Pro-Life Leader's Home Attacked In Chicago

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s remember that NEITHER side (pro-life/pro-choice) is innocent when it comes to terms of violence.
 
Many pro-choice leaders are concerned about the number of youth in the pro-life movement, that seems to be surpassing the future prospectus for them. The -strain- between the two sides will continue to increase.
 
Folks should know that ‘bricks through the window’ have a long history in Chicago as being designed to gain publicity for the supposed victim. I’m not saying that happened here, I’m saying it is a well-established ruse.

Further, I don’t see how this could be classified as a ‘hate crime’ under our current laws.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Folks should know that ‘bricks through the window’ have a long history in Chicago as being designed to gain publicity for the supposed victim. I’m not saying that happened here, I’m saying it is a well-established ruse.

Further, I don’t see how this could be classified as a ‘hate crime’ under our current laws.
Click to expand...
I think they have long history in alot of places.

Well, I’m no lawyer, but I’m fairly certian it’s a crime period. I don’t know about “hate” crime either.

Sick, sick, sick.
 
Joe Scheidler is a courageous servant of life and the creator of life! He has been in the struggle for years and I bet he has fascinating stories to tell; confronting evil daily. The pro aborts have charged him w/ so many ‘crimes’ he has had to spend gobs of $ defending himself. And he probably prays, routinely, for those who wish his ill.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Folks should know that ‘bricks through the window’ have a long history in Chicago as being designed to gain publicity for the supposed victim. I’m not saying that happened here, I’m saying it is a well-established ruse.

Further, I don’t see how this could be classified as a ‘hate crime’ under our current laws.
Click to expand...
You have three houses in a row. One is occupied by a Jew, the second by an African American, and the third by a Roman Catholic. All three are known pro-life activists. On the same night bricks are thrown through their respective windows. Tell me how you can categorically deny that a “hate-crime” (spurious though such a designation be) had not occurred without finding the perpetrator(s), and deducing their motivation for their actions?

In the three cases, if it is learned that the particular identity of the victims provoked the attack, than would you see each case as a so-called “hate-crime”, or would the Roman Catholic be exempt from this classification due to some sort of selective victimization bias? In fact, are not all hate-crime laws invalid, in that they are subjective at their core? If not, then why is the murder of the unborn not deemed to be the most egregious of all “hate-crimes”?
 
unafraid said:
You have three houses in a row. One is occupied by a Jew, the second by an African American, and the third by a Roman Catholic. All three are known pro-life activists. On the same night bricks are thrown through their respective windows. Tell me how you can categorically deny that a “hate-crime” (spurious though such a designation be) had not occurred without finding the perpetrator(s), and deducing their motivation for their actions?
Click to expand...
Is ‘pro-life activist’ a protected class for purposes of hate crime legislation? I think not. Thus, I cannot see how this would come under the ‘hate crimes’ law. Unless, of course, only Roman Catholics are pro-life.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Is ‘pro-life activist’ a protected class for purposes of hate crime legislation? I think not. Thus, I cannot see how this would come under the ‘hate crimes’ law. Unless, of course, only Roman Catholics are pro-life.
Click to expand...
I’m not a big fan of hate-crime legislation, but I wonder what they were referring to in the article:
“We denounce in the strongest terms the cowardly violence that shattered the peace of the Scheidler home last night,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We demand that that Attorney General Eric Holder order the Justice Department to launch an immediate investigation into this violent hate crime and to provide the same protections to Joseph and Ann Scheidler as they have in the past for unthreatened abortionists.”
Click to expand...
As the Justice Department charged hate crimes in the case of abortionists? If so, then it would seem to me that the pro-life activisists should be treated the same. Unfortunately, I don’t know what they are talking about with their general statement.
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m not a big fan of hate-crime legislation, but I wonder what they were referring to in the article:
Click to expand...
Maybe they were wrong on the law. I’ve seen that happen.
rlg94086 said:
As the Justice Department charged hate crimes in the case of abortionists?
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge as to the pro-choice crew. Has Justice charged black folks? Yes.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
True but it appears that only Pro-Life supporters are investigated and prosecuted.
Click to expand...
I agree, that does seem so sometimes. It’s sad, but there is a double standard. 😦

No matter what though, (and I know your not saying this) violence is never appropriate.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
True but it appears that only Pro-Life supporters are investigated and prosecuted.
Click to expand...
That’s the victim’s whine. Unverified and unverifiable. How are your going to prove someone was not investigated?

Can you mention a violent crime by the pro-choice crew which has gone un-investigated?
 
rlg94086 said:
I must have missed something. “Black folks?”
Click to expand...
Sooner or later the question becomes “There’s such a double standard with hate crimes and why do you never see any black folks ever charged with racial hate crimes?” And the answer is that they have been. In fact, the first ‘hate crime’ to go to the Supreme Court involved a black defendant. So, I was saving us all a lot of time and misconceptions.

Now, do you know of any violence perpetrated by the pro-choice folks which was not prosecuted?
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Sooner or later the question becomes “There’s such a double standard with hate crimes and why do you never see any black folks ever charged with racial hate crimes?” And the answer is that they have been. In fact, the first ‘hate crime’ to go to the Supreme Court involved a black defendant. So, I was saving us all a lot of time and misconceptions.
Click to expand...
Ah…a preemptive strike of sorts. 😛 This seems suspiciously similar to a straw man argument. :hmmm:

Well, I don’t see any reason the question would have come up in the discussion, but I appreciate your consistency when it comes to posting about race. 👍
Beau_Ouiville said:
Now, do you know of any violence perpetrated by the pro-choice folks which was not prosecuted?
Click to expand...
No. That’s what I was meaning to ask, though I flubbed it. The claim in the article is of uneven treatment. What I meant to ask was if any pro-lifers were charged with a hate crime for violence against an abortionist. If so, then it would seem right to treat violence against a pro-lifer in the same manner. There is also a general statement about the Justice Department protecting abortionists, but I am wondering which, if any, cases they are referring to. It’s tough to determine fairness with only generalizations to go on.
 
I understand hate crime laws intend to prevent crimes against discriminated persons. HOWEVER, because the government picks and chooses who these persons are in a piecemeal way, the laws are, by their nature, discriminatory. At this point, with the beginning of things like Catholics United for Marriage Equality, it is clear that Catholic Church is being more persecuted all the time. And here, simply because they vote their conscience, we are expected to tolerate these attacks, and, quite frankly, misuse of the term Catholic. I certainly do not think the government needs to start intervening more often, I suppose, but it would be better if they got rid of hate crime laws, or restricted their use to obvious instances (beyond a reasonable doubt) and allowed their use in any instance of a discriminatory instance. I am concerned that the government would be unable to define discrimination in a historically accurate way, rather than a desire to defend certain actions and philosophies, rather than the dignity of the person in question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top