He got in my face, was hitting me, and choked me

[mapleoak]

I always try to see the detail, and since you cannot or will not provide any further detail as to the authentic motive of the photographer, it leads me to believe that this young man was behaving badly to 1) simply harass the doctor, or 2) try to bring some sort of accolades onto himself without having any intention of taking his efforts further in an attempt to close down the hospital. It’s called self-seeking, and it’s pretty ugly.

Suppose we assume the ridiculous conclusion that his motives were simply to harass the doctor and bring himself some sort of accolade. To make the first claim, you would have to show how application of the law with regards to harrassment applies in this case. This since taking photos does not legally constitue harrassment. For the second point, seeking to bring oneself accolades is not an illegal intention. Now can you show how either of these points grants the death doctor the rights to become the sole convictor and dealer of punishment in this case? Where does he derive his legal authority to take the law into his own hands? Again, perhaps is he too embarassed of his profession to call legal and public attention to himself and his ‘practice’?

 

[estesbob]

Suppose we assume the ridiculous conclusion that his motives were simply to harass the doctor and bring himself some sort of accolade. To make the first claim, you would have to show how application of the law with regards to harrassment applies in this case. This since taking photos does not legally constitue harrassment. For the second point, seeking to bring oneself accolades is not an illegal intention. Now can you show how either of these points grants the death doctor the rights to become the sole convictor and dealer of punishment in this case? Where does he derive his legal authority to take the law into his own hands? Again, perhaps is he too embarassed of his profession to call legal and public attention to himself and his ‘practice’?

I applaud him is one of his motives was to nonviloently harrass the "Doctor.

 

[marietta]

Suppose we assume the ridiculous conclusion that his motives were simply to harass the doctor and bring himself some sort of accolade. To make the first claim, you would have to show how application of the law with regards to harrassment applies in this case. This since taking photos does not legally constitue harrassment. For the second point, seeking to bring oneself accolades is not an illegal intention. Now can you show how either of these points grants the death doctor the rights to become the sole convictor and dealer of punishment in this case? Where does he derive his legal authority to take the law into his own hands? Again, perhaps is he too embarassed of his profession to call legal and public attention to himself and his ‘practice’?

1. " . . . seeking to bring oneself accolades is not an illegal intention." Regarding the whole issue of abortion, most of the posters on this forum have argued that law and morality are not the same thing, that we should all have our eye on, and base our behaviors on, “objective morality”. But now you want to argue that this photographer wasn’t breaking the law, so therefore his actions were not only acceptable, but worthy of applause. Which law would you ideally have him adhere to? And where is the humility in his actions?
2. As far as the “sole convictor and dealer of punishment in this case”, I find that a little over the top. I think the doctor acted under duress and stepped over the line. I don’t think the description of this incident, which, by the way, is nothing more than the photographer’s account of what transpired, was so dramatic as to call for the such high theater as “sole convitor and dealer of punishment”.

The doctor attempted to defend himself, he unfortunately reacted when he could have responded, he became physical, he went to jail. Other than every single thing that happens every day on this planet going just exactly your way, what more do you want?

marietta

 

[Ray_Scheel]

But now you want to argue that this photographer wasn’t breaking the law, so therefore his actions were not only acceptable, but worthy of applause. Which law would you ideally have him adhere to? And where is the humility in his actions?

I believe most of us can’t figure out what exactly about collecting the documentation necessary to confirm or rule out the presence of an unlicensed or suspended doctor (at a clinic with an established history of repeatedly endangering its patients in that manner) would make taking credit for doing so immoral if that documentation proved another instance of that illegal and dangerous (to the mother’s) behavior on the part of the clinic management. So, please explain - exactly - why it is immoral to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a criminal activity on film.

 

[marietta]

*"So, please explain - exactly - why it is immoral to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a **criminal activity *on film."

Immoral? For some.

Criminal? Not according to the way the courts are interpreting law at this time.

You can’t close your eyes and wish that abortion were criminal (i.e.: against the law). Toss around that old “natural law” stuff if you need to (I will sit that out), but today, right now, abortion is not criminal, the woman having an abortion is not a criminal, and the doctor performing the abortion is not a criminal.

