The Rush worshipers are on the other side of the posters and signs doing the stabbing.

Yep, I was referring to the anti-abortion protestor, Tolherst. You just know this dunce has deluded Walter-Mitty-like feelings of greatness that are not warranted and extremely infantile, as well. Of course, he is going to be the last person to see this, (kind of like his probable hero, Rush Limbaugh). His old lady must count her lucky stars every time this batty bag of Medieval bluster gets off his moldy sack and leaves the house.

The subject of abortion is tired and only attracts the extreme people in the U.S. Most of the anti-abortionists are white males, and you would think they would have other things to do, like look for a job, or try to invent something, instead of spending time at clinics, whether abortion or PP.

I'm almost of the opinion that abortion clinics and PP buildings should be barricaded from the public.

GOP and their catholic goons are dangerously getting closer to being terrorists.

sdc clark

I love Rush. Not really a "Hair Band" but their tunes, lyrics and Geddy Lee, WOW. Brings back good memories

larry-5534379

I only wish abortion had been an option when all of the leftist supporters of abortion were born.

Hahhhahhahhahahahha *breath* hahhahahhahhahha

haahhaaha

Phew, that was a good one.

*rolls eyes*

Larry...is there any other reason for your post than to be ugly and hateful towards people you don't agree with? Do you feel that kind of statement is a positive representation of an American society that you want to live in? You do realize that people like you are the problem, right?

More religious terrorism in the good ol' USA.

WHY are these fanatics allowed to bully and harass women as they walk into a medical building?

If this was race related, or people screaming and picketing churches or places of worship, this altercation would have never happened because they would not have been allowed to sit there and scream, yell and belittle in the first place.

This country needs to stop allowing itself to be terrorized by religious extremists and bullies.

Tolherst should not be out there shouting obscenities or being aggressive in any way. I believe all protests should be peaceful.

All of the hundreds of protesters I have personally known, are all the type of people you would love to sit down and have dinner or a beer with - Kind, thoughtful, compassionate, and forgiving folks. If I myself were at a protest with the likes of Tolherst, I would not hesitate to firmly reprimand him !

This specific incident does not change two facts:

1) In this great free land, you still have freedom of speech (peaceful - of course) and:

2) Somewhere in the distant future, people will look back at this era (error) and say, "Wow, how could people back then be so blind. First, for many, many years they subjected millions of people to a cruel existance known as slavery and most people condoned it, or at least tolerated it. Then, later, after they abolished slavery, they convinced themselves they had learned their lesson, only to commit another atrocity - the killing of babies (millions). Each time - a huge group of helpless and innocent individuals were the recipients of great violence - both, to their human dignity and their very lives.

One day, humanity will look back and see the truth of the evil.

One day, humanity will respect the dignity of life in all it's stages, conditions, races.

From your comments I see we have a long way to go.

God bless and peace to all.

There is a lot of wrong going on here:

First, maybe if dad had taught his daughter some respect, she would not have touched a sign that did not belong to her, and she did not have any business touching.

Second, The other guy still should not have pushed the girl. Call the cops if you feel strongly, but don't touch her.

Third, the father should have taken the advice above, and called the cops too. Instead, he acted like an idiot, and got stabbed for it.

Lastly, it is hard to judge the stabbing as it may have been self-defense.

In any case, it seems like we had three idiots, ALL acting badly.

I agree with Sally--the subject of abortion only attracts extremists.

And Janine1645002, you sound like the stereotype, so live with it.

I sound like a white man? If you say so..That would amaze my husband..

hhahahaha.

I agree that abortion is a controversial subject that attracts emotions on both sides. This person was peacefully protesting before she started the incident by knocking down his signs.

I support the principal of protesting that which you believe in. I supported the OWS protests last year, although I didn't support their supposed causes. Until they got violent and started damaging public and private property, and preventing others from going about their normal day.

She shouldn't have knocked down his signs. He shouldn't have pushed her. But those two minor incidents escalated into her father being stabbed and in the hospital.

