained tissues on the grounds outside the clinic. No camera. Mouth shut.
marietta
“A knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and must actually cause substantial distress to the person.”
The doctor was operating within the bounds of law. The photographer was not. And as for the “legitimate purpose”, his could be either pursuit of his 15 minutes of fame or recompense for the photographs. Who here believes that this intrepid photographer should be rewarded in any way for his behavior?
And the *doctor *should go to jail? I vote the photographer should be assigned 100 hours community service picking up the demonstrators’ tear-stained tissues on the grounds outside the clinic. No camera. Mouth shut.
marietta
M
marietta
Guest
"The Clinica Medica chain of abortion centers made headlines with Bertha Bugarin was charged in two separate counties for doing abortions without a license.
Another abortion practitioner who works for the abortion business, Laurence Reich, was also arrested earlier this year after a police investigation revealed he did abortions even though his medical license had been revoked last year after a second conviction of having sexually molested or raped several of his abortion patients."
Out of one side of your mouths, you kind folks jump all over this corrupt behavior; out of the other side you endlessly rant about returning to the pre-Roe v Wade days.
What do you think we will find behind that curtain of sanctimony which will certainly be erected with great fanfare by the Morality Police if/when Roe is overturned? Hundreds, maybe thousands of Laurence Reichs waiting in the wings? Is this your solution to the abortion dilemma? Is this part of your solution? Is this a cause to rejoice? Do you think your families will be safer?
Why can’t we all just keep our own side of the street clean? Why are we compelled to attempt to control every person, every decision, every idea, every feeling? If your life is so rich and righteous and full, why are you nosing around in my back yard?
marietta
Another abortion practitioner who works for the abortion business, Laurence Reich, was also arrested earlier this year after a police investigation revealed he did abortions even though his medical license had been revoked last year after a second conviction of having sexually molested or raped several of his abortion patients."
Out of one side of your mouths, you kind folks jump all over this corrupt behavior; out of the other side you endlessly rant about returning to the pre-Roe v Wade days.
What do you think we will find behind that curtain of sanctimony which will certainly be erected with great fanfare by the Morality Police if/when Roe is overturned? Hundreds, maybe thousands of Laurence Reichs waiting in the wings? Is this your solution to the abortion dilemma? Is this part of your solution? Is this a cause to rejoice? Do you think your families will be safer?
Why can’t we all just keep our own side of the street clean? Why are we compelled to attempt to control every person, every decision, every idea, every feeling? If your life is so rich and righteous and full, why are you nosing around in my back yard?
marietta
N
Newbie2
Guest
Well, probably because Catholic theology considers Abortion to be murder of an innocent.
1
1234
Guest
Hear, hear.
It is impossible to prohibit abortions. There is RU-486, the abortifacient. There are a lot of others available if, somehow, RU-486 is outlawed. The vast majority of Americans support access to abortion in some form. Politicians who are strongly ‘pro-life’ run into trouble on election day.
If abortions were prohibited, they would go underground, as they used to be. Many women would die. I know that there are many on this forum, who don’t care, who think that they should die ( many are poor mothers, with young children at home) but most people don’t agree with that. Some posters have felt that women who abort should be prosecuted for first-degree murder, with the death penalty as a possibility. These posters are usually men.
This legislation is felt to depend on the states, as some support anti-abortion legislation, some don’t. Thus pregnant women could cross state lines. If the entire US prohibited abortion, like Prohibition, and likely to be just as successful, women could go to Mexico or Canada. There might be abortion clinics offshore in the rivers or on reservations, like casinos.
1
1234
Guest
…so let’s all get out and oppose the war in Iraq.Well, probably because Catholic theology considers Abortion to be murder of an innocent.
Plenty of innocents were murdered there.
Has the USCCB issued an official statement opposing the war in Iraq?
This is what they’ve managed to cough up:
[In November during their annual fall meeting, the U.S. bishops on a unanimous voice vote passed a statement on the Iraq War. In it they called on the Bush administration and the new Congress “to engage in a collaborative dialogue that honestly assesses the situation in Iraq” and “reaches agreement on concrete steps to address the serious challenges that lie ahead.”*
Not very impressive.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
So, what about the clinic my friends pray in front of where the staff comes out periodically to photograph the people praying. Should the staff get 100 hours of community service for “harassment” of people praying on a public street?
