Sunday, October 3, 2010

40 Days, and the hostile pro-abortion side

While the federal government is busy fussing about the "intimidation" level of having peaceful protesters pray outside of abortion clinics, the pro-abortion side shows its usual level of quiet passivity in this incident (Hat tip: reader "gradchica":

Police arrested Gary Boyle, 62, a Blountville, Tenn., physician, on charges of pointing a firearm.

Boyle drove into the parking lot of the clinic on Ashley River Road near Fuseler Road at around 8:30 a.m. When three protesters, including a 17-year-old boy, approached him, Boyle brandished a black handgun loaded with 15 rounds, according to a police report.

Boyle then stepped out of his SUV and walked into the clinic without further incident, the report says. One of the three protesters, 50-year-old John Karafa, called 911.[...]

Whether Boyle performed abortions locally is not known. He and another physician operate the Bristol Regional Women's Center near his Tennessee home.[...]

The incident wasn't the doctor's first legal snag.

He and his partner operated their clinic without a required certificate of need from the Tennessee Health Department for several years in the 1990s, and the health department tried to shut them down, according to court filings.

The dispute dragged on for years until 2002, when an appeals judge ruled that the state statute requiring the certificate had violated a woman's right to privacy.

So, let's get this straight. Any attempt by pro-life people to pray and protest outside of abortion clinics constitutes intimidation and harassment. But an abortionist can wave a gun at protesters, and a clinic can refuse to comply with a law requiring a Health Department certificate, and that's all fine because it's all vital to a woman's super-duper special right to chose to have her child slaughtered in her womb and disposed of like garbage?

They're the ones who kill millions of innocent unborn human beings. They're the ones who refuse to let ordinary medical regulations be applied to their human chop shops. They're the ones who have threatened protesters with violence, and sometimes even committed acts of violence against them.

But it's the peaceful protesters against abortion, with their signs and rosaries and prayers and loving witness to the intrinsic worth of the human lives being so cavalierly destroyed inside the abortion clinics, who are the hostile ones? That can only make sense in a nation where it's legal to kill you if you are too young to count, in the minds of the evil, as a real human person.


priest's wife said...

Abortion is their pagan/satanic sacrament. We are up against the power of hell with regards to baby killing. Thank GOD that we are assured of victory- it's just hard waiting for victory

Siarlys Jenkins said...

There are, after all, several recorded cases of doctors being murdered by so-called abortion protesters. I don't consider the doctor's response any more difficult to understand than a police officer who draws their weapon when they believe that a suspect may try to kill them.

Officers, and private citizens in lawful possession of a gun, should be very cautious about actually pulling the trigger. This doctor didn't. If the protesters had been on a public sidewalk, it would have been different, but it sounds like they were on private property, and coming up to the door of his care. There is a certain menace to that.

Note: Anyone who calls themselves "priest's wife" has a lot of nerve accusing anyone else of paganism.

Michael said...


Her husband is a Byzantine Catholic priest. The celibacy rules are different than for the Roman Catholic Church. And do you really want to compare violence records of pro-abortion and pro-life advocates?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Name one abortion protester who was gunned down by a clinic director.

There are certain non-violent and often offensive hypocrisies committed by those who are truly "pro-abortion," one of the areas where we sometimes find common ground.

But the acts of flagrant violence, albeit few, seem to be all in one direction. Having said that, I acknowledge that all the pro-life campaigners I am aware of unambiguously and sincerely condemned the murder of Dr. Tiller.

Anonymous said...

Abortion is itself a flagrantly violent act - if we don't understand that we've deluded ourselves, or just haven't paid very close attention.

While being pro-life insists that we condemn murder, including that of abortion doctors, no one should be surprised that some meet violent ends. As sad as it is, it's an actuarial fact that violence reliably begets violence, ask any gang member, religious extremist, or wife-beater who fails to sleep with one eye open. It's a timeless truth of humanity that participating in a violent lifestyle subjects one to a higher likelihood of an unsavory end. It's heartbreaking, but it's not the least bit shocking.

While the abortion industry hides behind everything from a Constitutionally specious contrived "right" to outright lies, it is largely the civility of society - including Catholic and Christian and other pro-life groups - that has protected them from harm. It's interesting that they don't see fit to extend the same civility to their victims - er - "patients".

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Cottage Child, you undermine your own cause. Civility protects us all to an extent, but if you assert that only the civility of YOUR SIDE protects the OTHER SIDE from harm, you have already breached the wall of civility.

Do you really believe that if the Roman Catholic Church chose to organize an armed militia, and send it out to kill all pro-life people it could find, as complicit in murder, that it would be difficult to assemble equal firepower to kill those who perpetrated such violence? Fortunately, such acts are indeed the work of lone individuals, although your words are NOT the sort of condemnation I praised in my previous comment. They are the sort of words militantly pro-abortion spokespeople have always insinuated lurked in the inner-most hearts of the pro-life movement.

Constitutional law is what it is. You have the right to seek to change it. At present, you lack sufficient support to do so. WHETHER abortion itself is a flagrantly violent act is the very question under discussion.

Anonymous said...

"if you assert that only the civility of YOUR SIDE protects the OTHER SIDE from harm, you have already breached the wall of civility."

No, I haven't. Your comment in general doesn't even address my point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you merely missed it, rather than assume that your reply it's the usual emotional rhetoric employed when someone doesn't like another's point of view. And it's really strange to surmise the intent in the a heart of another over an internet post. Again, the personal insult foisted off as legitimate argument is a weak element of the current political discourse. Shame.

So - you've missed my point. I'll sincerely invite you to reread. I have in no way endorsed harming anyone, the opposite, in fact, and disavow those who do or encourage otherwise. I offered statements of fact, although I make no apologies for my bias.

As for abortion not being flagrantly violent, I'll let the myriad scientific resources available that confirm otherwise speak for themselves.

The Constitution - sheesh - my opinion in the matter is secondary to the legal shortcomings of the amendment that protects abortion. Popular and Constitutional aren't the same thing.

Be well.

Nameless Cynic said...


One little quibble. The "armed militia" you describe is primarily Pentecostal.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

A valid quibble, Nameless Cynic, if I were talking about an existential militia. But I wasn't. The rag-tag "militia" bands do tend toward something more or less in the Pentecostal orbit. They frighten me only slightly more than a bunch of guys playing paintball. They are like the copperheads, who were such a disappointment to Confederate agents, because the copperheads didn't actually want to put themselves on the line.

I was posing a hypothetical, in response to Cottage Child, who is definitely not Pentecostal. It has indeed been some centuries since bishops of Rome attempted to field armies of any size. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt, that she is so wrapped up in her own torment she can't engage in reasoned discussion, and stop trying to engage further.

Anonymous said...

Wow, SJ...I'm not tormented in the least, but I appreciate your concern. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's sincere.

And there's no such thing as an "existential militia" but that's way funny - lol... And how do you know I'm not Pentecostal? Presumption abounds...

Siarlys Jenkins said...

There's no such thing as an existential militia?

Are you saying that there are no self-styled militia units in the USA? Or did you think I was talking about militias committed to the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre? I wasn't. I meant, those that exist, as opposed to those that don't.

This is why I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion, even about where, why, and how we disagree. Words seem to change meaning in your hands from one post to the next.