The problem with these protesters is that the Police follow the first amendment - free speech- and say they have the right to be there, which is true. BUT, many PP offices have restraining orders that keep the nuts 1000 feet from the entrance. But Tolhurst was know to be a trouble maker and the cops could have and should have removed him because of that (not because his opinion differs from mine, as I am pro-choice, not anti-choice).

You (religious zealot) push my daughter (that is assault) - then have to deal with me (daddy).

Sounds right to me.

But I'm sure you "pro lifers" would have preferred that she pull her .45 and stand her ground and blow that sucker away. Obvious self defense.

As far as us progressives and abortion ... MY parents wanted me.

i absolutely love this

larry-5534379 Comment collapsed by the community

I only wish abortion had been an option when all of the leftist supporters of abortion were born.

what larry is actually saying is that he is a supporter of abortion and wishes that he too had been aborted.

aside from that though is the irony of a pro-life demonstrator attending a demonstration prepared to use deadly force. if they are really believing in their movement which even denies the abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, they must deny the use of self defense when it comes to using deadly force.

You (religious zealot) push my daughter (that is assault) - then have to deal with me (daddy).

Sounds right to me.

But I'm sure you "pro lifers" would have preferred that she pull her .45 and stand her ground and blow that sucker away. Obvious self defense.

As far as us progressives and abortion ... MY parents wanted me.

I sound like a white man? If you say so..That would amaze my husband..

No, you sound like a white woman who has accepted and embraced misogyny and a patriarchal society and existence, and have formed your opinions based on what your husband and your male pastor have told you is acceptable.

She kicked his sign. He pushed her. He physically put his hands on her. That is a bit overboard for her having kicked his precious piece of cardboard. Violence always escalates. It begins with verbal harrassment, and escalates to physical violence. This guy had been verbally harrassing women and employees of the clinic for months. He followed the predictable path; he escalated to physical violence by pushing a patient. When her father came to her defense, he escalated his aggressive tendencies even further by stabbing someone.

Dude was an assault waiting to happen. His right to free speech does not extrapolate into the right to physical violence. Nor does his right to free speech entitle him to interfere with women getting the health care they need.

This young woman had no business starting trouble and when things got rough she goes home and cries to daddy and then daddy goes down and starts beating the man.

He put his hands on her. And had he not been attempting to interfere with women getting health care, there would have been no trouble what so ever. Get a grip.

Limbaugh is a bloated heroin and oxycoton junkie who's best contribution to society will be smothering to death under his own blubbery bulk.

I absolutely love the people comparing a women's heath center to a restaurant.

But, I also must agree that he had the right to be there and she shouldn't have kicked his sign. I would like to know the kinds of things he would yell and, specifically, did he say anything to her before she kicked his sign?

ROOSTERBOY:

You seem to be fixated on Rush Limbaugh and blame him for all the worlds problems. Do you think he might be the one who got my 83 year old Aunt pregnant last year?

Indigo Rage:

You are correctly named... RAGE seems to be your forte. Hell... you are a nut case!..Worse than this guy who stabs people who don't agree on his politics or beliefs. Get a life,, AFTER you go through rehab.

Apparently according to the wisdom from a certain Indiana Senator released today, God intended the father to be stabbed with a knife.

How do we know that she didn't just trip over his sign when he was trying to impose his opinion on her healthcare choices? People act as if he was peacefully protesting when it was noted that he was yelling at people walking into the business. Doesn't that seem like someone who was purposely get into your way to cause a stir?

Anybody protesting for anything outside of a place for months, no matter what side of the fence they are on, has serious issues.

If you are assaulted, like the daughter says she was, call the police.

Have heard Rush Limbaugh for years, I am sure he does discuss it, but I have never heard him get into abortion and I am not even sure what his opinion is on the subject. I don't find him hateful, actually the opposite, he really enjoys life. I find him interesting, unlike Hannity who I find to be a parrot, and he promotes intellectual thought.

And when did Reaper Jones care how people are talked to? Care to read some of your own comments.

How do we know she did not grab the sign and hit the guy with it.

