Pro-lifer's fetus picture provokes reaction, but not what he expected

[Questioninggeller]

A young child sees a graphic picture of an aborted fetus being shown by an anti-abortion protester on a business street. The child asks the adult she/he is with what it is. The man gets enraged and turns his vehicle toward the protester. The protester jumped out of the way and is unharmed.


Man allegedly tries running down Planned Parenthood protestor

Paradise Post (http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_12690839)
By Elizabeth De Alwis
‎Jun 25, 2009‎

A Planned Parenthood protestor was nearly struck by a motor vehicle Wednesday morning in Chico when a 40-year-old man allegedly tried to mow him over with an SUV.

Police later arrested Matthew Reid Haver, of Chico on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. According to witness statements gathered by police, Haver allegedly tried to strike 60-year-old protestor James Canfield with a 1991 GMC sports utility vehicle at the Planned Parenthood office on Vallombrosa Avenue.

Canfield moved out of the way and was not seriously injured during the incident, but clearly shaken by the experience, Chico Police Lt. John Carrillo said....
...
As for Haver's motive, Carrillo explained that Canfield is a regular demonstrator at Planned Parenthood and also at the Women's Health Center across the street from the Chico Police Department.

He reportedly has a large sign with a graphic photo of an aborted fetus, and it receives attention as people drive by. The investigation revealed that Haver had a child with him in the vehicle, and as they drove by the demonstration, the child asked what was on the sign.

Carrillo said it appears Haver became enraged over the picture of the aborted fetus, lost control of his emotions and tried to strike Canfield with his vehicle.


Full: Paradise Post (http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_12690839)


A quick news search shows Canfield has a long history:


Abortion protester ordered to back off
Chico Enterprise-Record (http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/CERB/lib00780,10FDBED8D5543C50.html)
Feb 17, 2006

An anti-abortion protester has been ordered to stay at least 100 feet away from a doctor, only identified as "John Doe" and the Women's Health Specialists Clinic, 1469 Humboldt Road.

Thursday, Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts issued a temporary restraining order against James Canfield, who has spent most Saturdays protesting outside the clinic, where abortions are performed.

While according to court documents, Canfield has been...


Full: Chico Enterprise-Record (http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/CERB/lib00780,10FDBED8D5543C50.html)

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I have mixed feelings on abortion myself but one thing I know is absolutely unacceptable is trying to kill a protester exercising his freedom of speech. While your child is watching that.

This Matthew Haver should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

[Whiplash]

Ineed, quite shocking. It was too much for him to try to explain it to his child?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

How old was I when I first knew such a thing as abortion existed? Ten or eleven, I should say. The first time my mother and I had any sort of discussion on the subject was when I was eleven or twelve.

Still, it is an inappropriate thing for a child to see.

[Miss_Kitt]

Somebody has anger management problems. I do understand the flash of rage, but I have actually had to deal with Idiot Protestors near clinics that provide abortions, and I find a "one-finger salute" to be sufficient.

If my child were to ask, I'd say, "It's the gory stuff from a medical procedure, all arranged and photographed to look scary. You know how we talk about the way they make things look all gross for monster movies? Kind of like that..."

I think an appropriate counter-protest would be to have (if possible) a list of the numbers of women, per year, in that state that are believed to have died from illegal abortion prior to the arrival of safe, legal procedures from medical doctors. Perhaps a list of the medical risks/complication common to back-alley abortions, from pelvic infections to septic infections to internal bleeding...just so the real counterpoint is shown.

--MK

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Isn't it having it both ways, though, to support abortions but to get angry at a picture of one?

If you are allright with the thing, you should be allright with the image of it and be able to deal with it and not hypocritically get offended.

You can just hear what the attacked protester told everyone the next day: "He won't let his child see an abortion cause it's "bloody" and "disturbing"! And he thinks they should be allowed, when he won't even let his kid see a picture of one cause it's "scary". Even a pro-choicer doesn't like seeing what he thinks should be done to babies!"