Want to change it? Vote.

marietta

 

[estesbob]

*“So, please explain - exactly - why it is immoral to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a **criminal activity ***on film.”

Immoral? For some.

Criminal? Not according to the way the courts are interpreting law at this time.

You can’t close your eyes and wish that abortion were criminal (i.e.: against the law). Toss around that old “natural law” stuff if you need to (I will sit that out), but today, right now, abortion is not criminal, the woman having an abortion is not a criminal, and the doctor performing the abortion is not a criminal.

Want to change it? Vote.

marietta

Have you ever seen the film Night and Fog? Graphic movies and pictures of the death camps. Were the guards in these camps rights violated by the people who took these pictures? Now you may think that death camps were immoral but they were perfectly legal during the time they were open.(And don’t try to condemn them using that old natural law stuff ) Do you think some of the surviving death camp guards should be able to sue the producers of this film? Do you think those who made this film just did it to get accolades?

 

[marietta]

I have not seen this movie so I cannot comment on it. I may see it and feel it from a different perspective than you. I’m not qualified to judge. I have no idea what the motive(s) may have been in the production of this film. Was the producer driven by exactly the same passions as the director? The director the same as the actors? The actors the same as the make-up artists? You are talking about an artistic depiction of events. The situation with the doctor and the photographer is at least one generation closer to what actually happened, as it hasn’t been stepped on as many times as a film. So, no, I can’t respond here. Sorry.

marietta

 

[estesbob]

I have not seen this movie so I cannot comment on it. I may see it and feel it from a different perspective than you. I’m not qualified to judge. Sorry.

marietta

I told you the movie had pictures of guards in death camps. I thought taking somebody’s picture without their permission was wrong? And since we can’t use natural law these men were going about a legal activity just as the abortion doctor was.

 

[marietta]

estesbob:

What is your point?

marietta

 

[estesbob]

estesbob:

What is your point?

marietta

That you comments about the photograpeher of the abortion Doctor make no sense. The exact same cirticisms you make of him could be made of those who filmed the death camps. Again telling me that there is a difference is irelevant since you said we could only go by what is legal-which the camps were.(unless of course one uses natural law, which you ruled out)

 

[mapleoak]

estesbob:

What is your point?

marietta

Didn’t you say it was immoral.

Oh wait, you said only for some.

“So, please explain - exactly - why it is immoral to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a criminal activityon film.”

Immoral? For some.

Criminal? Not according to the way the courts are interpreting law at this time.

So you are saying the photographer was wrong to take pictures if he (using moral relativism) decided for himself doing such was immoral. And the abortion doctor was justified in his actions because he believed the photographer was ignoring his (the photographer’s) moral conscience, though it was not illegal at the time because the courts don’t interpret it that way. Therefore he free and clear to assault the camera man.
Weird logic, to say the least.

 

[marietta]

I speak for myself, not for the photographer, not for the doctor, not for the women outside the facility in Santa Ana. I’ve considered what the photographer did and my personal impression of him is that he is an opportunist. It makes no difference in the grand scheme of things what I think. I am simply sharing an impression.

I also think the doctor behaved reprehensibly in this instance. Again, my opinion. Both men’s actions could have been stemmed if the photographer had not goaded the doctor and the doctor had not lost his cool. But they did.

Did it stop procedures from taking place that day? That week? If so, then the photographer met his goal. If not, then the doctor met his goal.

Moral relativism does not demand total abstinence from thinking, feeling, developing an idea or opinion. The difference between the photographer and me is that I don’t insist everyone march to my rhythm. I hope he got his happy fewer abortions. And I hope he got his check from *California Catholic Daily. *

marietta

 

[estesbob]

I speak for myself, not for the photographer, not for the doctor, not for the women outside the facility in Santa Ana. I’ve considered what the photographer did and my personal impression of him is that he is an opportunist. It makes no difference in the grand scheme of things what I think. I am simply sharing an impression.