Well the girls dad got what he deserved for going beyond a push as his daughter recieved. The article doesn't mention the size of the protester vs the father of the girl, and being the father was able to pin him and start beating his face then I would say the protester at that point fought for his life. Prehaps the father has learned his lesson and will just call the police if something like that ever happens to his daughter again.

The protester has reportedly been screaming and cussing at people as they walk by or into the clinic. That's disturbing the peace, which is not protected under the First Amendment. If anyone screams and cusses at me like that, I assume he intends to follow it with violence, and I take appropriate self-defensive actions against him.

Also, when you consider this particular protester had a knife on him, that he committed physical violence against the girl first, then stabbed her dad when her dad lay into him, he was obviously just there to pick fights with people. And, this is precisely the mentality behind most of these people who protest against personal freedom. They harbor a general hatred of people, which is why they hate people having such freedom in the first place.

You (religious zealot) push my daughter (that is assault) - then have to deal with me (daddy).

Sounds right to me.

Well, when your daughter starts the violence (assault), and you return to continue it (sociopathic behavior), you need to be aware that it's likely to end very badly.

"No arrests have been made over the incident

Punches thrown and someone was stabbed 7 times and no arrest? W. T. F.????

I've seen people arrested for shoving people in a bar - thus, I'm pretty sure that sticking your knife in someone classifies as assault & battery. If the stabbing was an attempt at self-defense then you have assault and battery on the other side (7 stab wounds seems to go beyond self defense though). ANYWAY, someone or multiple someones should have been arrested here. I'd like to know why the reported didn't ask local law enforcement for comment (if they did and didn't get a response at least that needs to be stated).

Punches thrown and someone was stabbed 7 times and no arrest? W. T. F.????

Well...no arrests YET. It just happened yesterday. They probably are trying to figure out who needs to be charged with what.

He put his hands on her. And had he not been attempting to interfere with women getting health care, there would have been no trouble what so ever. Get a grip.

Did he push her for no reason? She kicked his signs first. She was destroying his signs. She provoked him first. She started the trouble from the start. If she would have minded her own business there would not have been any trouble. I think you need to get a grip.

If a woman was keying your car would you just stand there and let her do it? I think not.

Good to know that protesters at PP carry knives. The women going to PP for health care should carry guns.

Sorry but although I disagree with protesters at clinics, he had as much right to defend himself as Zimmerman did once her dad starting beating on him. Assault is assault. Call the police and let them handle it.

You know what? We do all have the right to free speech. We also have the right to choose...at least right now. If Lyin Mitt gets elected, ladies, we are in deep trouble. I have had it with all this crap. Live and freakin let live. If you don't agree with what I believe...ok, but leave it alone. These protesters at Planned Parenthood are as bad as THE WESTBORO BAPTISTS...and sadly, I am starting to think some of these stupid republicans are of the same mindset as the Westboro and their ilk. It is 2012.

Obama 2012

Ole-Ed

Indigo Rage:

You are correctly named... RAGE seems to be your forte. Hell... you are a nut case!..Worse than this guy who stabs people who don't agree on his politics or beliefs. Get a life,, AFTER you go through rehab.

I know, I'm terrible for spreading the truth around. But don't take my word for it, take Rush's word for it: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-10-10/entertainment/rush.limbaugh_1_wilma-cline-rush-limbaugh-inaccuracies-and-distortions?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

And "Ole" seems a suiting moniker for you as well - and since you so kindly led with a personal attack, here is my defense:

"Ole" As in "Good Ole Boy, just dismounted m'sister, fixin-ta head on down to th' fishin' hole, drink me a few beers and put some ice on the red bumpies sh' give me."

See, isn't it fun to provoke people?

Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that the person who got stabbed was beating the hell out of the person who stabbed him.

Disagreeing with someone's opinions is fine. Protesting is legal (if he was disturbing the peace, call the cops). If the woman was assaulted (she claims he pushed her) she should go to the cops. Taking the law into your own hands and laying a beat down on someone is not acceptable in this society.