[Arus808]

True, but how old was the child? Should someone carrying a graphic picture of a fetus be allowed to such material in the public where there are kids under the age of 10 that will see it? How is a parent supposed to shield their child when they are not EXPECTING to see that type of material in teh first place.


Should it be then that people be allowed to carry graphic photos of murder scenes as well, and have children see that?


Abortion as with sex, should be taught to children by those that the parents feel are qualified to teach it to them. NOT by someone who has an agenda.

[SezMe]

If you are allright with the thing, you should be allright with the image of it and be able to deal with it and not hypocritically get offended.
I disagree. Some medical procedures, including operations, can be quite gruesome yet be medically sound. Pictures taken out of context or knowledge can be misleading, at best. For example, I have had hip replacement operations that have made a world of difference in my life yet viewing such an operation is, well, kinda revolting.

As another example that I have NOT been through is birthing. If someone took a video of a birth process that took 40, 50, 60 or more hours in which the mother was in severe pain and having trouble, out of context, everyone would conclude that birthing should be banned as torture.

[leftysergeant]

Wait a minute. The whackadoodle with the sign may have been committing a crime. Wasn't there a restraining order against him? Did the SUV driver know who he was?

He was protesting, according to the cited article, "at a Planned Parenthood Clinic."

Where was the doctor he was ordered to stay away from?

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

You can't behave that way in civilised society, no matter how angry you get. The driver needs to go to prison.

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't it having it both ways, though, to support abortions but to get angry at a picture of one?

So this is an argument for the televising of executions.

[Oliver]

The funny thing about Pro-life ignorants is that they rather would like to see a child starving to death in a slow and painful manner than seeing the same child being aborted.


ETA: Is there a photo of the Sign the protester used?

[Psi Baba]

One of the many things that riles me about these abortion protesters with the graphic poster boards is that these same people most likely rail against pornography as well, to protect the children!!111!|1!! But they see nothing ironic about displaying these images (which are usually of botched home abortions anyway) on the street in a 4' x 2' format for all to see.

We have them here in Pittsburgh, too. There is painted semi-circle on the sidewalk about 20 feet across, kind of like the referee's circle on a hockey rink. Apparently the protesters are required to stay outside the circle. There is also a sign in the window of the family planning center to "Sponsor a Protester." Apparently, people can donate money to the center based on how many or how often the protesters show up. So the protesters are faced with the dilemma of knowing that the more they protest, the more money they are bringing in for the center. :D

[Darth Rotor]

The funny thing about Pro-life ignorants is that they rather would like to see a child starving to death in a slow and painful manner than seeing the same child being aborted.
No, you are making a silly and brainless statement here. Just because someone is against aboriton does not mean they want to see children starving to death. Do you understand the problem with your attempt at reasoning here?

You are dealing with an invalid If P Then Q construction here.

Oh, wait, I am dealing with Oliver here.

Sorry.

[Oliver]

No, you are making a silly and brainless statement here. Just because someone is against aboriton does not mean they want to see children starving to death. Do you understand the problem with your attempt at reasoning here?

You are dealing with an invalid If P Then Q construction here.

Oh, wait, I am dealing with Oliver here.

Sorry.


Well, fundamental Pro-Lifer's don't care about the reason for an abortion, so it doesn't matter what the future of the child will be as long it will not be aborted. Would Oliver exaggerate his point? Oh, wait, you're actually dealing with Oliver here. :)

[Darth Rotor]

Well, fundamental Pro-Lifer's don't care about the reason for an abortion, so it doesn't matter what the future of the child will be as long it will not be aborted. Would Oliver exaggerate his point? Oh, wait, you're actually dealing with Oliver here. :)
That isn't what you said, nor is what you said very close to accurate.

You are making a larger error than you suspect. These same folks who are adamantly right to life are quite frequently the same ones, in my experience, who spend time and effort raising money to feed starving people all over the place.