I also think the doctor behaved reprehensibly in this instance. Again, my opinion. Both men’s actions could have been stemmed if the photographer had not goaded the doctor and the doctor had not lost his cool. But they did.

Did it stop procedures from taking place that day? That week? If so, then the photographer met his goal. If not, then the doctor met his goal.

Moral relativism does not demand total abstinence from thinking, feeling, developing an idea or opinion. The difference between the photographer and me is that I don’t insist everyone march to my rhythm. I hope he got his happy fewer abortions. And I hope he got his check from *California Catholic Daily. *

marietta

Fair enough. I think weve beat it death anyway(pun intended)!

 

[marietta]

Very gracious, estesbob. Thank you.

Over and out.

marietta

 

[mapleoak]

Both men’s actions could have been stemmed if the photographer had not goaded the doctor and the doctor had not lost his cool. But they did.

Perhaps the photographer’s actions which some perceive to have goaded the death doctor on could have been altogether unneccessary had the abortionist not been operating a practice which kills innocent human beings in the first place. There would have been no need for any incident whatsoever.

I hope he got his happy fewer abortions.

Is this a sign of progress? Its only a start, but we’ll take what we can get.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Criminal? Not according to the way the courts are interpreting law at this time.

??? Considering I was referring directly to catching “an unlicensed or suspended doctor (at a clinic with an established history of repeatedly endangering its patients in that manner)” as part of the question you carefully snipped in order to avoid the question posed, and that the clinic owner and a couple of prior providers are actually being prosecuted for that type of criminal activity (as practicing medicine without a license is a criminal act), you are talking nonsense to such a level that even you must recognize you are doing so, especially since the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade identified the public interest in properly regulating abortion providers as one of the reasons to legalize access to abortion.

So, (again) please explain - exactly - why would it be immoral to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a criminal activity (yet another unlicensed/suspended “doctor” serving the “clinic”) on film.

 

[marietta]

Ray_Scheel:

This from the article in question, a direct quote from the photographer, Tim Nissen:

"I then walked alongside of him and tried to explain why I was doing this – because I had received a tip from someone **that he ****might be an unlicensed doctor.” **

He had received a tip. How credible was his source? And the source said the doctor might be unlicensed. So the photographer decided that this was good enough for him, this was his ticket to bagging a doctor operating illegally, and he just thought he’d document his heroics by taking a few snapshots? Did he ever confirm that the doctor was performing procedures illegally that day? Could he assure any of the women entering or leaving the clinic that the doctor was operating without a license on that day?

From OC Weekly:

The Christian Newswire reports that *“Pfupajena’s medical license **shows no indications of previous disciplinary action.” *But Nissen did not know that as he trained his lens on the doctor Saturday.

“Tim was going to photograph the guy **so they could figure out of if ****he is performing legal or illegal abortions,” **confirmed Operation Rescue spokeswoman Cheryl Sullenger in Wichita, Kansas. “If they are illegal, he would report him to authorities.”

First you verify the doctor’s legal status one way of the other. Then you take your pictures. And why did Tim Nissen need photographs to file a report on this doctor? Why could he not have done a little creative legwork to confirm or deny that the doctor was, indeed, licensed? I consider the photographer’s actions to be reckless at best, revealing a slipshod protocol with regard to his vainglorious attempt to grab a little spotlight for himself. He was lazy. He put the cart before the horse. Where was Tim Nissen on the very days that the clinic was allegedly endangering its patients? Where was his mysterious tip on those occasions?

*“So, (again) please explain - exactly - why would it be immoral to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a criminal activity (yet another unlicensed/suspended “doctor” serving the “clinic”) on film.” * I ask you: WHAT criminal activity??

And this?: " . . . you are talking nonsense to such a level that even you must recognize you are doing so . . ."

Nonsense.

Don’t think so.

marietta

 

[Ray_Scheel]

First you verify the doctor’s legal status one way of the other. Then you take your pictures.

Aside from the obvious consideration that having a picture of a person you are attempting to identify is one of the best way to determine their identity - a step that must be accomplished in order to establish their legal status.