Women have found their race card in misogyny. Disagree with abortion, you are a misogynist. They cannot possibly think it has anything to do with killing a child, no, its all about the woman. Live and let live right, well then let the child live otherwise you're not following your own advice. She attacked his property, he shoved her away, she got daddy to beat him up, and the crazy old man got stabbed for it. Seems like it was stupid on both ends, but the family definitely were the aggressors. (Although, the guy should never have pushed the girl). Im fine with planned parenthood, and I have voted for abortion rights before, but until women see it beyond a woman's issue, and cast all anti-abortionists as misogynists, Ill continue to slid more to the pro-life side.

While it is agreed that this man has a "right" to protest Planned Parenthood, here's something else to think about: People have a "right" to go into a MEDICAL FACILITY for MEDICAL TREATMENT WITHOUT BEING HARASSED! Besides, unless it's been edited out since I read it, the article I read above specifically states that this particular PP does not perform abortions. So this "protester" is basically there to HARASS women that are going in for REGULAR HEALTHCARE (men too...I have personally seen men go to PP for healthcare for themselves). I'm not sure it's just people going into PP that he's been approaching either:

Local resident Charlotte Cook said Tolhurst accosted people coming and going through the area.

"It was an accident looking for a place to happen," she told the AP.

Cherie Adams told the news agency that the protester would shout obscenities at her when she passed by him, which has led her to change her route to work.

“He's been out there for months," she told the AP.

"He's screaming at people. I had a feeling something like this would happen,” the AP quoted her as saying.

This is not protesting peacefully and this "protester" has no "right" to behave this way toward others. It is HARASSMENT; therefore, he should have been arrested or at least banned from the property long before this incident occurred. By the way, it doesn't say where the signs this woman knocked down were located, but if there are signs placed by some "protester" blocking my "right" to enter an establishment, I would exercise my "right" to do whatever necessary to remove the obstacle. Also, this "protester" made physical contact first (a man pushed a woman, because she knocked over his signs... waa waa...a real MANLY thing to do...NOT)! He should have been arrested for assault the minute he touched her. If he didn't like her knocking his signs over, he should have contacted the police. I'm guessing that he didn't because he knew that the police probably would have sided with HER, since he was instigating the situation by HARASSING people (there were witnesses to prove it). Furthermore, if it was my daughter, I can't say that I would have reacted any differently than this girls father did. At the very least, I would have had this POS "protester" thrown in jail.

Did he push her for no reason? She kicked his signs first. She was destroying his signs. She provoked him first. She started the trouble from the start. If she would have minded her own business there would not have been any trouble. I think you need to get a grip.

Whilst I agree she should not have kicked his signs, and should instead have reported him for harassment, I find what you said (bolded) funny since he was the one shouting obscenities at women (and who knows, maybe men too) who were simply trying to access the building for medical care. He was obviously NOT minding HIS own business.

Well, joemike404, at least you know you're incapable of meaningful thought. First step towards recovery.

We don't need this kind of craziness anywhere in this country......especially in the White House. Romney has already promised to "do away" with Planned Parenthood........we have been warned ladies.

Unfortunately it was the pro-choice person that caused the trouble this time. She kicked the anti-choice signs and brought her daddy back to finish the trouble she started. This isn't about the pro-choice/anti-choice argument. Its about someone on the correct side of the argument doing the wrong thing.

jormike,

what exactly is so idiot about my statement? Again, anyone who cannot get pregnant should stay off this vine.

Adkins, Flake, Walsh, Murduch fans should stick to the conservative sites. They support the rape of consevative women,

Hal - I reluctantly have to agree with you.

So....the lib kicked over signs that belonged to the apparently legally protesting right-winger....the right-winger pushes her, she goes home and says "daddy, the bad right-winger pushed me", daddy comes back and starts beating the right-winger, who then defends himself.

And this makes the right-winger the bad guy.............?

Right-winger may be an a**, but you guys are ignoring the savage behavior of daddy and daughter. Typical for libs though.

Voice: "savage behavior of daddy & daughter" the article said that the protester (Tolhurst) STABBED the daddy 7 times and daddy is hospitalized with serious injuries. The article also pointed out that the P.P. clinic did NOT do abortions. Why was Tolhurst protesting something that was not happening and why did he pull out a weapon? I think Tolhurst represents the "anti-choice" crowd quite accurately.......