It's sorta funny, or it's a self licking ice cream cone. Not sure which. Evangelical Protestants, and for that matter Catholic Charities, raise money to help feed starving people even though they (if their ideals and principles are followed) helped them arrive in an overpopulated/low food place to begin with.

Raising money to feed starving children is about as opposite to

"rather would like to see a child starving to death"

as you can get.

So, no, you are wrong. And you are Oliver. Not a coincidence. ;)

[Monketey Ghost]

I recall being suspended -briefly- from my eighth grade Catholic school. The English teacher decided that one day a week would be anti-abortion film day.

So instead of lerning enklish, we were treated to hundreds of images of abortions. After the first viewing I refused to watch the following week, and was kicked out of class for it, and after refusing to rejoin the class, was sent home.

Mom, good ol' Mom, became *********** LIVID. She went to that school, with her "Why am I paying you all this money so this woman can show movies instead of teach my son English?" and further angry angrys... and my Mom is not the kind of person you wanna be on the wrong side of.

The movies were discontinued. There were four reactions:

1. The teacher gave me a hard time for the rest of the year.
2. Some of the students would rather have been watching ANY movie than study.
3. Some students actually liked the movies and got very self-righteous. One guy called me "abortionboy", once. I did get suspended for the results of my actions afterwards.
4. Some kids came and thanked me. Most of them were girls IIRC.

[Oliver]

That isn't what you said, nor is what you said very close to accurate.

You are making a larger error than you suspect. These same folks who are adamantly right to life are quite frequently the same ones, in my experience, who spend time and effort raising money to feed starving people all over the place.

It's sorta funny, or it's a self licking ice cream cone. Not sure which. Evangelical Protestants, and for that matter Catholic Charities, raise money to help feed starving people even though they (if their ideals and principles are followed) helped them arrive in an overpopulated/low food place to begin with.

Raising money to feed starving children is about as opposite to

"rather would like to see a child starving to death"

as you can get.

So, no, you are wrong. And you are Oliver. Not a coincidence. ;)


Actually we are talking about a Pro-lifer wasting his time standing with a sign on a side-walk. I missed the charity effort on his behalf, like in so many demonstrations from Pro-Lifers. And I don't even want to point out the religious side of Pro-Lifers who think they own moralityTM above other people's lifes and decisions.

Oh, and I don't doubt that some Pro-Lifers also raise money for charity. Actually they should be doing just that - or get a life.

[Careyp74]

now now, lets not jump to conclusions. The same thing happened to me last week when I was driving with my buddy. He pointed out this hot girl walking down the street, when I turned my head to look, my steering followed, and we almost mowed her over. Simple auto-response mechanism.

[Whiplash]

For what it's worth, I do not think children should have to see this stuff either, and that parents shouldn't be forced to have to have conversations with them about it, at least not when they are very young.

But this mans actions are inexcusable, obviously.

[casebro]

If the protester was displaying the photo I think he was, it has been proven to be a crime scene or autopsy photo of a dismembered baby.

He certainly was attempting to shock the public through his misrepresentation. He got a response. Would we have the discussion we are having here if, instead of being on the side of a road, he was in park, and flashed the same picture at a kid, and got punched in the nose by Dad? The protester was out of arms reach, Dad hit him with the tool at hand. No forethought. Just a response to an antagonistic action by the protester.

The same way a pie in the face or words that invoke ire are considered assault, the protester was antagonizing people. For which he got hit. It's called self defense.

[Questioninggeller]

If the protester was displaying the photo I think he was, it has been proven to be a crime scene or autopsy photo of a dismembered baby.


Interesting. Explain a little more.

[Questioninggeller]

Per the request above, I couldn't find a picture of the image he shows, but his shirt has a fetus and part of the picture he carries.