And why did Tim Nissen need photographs to file a report on this doctor?

As I said in post #107: “photographs proving that the clinic management was** again** operating illegally would serve as evidence to file a regulatory complaint”. Do you have a problem with attempting to catch proof of a possible criminal activity on film in general (e.g. by security cameras or bystanders who happen to have a camera), or are you working on a presumption that abortion providers should be able to avoid that type of scrutiny?

Either way, I am unable to reconcile your comments early in the thread implying concern for the women seeking abortions from the likes of predatory doctors who had actually been employed by that particular clinic (post #5) with your apparent absolute opposition to documenting the later activities of a clinic well established as being willing to put its patients at risk in that way. As I said in post 117, I have no patience for advocates for abortion on demand who talk about how restricting abortion on demand will put women at risk while simultaneously opposing scrutiny of a clinic already proven to put its continued commercial existence before the safety of the women coming to that clinic for abortions.

*“So, (again) please explain - exactly - why would it be immoral to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a criminal activity (yet another unlicensed/suspended “doctor” serving the “clinic”) on film.” * I ask you: WHAT criminal activity??

The very criminal activity specified within the parenthesis in that quote you are questioning (as well as in the other paragraph in that post: “practicing medicine without a license is a criminal act”). It is quite silly to pretend that you simply cannot see specifications included in parenthetical statements.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Marietta,

Suppose the workers at the abortion clinic thought one of the protesters outside the clinic had a warrant outstanding. Would it be wrong of the clinic workers to take that persons photograph in order to further investigate whether their tip was true?

The point is, I am sure there have been plenty of cameras on the protesters and you don’t here them complaining.

 

[marietta]

Ray_Scheel writes:

*“Aside from the obvious consideration that having a picture of a person you are attempting to identify is one of the best way to determine their identity - a step that must be accomplished in order to establish their legal status.” *

So Tim Nissen needed a picture of the doctor so that he could take a picture of the doctor so that he could determine the status of his medical license?? Weak.

*" . . . photographs proving that the clinic management was again operating illegally would serve as evidence to file a regulatory complaint". *

A photograph of a person walking in or out of the building is proof *of nothing. * The doctor’s attempt to cover his face is an act that anyone might do when confronted with a stranger with a camera. There are reasons people conceal their identities that go beyond the world of abortion. The patients and staff could also have concluded that Nissen was going to reveal their identities as well.

*“Do you have a problem with attempting to catch proof of a possible criminal activity on film in general (e.g. by security cameras or bystanders who happen to have a camera), or are you working on a presumption that abortion providers should be able to avoid that type of scrutiny?” *

Nissen was not contracted to work “security”. He was a self-appointed savior whose ego eclipsed his grasp of humility. He did not go into the situation with a working knowledge of the status of the doctor’s medical license, a doctor, by the way, who had **no **indications of previous disciplinary action. If he had taken the time to investigate the doctor before he took it upon himself to show up at the clinic in Santa Ana, he could have realized the trip would be in vain and he could have saved himself and his precious camera a lot of trouble. This doctor was working within the laws of the State of California. He was doing nothing illegal. You may find it immoral. I do not. The State of California does not. The women seeking abortions there that day do not. You believe that your opinion carries significant weight in the matter. I do not.

You are unable to reconcile my beliefs. You have no patience for my presumed “willingness” to allow women to be put at risk. Tell me exactly how the patients were put “at risk” at the Clinica Medica Para La Mujer in Santa Ana on Saturday, August 2, 2008. I don’t want to hear how the manager is facing 20 years in jail; I don’t want to hear how some of the doctors have been accused of perfoming incomplete procedures. I don’t want to hear about how the possibility existed that the patients that day *might have been *in some kind of jeopardy. I especially don’t want to hear how the souls of these women are at risk for the choices they made; that is between them and the God they worship. What I’m interested to hear is exactly how these women were put at risk that day, and what justified this photographer to act on nothing but an assumption that wrongdoing was about to occur.

“Practicing without a license is a criminal act”

Do you understand that the doctor on duty on the day in question **was not practicing without a license? **

marietta