Keep telling yourself that

Exactly Hal. She started the confrontation. Regardless of what side of the abortion issue you are on SHE started it.

Right, she made the lunatics show up and scream at her...

SHE was the one who pushed his signs over. Up until then, nothing had been said to her, according to the report.

He has a right to be there. It's public space.

If she felt threatened by him she should have called the cops.

Tolhurst obviously needs to carry a weapon to protect himself since he knows he is intentionally trying to incite violence of some sort from the people who go to the clinic by shouting obscenities at them.

Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't had his ass kicked before now, or maybe he has and he needs to carry a weapon because he is afraid.

So let me get this straight .... pushing over signs justifies assaulting someone??? How about just picking up your freakin' signs. Add pushing a girl over pushing over signs??

Gimme a break ... how about that ol' eye for an eye thing??? So push over one of her signs - she doesn't have one - let it go big guy.

WTF. A pro-lifer protesting abortion as murder stabs a man and puts him in the hospital with serious injuries? What about the sanctity of life again?

See, that is the irony of the pro-life position. They are perfectly willing to kill or to maim to protect a non-viable mass of cells; a potential. Bunch of freaking hypocrtical nut jobs.

The fact that this protestor found it perfectly reasonable to PUSH a WOMAN because she kicked his precious piece of cardboard shows what kind of irrational, abusive, sexist pig he is.

I am from Portland, Oregon, grass pants as some of us call it is quite a ways away.. What's messed up is this ass is protesting pap smears, breast examines, and birthcontrol.

The protesters are VILE here in Oregon at our planned parenthoods.. Typically they take no issue in touching a person walking in to a clinic or hitting them with their signs.

My cousin was 5 months pregnant and the baby had died, the doctor had sent to her to pph to have a late term abortion because basically the baby was decomposing inside of her and causing a massive infection. The protesters swooped in and started to attack her mentally and physically. She was such a wreck from finding out the baby was dead that she had no clue what to do.

Yes, "Voice" the guy who resorts to violence because he got his widdle signs knocked over AND BROUGHT A FREAKING KNIFE IN AN OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO CONTINUE THE VIOLENCE was wrong. HE WANTED VIOLENCE AND HE GOT VIOLENCE. and you know what's funny? You know what's really freaking funny? HE DID IT BECAUSE HE THINKS ABORTION IS MURDER. Seriously. He knifed someone because he thinks abortion is murder. But apparently murder isn't murder to him.

Did anyone read the article? The protestor only stabbed the man because he was being assaulted. Nobody has the right to assault someone else and someone who is being assaulted has the right to defend themselves.

I agree that the protestor is an idiot and his views on women's reproductive rights are archaic, but you don't get to assault someone because you disagree with them. If that were the case, newsvine would be a lot more violent place.

De2Or2010,

Your idiotic comment is the exact reason I have started to become more pro-life. I am libertarian, and use to be staunchly pro-choice, but when I see dumb women like you try to make it only about a woman and say men should have no say in what happens to their possible child, I realize the crazy self centered ones are on the pro-choice side. At least pro-life favors lives of others, pro-choice favor making themselves happy and dont want to be bothered with that lumb of cells we call a baby in their womb.

MrBurns- I am pro-choice for many reason.. Too many times have I seen a man promise to be there when the child was born and never was seen or heard of again after the first cry.. My oldest is 17 y/o and baby daddy promised to pay for her and be apart of her life even though we weren't together when I found out I was pregnant. Well 96 dollars a month was too much to pay for the last 17 years and he has 9 children and hasn't been there for a single day of their lives.

I think all parents should come to an agreement on what to do with a pregnancy, however, sometimes daddy isn't there or doesn't want to be there. It's a mess and the decision overall has to be done by the woman. I leave the choice up to the woman, it's not my moral decision and it's not my right to pass judgement.