Anti-abortion activist attacked
Man who ran over James Canfield’s sign is arrested
Chico News and Review (http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=1027313)
This article was published on 07.02.09.
PHOTO BY ROBERT SPEER

...
James Canfield (pictured), 73, who says he has been picketing abortion clinics for 25 years, was standing on the sidewalk, next to a big sign with a grisly photo of an aborted fetus, when a man in an SUV drove up on the sidewalk and over his sign, narrowly missing Canfield, who was unhurt.
...

[kerikiwi]

The funny thing about Pro-life ignorants is that they rather would like to see a child starving to death in a slow and painful manner than seeing the same child being aborted.


Making ridiculous claims about people does nothing to support whatever case you are trying to make.

[kerikiwi]

Would we have the discussion we are having here if, instead of being on the side of a road, he was in park, and flashed the same picture at a kid, and got punched in the nose by Dad? The protester was out of arms reach, Dad hit him with the tool at hand. No forethought. Just a response to an antagonistic action by the protester.

The same way a pie in the face or words that invoke ire are considered assault, the protester was antagonizing people. For which he got hit. It's called self defense.
Not by any tortured use of the English language can this be called self defense.
But try turning it around:
I am guessing you are pro-choice, as am I.
Would you be happy that an anti-choice person feels antagonized by your position and tries to run you down, or simply punches you in the face?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

So this is an argument for the televising of executions.

Actually, I do believe that if you support the death penalty, you should be able to watch an execution.

I don't support the death penalty so I'd object to public executions but anyone who supports it but finds it convenient to keep it out of sight is having it both ways.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

He certainly was attempting to shock the public through his misrepresentation. He got a response. Would we have the discussion we are having here if, instead of being on the side of a road, he was in park, and flashed the same picture at a kid, and got punched in the nose by Dad? The protester was out of arms reach, Dad hit him with the tool at hand. No forethought. Just a response to an antagonistic action by the protester.

The same way a pie in the face or words that invoke ire are considered assault, the protester was antagonizing people. For which he got hit. It's called self defense.

He did not "flash a picture" at a kid or his/her father. It was a coincidence the kid and his/her father were driving past and happened to see whatever it was.

If he had intentionally disturbed a child with a graphic photo, you might argue he was "asking for it".

[Sunray Breaker]

Funny that the same people fond of showing off these graphic images in public in front of children are the same type of people who lobby for censorship and boycott's of so called "offensive" material...

There's always the Doug Stanhope way of doing things. Take one of his flyers, go home and look up the phone number on the back. This is the ULTRA CONSERVATIVE ANGLE!!!Get drunk and make a crank phone call that goes a lil' something like this...

Caller: Hello? Is this the abortion dude?
Abortion dude: Yes
Caller: You should be ashamed of yourself sir, you are promoting the worst kind of child pornography I have ever seen. These poor children had no way of stopping you from filming them. You could have at least fashioned a little bikini on those fetuses, but you chose not to. Now there are prenatal necropheliacs masturbating to your disgusting handy work, you dirty son of a b*tch!!! I'll see you in hell!!!


I know it's abit crass, but I love the lude humor...Normally I'd apolgize for offending people. But you have as much right to be offended as I do to be a dyck

[casebro]

Not by any tortured use of the English language can this be called self defense.
But try turning it around:
I am guessing you are pro-choice, as am I.
Would you be happy that an anti-choice person feels antagonized by your position and tries to run you down, or simply punches you in the face?

Abortion doesn't concern me much. I'm an old white guy, with no daughters of child bearing age. So I'm not strongly pro. I do know a couple guys with stronger feelings, one is pro, because his teen aged daughter had one. One is anti, his wife needed one for medical reasons. Seems everybody has a personal agenda, eh?

That said, and to get back to your question, I am an in-your-face kind of guy. Every boy's vice principal in high school knew me. I do know first hand how people can react violently. Get in my face, and I'll defend myself. Saying something for shock value just might get you shocked right back. Exactly as happened in the OP.