What happens if in self defense my friends decide to retaliate by beating up the staffers? Who would be wrong?
1
1234
Guest
Nissen, the perp, was not concerned that the doctor was unlicensed, he was concerned that the doctor was performing abortions, which are legal.
The doctor didn’t want to be photographed as this might endanger his life.
Nissen deserved what he got.
Prediction: the doctor will never be charged.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Yes, many innocents were killed. But I don’t think the situation in Iraq is very clear. The moral characters of the invasion and subsequent occupation and then the subsequent protection of its government are quite different, I think.
As for the comparison of Iraq and abortion, I realize this will sound weak to you if you don’t believe that human personhood begins at conception, but the magnitude of murders from abortion is far greater than the deaths in Iraq.
M
marietta
Guest
That depends on their motives. Are they protecting themselves against threats of physical attack, as my daughter was called upon to do when a pro-life zealot placed a bomb on the grounds of the facility where she works? I don’t care about peaceable demonstration (although I don’t think it’s as effective as pro-lifers would choose to believe). If, however, they are harrassing the staff, then, yes, they should be hauled off to the slam and charged.
Why would your friends need to initiate any sort of “self defense” if the violent triggering act was simply a person photographing them from perhaps hundreds of yards away? Don’t think I’d want to attend any of their family reunions. That makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like a third grade class on a field trip to the Capitol.
marietta
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Well, I guess the same type of self defense the Doctor who beat up the photographer had.
Not hundreds of yards away. The staffers come out to the sidewalk.
My friend has been a pro-life counselor since the days of Roe. She has never been violent or harassing towards anyone. Her purpose for standing in the cold, in the rain, in the sleet is to save babies. And she gets cursed at regularly by boyfriends bringing their girlfriends in. She’s been pushed…people have come inches into her face yelling at her. She has yet to throw a punch, to curse back, or yell.
But women have come out of the “clinic” crying and thanking her for taking the time to speak to her. People have thanked her years later, with their young child, saying “This is the baby you convinced me to keep that time.”
But, you probably don’t think she has any right to speak, or that she doesn’t do any good. Believe me, the good that she does is amazing.
A
allhers
Guest
I agree with this part of the article.
“This abortionist is a danger to the public, and should have his license revoked.”
lifenews.com/state3428.html
Now I’ll tell you why. Years ago, I was praying outside and across the street from an abortion mill with a group of other peaceful protestors when out of the door came some woman, she crossed the street, got in our faces, was so close to mine that her spittle was hitting my face while she screamed at us. We all just kept right on praying, not one person even addressed her, acted like she was there, or even moved. In a couple of minutes she left.
I honestly have no idea as to what she even said.
Later we found out that she was the owner of the abortion mill. Now, if we could all control ourselves, that abortionist could have too. Of course we were just peacefully praying, we hadn’t just murdered some babies.
I’ve been there praying before too when someone was filming us on a video camera, that didn’t bother me either. I didn’t really give it any thought at all, just kept praying. As a matter of fact, I
never even gave it a second thought and didn’t even think about it again until now.
I bet if that so called “Doctor” started praying instead of taking part in murdering babies things like that wouldn’t bother him either.
“This abortionist is a danger to the public, and should have his license revoked.”
lifenews.com/state3428.html
Now I’ll tell you why. Years ago, I was praying outside and across the street from an abortion mill with a group of other peaceful protestors when out of the door came some woman, she crossed the street, got in our faces, was so close to mine that her spittle was hitting my face while she screamed at us. We all just kept right on praying, not one person even addressed her, acted like she was there, or even moved. In a couple of minutes she left.
I honestly have no idea as to what she even said.
Later we found out that she was the owner of the abortion mill. Now, if we could all control ourselves, that abortionist could have too. Of course we were just peacefully praying, we hadn’t just murdered some babies.
I’ve been there praying before too when someone was filming us on a video camera, that didn’t bother me either. I didn’t really give it any thought at all, just kept praying. As a matter of fact, I
never even gave it a second thought and didn’t even think about it again until now.