My husband and I had to make that decision a couple years ago, my baby had no formed head and I was miscarrying, we had to decide whether or not to continue to carry. My heart told me to go ahead and allow my body to handle it naturally vs. my husband didn't want me or the baby to suffer anymore than we were. Last miscarriage I had, I had almost bled to death and the miscarriage was a two month process with infections and other major life changing things.

Yes in reality it's the woman's choice, I feel that if a man is apart of the women's life that he wants this child and is willing to help raise it, atleast the woman can do is listen to what he has to say just to give him a say in the shared fetus.

This article states that the grown ass man pushed the little girl for touching his signs. I think it will come out that he had shoved the signs in her face as she was walking in to the clinic.. VERY COMMON practice here in Oregon for protestors to try and block you from entering the building with signs and objects. I have had to push signs out of my face going in to a PPH to get a birth-control shots. Is it right for them to put the sign in my face, me pushing the persons sign out of my face and then them pushing me to the ground? No, trust me I would probably bring someone with me out of fear of these protestors and what they are capable of doing. Was it right for daddy to beat the hell out of this guy for pushing his daughter down, probably but that is as extreme as these extremist.

Would you appreciate someone intimidating your minor child with this bull@!$%# and when she defends herself, she gets attacked by the person who instigated the fiasco? No, i don't think most the dads would encourage a grown ass man attacking a little girl over a sign. I know damn well my husband would kick this guys teeth in for pushing our 17 year old daughter, and if he didn't, I would.

But we don't think the guy sitting on top of him pounding him in the face was a thug? Interesting. Clearly if this guy had been at this clinic for months, he was not violating Oregon law and was therefore legally exercising his right to free speech. Was it misplaced (since the clinic didn't do abortions) and over the top, sure. That doesn't make it illegal. He wasn't arrested for the stabbing because he was defending himself from an attack. If the same circumstances occurred where the protester was opposed to wall street versus planned parenthood I would imagine the comments here would be much different. But because he was protesting something that you support he "deserves" to get beat up. Pathetic.

What was he protesting? Women's health? NOT AN ABORTION CLINIC!

Seems that protesting the very existence of women is okay in the GOP. If women let these crazies in the White House remember one thing when the war on women reaches epic levels......we have been warned over and over again.

Clearly if this guy had been at this clinic for months...

Doesn't this 54 year old moron have anything better to do with his life than harass women coming to Planned Parenthood ?

First Kathryn, nothing in the article states that the protester was a republican. Stop making stuff up.

Second Ancient, it doesn't really matter what he was protesting. A likely scenario however is that Oregon law protects abortion clinics with a safety perimeter. Since this clinic doesn't perform abortions, it would not be afforded that protection. Therefore he could protest abortions (planned parenthood does perform them, just not at this clinic) where he could get closer to the building.

shadow2000

He wasn't arrested because it is his right to protest. Yes the guy who got beat up was probably an ignorant, Christian extremist himself, but it was she who did the wrong thing. She and her father.

Let's get something straight here, harassing people by yelling threats at them and is not exercising your "free speech"...it is harassment.

What do you suppose the reaction would be if someone who hated cars and driving in general because their kid was killed by one, decided to yell at people going in and out of a DMV? They would likely be arrested for disturbing the peace or being a public nuisance. Why is ok to do the same thing at PP?

HAL the Guy got beat up because he PUSHED and apparently CUT the daughter of the man he STABBED. She was treated and released for cuts on her hand.

Had he NOT assaulted the young woman an illegal act in itself the whole scene would not have escalated.

Apparently ONLY a fetus has a right to life.

If he wasn't a republican, he sure is crazy like one.

Joe,

Do you have info not in the story?

Because I can't find anywhere in the story that says he was sitting on the man, just that he knocked him down and punched him in the face numerous times. I even checked the related news organization links and found nothing that said he was sitting on him.

You chastise people on here for not reading the story properly then seemingly interjected info that can only be assumed from the story.

I say this because you say that the knifing was "proportional force" because the guys was sitting on him hitting him.

So I would like to read where that is please.

Because if that wasn't the case maybe the knifing wasn't proportional force. At least not 7 times.