So, it's worked out OK for me. I'm 5'17" and 1/7 ton. People don't get in my face often. And I did learn in high school that is is not worth getting in other's faces either. As we mature, our bones harden, and break instead of bend.

But, re: abortion instead of violence, anybody seen a poll of child-bearing aged women lately? I do know that several years ago, abortion was #9 on their list of political importance. It seems that it is a most important issue only of those to either end of the political spectrum. Another good argument for a third centrist party. Most of us are not that concerned.

PS: In relation to my above claim of the image used being of a police scene or autopsy:

DO NOT GOOGLE for <images abortions>.

I clean small animals that I have shot. I have no doubt that I could kill a person, with reason. But I don't watch gory movies, I just don't need gore like that. Which reaction was exactly the protester's point. Yeah, I probably would slap him if he was within arms reach.

[Ferguson]

The same way a pie in the face or words that invoke ire are considered assault, the protester was antagonizing people. For which he got hit. It's called self defense.

Wow, good to know that if you're offended by a protester, assault with a deadly weapon is "self defense." Since he "antagonized" you after all. :rolleyes:

P.S. I'm pro-choice but I'm also anti-murder, and these attempts to excuse Carrillo are frankly disturbing. It's not far from the "Tiller the Killer" rhetoric of the other side.

[Sunray Breaker]

P.S. I'm pro-choice but I'm also anti-murder, and these attempts to excuse Carrillo are frankly disturbing. It's not far from the "Tiller the Killer" rhetoric of the other side.

I agree...Two wrongs do not make a right...However two wrongs might make you a leftist and an extremely reckless one at that.

[ProbeX]

I have mixed feelings about abortions. Frankly the man's behavior in this case is disturbing, but disturbing things like this happening on the "other side" too.

What it amounts to is, within every impassioned cause you will have some fringe element that is putting their mental illness on public display. Ultimately their crazy actions may have little or nothing to do with the "cause" they appear to be backing.

[Safe-Keeper]

Isn't it having it both ways, though, to support abortions but to get angry at a picture of one?No. First of all, as casebro said, pro-life zealots are dishonest creeps. There's no way to know if the picture is of an aborted fetus, miscarriage, or crime victim, or if it's even a human child at all and not a lifelike prop.

Secondly, what gets at me is just as much the idea of doing this. Abortion debates often appear, in my eye, to be knowledge and judgement versus emotion - one side has the facts, the shades of grey, and the level-headedness. The other is a moralizing black-and-white flock of zealots who 'debate' by calling their opponents murderers, picketing clinics, showing graphic imagery, citing irrelevant Bible Scripture, making threats, and in general making themselves intolerable. Standing on the street with a huge picture of a dead baby/foetus is but one example.

I don't support the Iraq war, but do you see me standing in a public spot with a big picture of a dismembered Iraqi child? Of course not.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No. First of all, as casebro said, pro-life zealots are dishonest creeps. There's no way to know if the picture is of an aborted fetus, miscarriage, or crime victim, or if it's even a human child at all and not a lifelike prop.

Secondly, what gets at me is just as much the idea of doing this. Abortion debates often appear, in my eye, to be knowledge and judgement versus emotion - one side has the facts, the shades of grey, and the level-headedness. The other is a moralizing black-and-white flock of zealots who 'debate' by calling their opponents murderers, picketing clinics, showing graphic imagery, citing irrelevant Bible Scripture, making threats, and in general making themselves intolerable. Standing on the street with a huge picture of a dead baby/foetus is but one example.

I don't support the Iraq war, but do you see me standing in a public spot with a big picture of a dismembered Iraqi child? Of course not.

That's not true. There are various degrees of fervor even on the pro-life side. Folks who say they support abortion in certain cases but not others, make exceptions for this but not for that, folks who don't believe life starts at the moment of conception but believe it starts when the fetus is viable, etc. Neither are all protesters violent. Some behave very peaceably and civilly, some are all passive aggressive tactics and are only out to annoy and make life difficult for their targets and some are all bark and no bite and make threats they have no intent of actually following up on and do nothing besides yelling and screaming at their targets.