I bet if that so called “Doctor” started praying instead of taking part in murdering babies things like that wouldn’t bother him either.
M
marietta
Guest
Mary Gail 36:
I made myself clear in my answer to you. It depends upon the motives. A staffer emerging periodically from a clinic where abortions are performed to take photographs of people praying on the sidewalk is not the same thing as a photographer lying in wait and stalking a doctor, continuing to shoot photographs after being asked to cease and desist, all on “a tip” that the doctor was unlicensed. Wouldn’t there be another, legal way to determine whether or not the doctor was unlicensed? Of course there was. So I come away from this believing that the photographer was in it for the possible sale of the photograph. In fact, how much might *California Catholic Daily *have paid him for the picture?
Look, pro-life advocates are not treading lightly on the legal rights of women all across this country. You don’t have to agree with women who seek abortions, you don’t have to house them in your basements, you don’t have to give them money or rides anywhere. But when you disregard the legal rights of these women you can expect tempers to flare, punches to be thrown, and bruises to show up under the skin. The women get upset, the boyfriends and husbands get angry, the pro-lifers get a little too enthusiastic, and soon enough somebody gets hurt. That’s part and parcel of the situation. All’s fair in love and war.
Your friend should learn to duck.
marietta
I made myself clear in my answer to you. It depends upon the motives. A staffer emerging periodically from a clinic where abortions are performed to take photographs of people praying on the sidewalk is not the same thing as a photographer lying in wait and stalking a doctor, continuing to shoot photographs after being asked to cease and desist, all on “a tip” that the doctor was unlicensed. Wouldn’t there be another, legal way to determine whether or not the doctor was unlicensed? Of course there was. So I come away from this believing that the photographer was in it for the possible sale of the photograph. In fact, how much might *California Catholic Daily *have paid him for the picture?
Look, pro-life advocates are not treading lightly on the legal rights of women all across this country. You don’t have to agree with women who seek abortions, you don’t have to house them in your basements, you don’t have to give them money or rides anywhere. But when you disregard the legal rights of these women you can expect tempers to flare, punches to be thrown, and bruises to show up under the skin. The women get upset, the boyfriends and husbands get angry, the pro-lifers get a little too enthusiastic, and soon enough somebody gets hurt. That’s part and parcel of the situation. All’s fair in love and war.
Your friend should learn to duck.
marietta
Y
yellowbird
Guest
Unfortunately it’s usually the baby.
S
Sabda
Guest
This little tid bit in the article jumped out at me.
The photographer made sure that he was not breaking the law by taking pictures and when he was told that he was not he continued. If it really was that big of an issue for the doctor then WHY did he not call the police about the harassment he felt he was getting from the photographer? That would be the logical and reasonable thing to do. Attacking the photographer was not necessary when there clearly are other ways of handling the situation. Considering the situation, the doctor does need to be charged. If anyone else in a different situation had been attacked like that, they **would **have been charged. People, in general, do NOT have the right to go after someone and attack them the way this photographer was.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Of course there was a legitimate purpose.
I am sure any of the unborn whose lives were spared that day will one day come back to thank him.
Yes. His actions were uncalled for.
M
mapleoak
Guest
marietta;4024256Why can’t we all just keep our own side of the street clean? Why are we compelled to attempt to control every person said:
M
mapleoak
Guest
What is your definition of prohibit?
Yes, there are some people who disobey the law. Bank robbery is outlawed, yet people rob banks.
Many bank robbers die while performing the illegal activity of robbing banks.
you do?
oh really?
the posters are poor mothers with children or the women who should die are poor mothers with children?
Someone who kills someone should be be treated no different than another who kills someone else. Individual circumstances determine whether prosecution is for first, second, third degree, manslaughter, etc. Innocent until proven guilty like any other crime. If the defense presents mental insanity or otherwise, burden of proof shifts to the defense as the fact that the defendent has killed has thus been established at that point.
Different subject altogether.
Can you illustrate how you determined this and are you going somewhere with it? Usually when comments like these are made, it is an indication that the poster is running out of substantive argument and hanging on to a hair thread. Wait, I thought you just said these posters were mostly poor mothers with children.
- Status