Which then leads me to ponder the point that this man, I'll refer to him sarcastically as "tough guy",

pushed a woman for kicking his signs.

So was tough guy using proportional force in pushing a woman for kicking his signs?

It was simply a push I know but her actions made no physical contact with others so why did tough guy feel the need to physically contact another?

So tough guy, who just happened to have a knife with him while protesting abortion. (hmmm another true tough guy action) gets a beating from her weaponless father and stabs him 7 times as if once wouldn't do the job. 7 times....hmmm.

Proportional? Not sure I can agree with you there.

The womans "Weaponless" father attacked him w/o provocation. Many guys carry pocket knives. If someone comes up to you and attacks you and you had a knife would you use it? Of course you would. Is once enough? Depends on where you stabbed him. If you stabbed him in the arm or thigh, probably not. You want to get him down and off of you.

Did the attacker stop beating up on him with the first stab?

Whiney little girl called Daddy "He pushed me". Without telling him I'm sure that she started the incident. Now her father is hurt and it's HER fault.

Janine,

She started the incident by kicking poor tough guys signs.

Poor tough guy. He then had to show he was tougher than a woman and push her, but he holds no responsibility for this.

Cherie Adams told the news agency that the protester would shout obscenities at her when she passed by him, which has led her to change he route to work.

Tough guy could harrass and yell curses at women but hold no responsibility for inciting issues.

Depends on where you stabbed him. If you stabbed him in the arm or thigh, probably not

From the story above, arm and thigh had nothing to do with it.

Clair received seven stab wounds to the abdomen and neck,

They didn't say if it was a pocket knife or not, but if it was, how bad could the beating have been if he had time to get it out, open it and then stab the guys 7 times.

And believe it or not, if an unarmed guy comes at me, I'm gonna fight him in like style.

And as a father, if my daughter came to me and told me some tough guy laid hands on her, I would do the same.

He was a bully, he got beat and defended himself like a punk...with a knife.

He's all tough with women yelling, cursing and pushing, but when a man shows up he needs a weapon. Yeah he's worth defending.

it was she who did the wrong thing.

No, it was she that was entering a PP Clinic to recieve health care. She kicked a freaking piece of cardboard in relatiation for being harrassed in the process. He put his hands on her. He physically assaulted her when he pushed her for kicking his precious cardboard. He proved himself, at that point, to be nothing more than a cowardly, violent, abusive male who thinks he has the right, not only to interfere with a woman's right to health care, but to physically assault a woman over a piece of cardboard.

This is the mindset of these morons.

.

Janine, your comments are disgraceful. The article didn't say that she went home and asked her father to beat the protester up. She likely went home upset (and rightly so), and her father just reacted the way many fathers would. She could have been begging him not to for all you know.

And joemike, she didn't go into a frenzy knocking over a bunch of signs as you implied; she kicked over one sign.

For the both of you to defend a foaming-at-the-mouth ticking time bomb with your infantile "she started it" nonsense is really just offensive and disgusting.

culheath,

At it again. So I assume you are against OWS then too, since they blocked traffic, yelled at people, harrassed people they thought were rich, etc. Or does it only matter when a conservative does it.

MrBurns,

Harassment is harassment no matter who does it.

He wasn't carrying the knife with the intent of stabbing somebody. He didn't stab anyone until he was attacked and the attacker was sitting on top of him beating him in the face. Being pro-life also means you get to protect your own life.

joemike404 - when someone assaults your daughter I imagine you would just sit back and say - she deserved it right?

The protester thug is going to jail one way or another - you have the right to use proportional force, you don't knife a guy for pushing you back after you pushed her daughter.

This punk is going to be charged with some federal crimes and will do some time.

You and your kind make me sick.

Started the entire issue? Really?!? Only a right-wing Christian extremist would think that a woman who was trying to enter a womens clinic (where they DO NOT PERFORM ABORTIONS) and is yelled at and abused started it.

Do women have the right to health checkups and mammograms? According to the 'protester' and you the answer would be no.

Why don't you move to Pakistan - you and the Taliban share an awful lot more than you care to admit.