Your analogy with the Iraq War is a very good one but I still think one should acknowledge the consequences of one's views and not shrink or demand to be shielded from them. Provided the photo is accurate, of course.

[shemp]

So this is an argument for the televising of executions.

It's an argument for the televising of abortions. The show would be called "I'm a Fetus, Get Me Out of Here!"

[Checkmite]

What a yokel. I don't get people like this - the logic doesn't even make sense. Wasn't the whole point of putting a picture like that on a sign and waving around for people to see, getting an emotional response from people? If so, why is he so amazed that somebody had an emotional response?

[kerikiwi]

What a yokel. I don't get people like this - the logic doesn't even make sense. Wasn't the whole point of putting a picture like that on a sign and waving around for people to see, getting an emotional response from people? If so, why is he so amazed that somebody had an emotional response?

You think trying to run someone down can be described as 'an emotional response', and is therefore excusable?
How do you feel about a man who has an emotional response to something his wife does and attacks her?
A parent who has an emotional response to a child's behaviour and beats the child?
There is nothing illogical at all in thinking attacking people is bad.

[sylvan8798]

Isn't it having it both ways, though, to support abortions but to get angry at a picture of one?



I support the right of people to have sex, but I don't necessarily want my kids to see videos of it. To everything there is season...

[sylvan8798]

If the protester was displaying the photo I think he was, it has been proven to be a crime scene or autopsy photo of a dismembered baby.

He certainly was attempting to shock the public through his misrepresentation. He got a response. Would we have the discussion we are having here if, instead of being on the side of a road, he was in park, and flashed the same picture at a kid, and got punched in the nose by Dad? The protester was out of arms reach, Dad hit him with the tool at hand. No forethought. Just a response to an antagonistic action by the protester.

The same way a pie in the face or words that invoke ire are considered assault, the protester was antagonizing people. For which he got hit. It's called self defense.
I don't think responding to being antagonizing by trying to run over someone is "self defense". Against what? Being antagonized? Is that fatal now?

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm pro-choice but I'm also anti-murder…


That's a contradiction. That which you call buy the sanitized euphemism of “choice” is nothing less than the foulest of murder, perpetrated against the most innocent and defenseless of all human victims. To claim to be “pro-choice”, and at the same time “anti-murder” is a lie, plain and simple.

[quixotecoyote]

That's a contradiction. That which you call buy the sanitized euphemism of “choice” is nothing less than the foulest of murder, perpetrated against the most innocent and defenseless of all human victims. To claim to be “pro-choice”, and at the same time “anti-murder” is a lie, plain and simple.

Bob and I are usually on opposite sides of issues, but I just don't know how you can look at this gruesome image of a murdered sweet child and think that it deserved anything other than full and equal rights to any adult woman. Spoiler tags added for the squeamish.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1026149c0a71943660.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15718)

[Checkmite]

You think trying to run someone down can be described as 'an emotional response', and is therefore excusable?

I don't know where the "and is therefore excusable" part comes from, but I sure as hell wouldn't call it a "logical, calculated response".

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Abortion doesn't concern me much. I'm an old white guy, with no daughters of child bearing age. So I'm not strongly pro. I do know a couple guys with stronger feelings, one is pro, because his teen aged daughter had one. One is anti, his wife needed one for medical reasons. Seems everybody has a personal agenda, eh?

That said, and to get back to your question, I am an in-your-face kind of guy. Every boy's vice principal in high school knew me. I do know first hand how people can react violently. Get in my face, and I'll defend myself. Saying something for shock value just might get you shocked right back. Exactly as happened in the OP.

So, it's worked out OK for me. I'm 5'17" and 1/7 ton. People don't get in my face often. And I did learn in high school that is is not worth getting in other's faces either. As we mature, our bones harden, and break instead of bend.

...

I clean small animals that I have shot. I have no doubt that I could kill a person, with reason. But I don't watch gory movies, I just don't need gore like that. Which reaction was exactly the protester's point. Yeah, I probably would slap him if he was within arms reach.


Wait, so in a hypothetical scenario, you would attack a 73-year-old churchgoer who hadn't laid a finger on you and you would be the one pleading self defense?

"He got in my face!" and "he was asking for it!" is the excuse of bullies and doesn't fly past high school.

[casebro]

I don't what/if U.S. state some of you are in, but in California, verbal assault is considered assault. "Fighting words", "Inciting to violence", things like that. "It's the Co-o-ode of the West" is codified.

Had the driver thought about it, driven around the block, then come back and run the protester down, the it's premeditated. The driver is the assaulter. Had the driver instantly responded to an intentionally shocking photo, meant to provoke an emotional response, I'd say he is within his rights.

[Safe-Keeper]

Bob and I are usually on opposite sides of issues, but I just don't know how you can look at this gruesome image of a murdered sweet child and think that it deserved anything other than full and equal rights to any adult woman. Spoiler tags added for the squeamish.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1026149c0a71943660.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15718)

Good stuff.

[Nogbad]

Hard to say when I became aware of abortion. Probably the doctor telling my Mum that at 10 it was definitely too late....my Mum asking if she could have a second opinion.

[linusrichard]

I have to confess I don't understand some of the comments on this thread, from people I presume to be "pro-choice" (as I am).
A quick news search shows Canfield has a long history:
Still, it is an inappropriate thing for a child to see.
True, but how old was the child? Should someone carrying a graphic picture of a fetus be allowed to such material in the public where there are kids under the age of 10 that will see it? How is a parent supposed to shield their child when they are not EXPECTING to see that type of material in teh first place.

Should it be then that people be allowed to carry graphic photos of murder scenes as well, and have children see that?

Abortion as with sex, should be taught to children by those that the parents feel are qualified to teach it to them. NOT by someone who has an agenda.
Wait a minute. The whackadoodle with the sign may have been committing a crime. Wasn't there a restraining order against him? Did the SUV driver know who he was?

He was protesting, according to the cited article, "at a Planned Parenthood Clinic."

Where was the doctor he was ordered to stay away from?
Is there a photo of the Sign the protester used?
He certainly was attempting to shock the public through his misrepresentation. He got a response. Would we have the discussion we are having here if, instead of being on the side of a road, he was in park, and flashed the same picture at a kid, and got punched in the nose by Dad? The protester was out of arms reach, Dad hit him with the tool at hand. No forethought. Just a response to an antagonistic action by the protester.

The same way a pie in the face or words that invoke ire are considered assault, the protester was antagonizing people. For which he got hit. It's called self defense.

Even if I agree with some or most of these sentiments, I don't understand the significance of them unless it's an attempt to excuse, justify, or mitigate what appears to me to be either attempted murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon. Shouldn't that be the focus? Whatever the pro-lifer was doing, it wasn't anything that merits being attacked with an SUV? Right? Right?



Bob and I are usually on opposite sides of issues, but I just don't know how you can look at this gruesome image of a murdered sweet child and think that it deserved anything other than full and equal rights to any adult woman. Spoiler tags added for the squeamish.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1026149c0a71943660.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15718)

Beautiful.

[Checkmite]

Bob and I are usually on opposite sides of issues, but I just don't know how you can look at this gruesome image of a murdered sweet child and think that it deserved anything other than full and equal rights to any adult woman. Spoiler tags added for the squeamish.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1026149c0a71943660.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15718)

He has his mother's mitochondria!

....had.

Evil, murdering bastards.

[Questioninggeller]

I have to confess I don't understand some of the comments on this thread, from people I presume to be "pro-choice" (as I am).

Even if I agree with some or most of these sentiments, I don't understand the significance of them unless it's an attempt to excuse, justify, or mitigate what appears to me to be either attempted murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon. Shouldn't that be the focus? Whatever the pro-lifer was doing, it wasn't anything that merits being attacked with an SUV? Right? Right?


Everyone in this thread thinks assault is wrong. Regarding my comment that you highlighted ("A quick news search shows Canfield has a long history") was to show what else the protestor has been in the news for and seeing how he was "ordered to back off" by a judge there may be more to this story.

For the record, putting up a disgusting picture in a public setting to provoke people to react may have adverse consequences. This is not a justification for any crime, it is a simple fact.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I have to confess I don't understand some of the comments on this thread, from people I presume to be "pro-choice" (as I am).


Even if I agree with some or most of these sentiments, I don't understand the significance of them unless it's an attempt to excuse, justify, or mitigate what appears to me to be either attempted murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon. Shouldn't that be the focus? Whatever the pro-lifer was doing, it wasn't anything that merits being attacked with an SUV? Right? Right?




You're absolutely right. Ramming a 73-year-old man with an SUV while your child is in the car makes you the crazy one.

[Cavemonster]

You're absolutely right. Ramming a 73-year-old man with an SUV while your child is in the car makes you the crazy one.
There's no reason they can't both be the crazy ones.

[casebro]

For the record, putting up a disgusting picture in a public setting to provoke people to react may have adverse consequences. This is not a justification for any crime, it is a simple fact.

Lessee, jumping and scaring somebody to "provoke people to react " might result in somebody falling through a plate glass window. Sort of like the right to free speech does not extend to yelling fire in a crowded auditorium. Sneaking up and scaring somebody with a "BOO!" just might get you punched in the nose. No crime. The instant reaction to protect a child from an evident slaughter is no crime either.

[Questioninggeller]

Lessee, jumping and scaring somebody to "provoke people to react " might result in somebody falling through a plate glass window. Sort of like the right to free speech does not extend to yelling fire in a crowded auditorium. Sneaking up and scaring somebody with a "BOO!" just might get you punched in the nose. No crime. The instant reaction to protect a child from an evident slaughter is no crime either.

What's your point?

Do you think he's trying to get a reaction out of people with the image of an aborted fetus? If not, then why does he have it?

[kerikiwi]

The instant reaction to protect a child from an evident slaughter is no crime either.

Do I understand you to be saying that attempting to run someone down in the circumstances described is acceptable?
How is that protecting a child from 'an evident slaughter'?
Leaving would not be a reasonable choice?
I am disgusted by the people here who are making excuses for a violent act.

[leftysergeant]

I would be interested to know three things.

1. Did the driver know whoi the thug with the sign was?
2. Was the doctor who had a protection order against the thug in the area, thus putting the thug in violation of the order?
3. Had the thug harrassed the driver or any of his family members or friends before?

If the answer to any of therse is "yes," I would say that the thug brought it on himsaelf.

We just recently experienced one of these nutcases going terrorist, and it is a natural reaction for a real patriot to want terrorists to live in nut-numbing fear of reprisals.

The greater public good is clearly served by giving the old nutjob reason to think he might be putting himself in harm's way, and that nobody cares if he is old, if he is still malicious.

If the driver knew who Canfield was at the time, I say good on him.

[quixotecoyote]

If the driver knew who Canfield was at the time, I say good on him.

Sorry, not enough justification for trying to kill him.

Also, please don't try to find out who I am.

[Whiplash]

Unbelievable Sarge.. that's like a sad parody or something.

[leftysergeant]

I do not, from what I have read, get the imnpression that the driver was out to kill the old twit. Probably just wanted to chase him away before he got the idea that it was still safe to harrass people, now that we know what violence the forced pregnancy advocates can do.

[Nogbad]

Reading the story both individuals sound flaky. One suspects that if he had wanted to mow him down he would have hit him.

Handbags at 20 paces?