Your kind is no different from the Islamic thus who shot the young girl in the head who just wanted to go to school.

I don't expect you to see or understand the analogy which is part of the problem.

Once you lay your hands on someone who is not committing violence against you, you are committing battery, which is a crime in most states. Therefore, the lunatic protester should have been arrested. If someone lays hands on my daughter, they're going to get an aluminum baseball bat to the head.

Sounds like proportional force to me.

Considering he stabbed him several times, you have a weird sense of "proportional".

Mymom, Since the woman left the clinic and returned with daddy, the attack on the protester was not self-defense but rather a premeditated assault and battery.

Culheath, I promise if I was sitting on top of you pounding you in the face and you had a knife; you would stab me as many times as it took until I stopped punching you. By your way of thinking a cop who shoots someone with a knife is not using proportional force. Proportional means using enough force to stop the attack, not necessarily using the same level of force used by the attacker.

I bet if you started picketing churches yelling "God is a Fairy Tale" you would be beaten on day one.

Joemike, I didn't say it wasn't premeditated assault and battery, and if someone lays a hand on my daughter, I will commit premeditated assault and battery upon their person, as well. By the way, he was carrying a knife, wasn't he? Probably with a sizable blade, too, given the seriousness of the injuries inflicted. Wonder why, and is that legal?

That ranting old fart had no right to so much as put a finger on a wisp of her hair, and he pushed her. I could do the time, if convicted for my "crime" standing on my head and laughing every day, knowing that one less idiot like that jerk is on the streets. Plus, I'd get three hots and a cot, full medical care, and free cable TV. Meanwhile, he'd be in a wheelchair, on a ventilator, drooling and soiling himself for the rest of his life, if he's lucky.

Protester had a right to protest, not a right to push anyone.

If the girl was pushed, then she should have, or her parent should have called the police and filed a complaint.

Assault on anyone is unacceptable, regarless of ones views on the topic of abortion.

Katie, that's what cops are for. This isn't a group of ten year olds,,and one runs home to daddy "he pushed me".

These are supposedly adults. If she felt threatened she should called the cops.

Her father is in the hospital and it's HER FAULT entirely.

No, it is the fault of the wing nut that thought it was acceptable to yell curses and harrass women seeking health care, and to put his hands on a woman in a physcially violent manner.

Janine:

No. It isn't her fault. Not at all. Do you seriously think pushing over a SIGN justifies ASSAULT on the person who pushed over the sign? Really?! No! The guy was YELLING OBSCENITIES at women. He was VERBALLY ABUSING anyone who went into or came out of the clinic. She pushes over a sign, he physically harasses her, daddy comes and beats up the guy who laid hands on his daughter, then the stupid punk pulls a knife. It is one thing to have a fight with fists, quite another when a weapon is brought out. I bet the cops were called, but by the time they got there, this entire incident had already happened. Otherwise, there is no way the ambulance could have made it in time.

You are an idiot and nothing says I need to tolerate idiots...nor should any of us tolerate those who would seek to impose their religious zealotry on others. I am pro-abortion...not pro-choice....so should I be allowed to force women to abort wanted pregnancies? How about I force people like Redstate and JoeMikeBillybob to be castrated?

Religious fanatics don't know the difference between their rights and mine. That is exactly why they are so dangerous to the rest of us.

That story is staight out of the Taliban playbook..........keep you mouths shut women or you will bring destruction down on us all.........really Armis? The American Taliban is on the march and only women can stop them. At the ballot box.

Seriously? Why does an adult require another adult to fight their battles?

And Kathryn you're suggesting what? That you'll vote for Obama again and he will nullify free speech and make it illegal to protect yourself from being physically assaulted?

Your references to the American Taliban are about as offensive as me referring to you as a feminazi. So grow up and get over your anger at, you know, everyone that disagrees with you.

pawomam - really? A young woman who felt threatened and was abused by a young punk may not be big enough or strong enough to confront him so she goes home and tells her father.

Joemike - you still here? I thought you were heading to the morning mass at your local Catholic church to plan out your next attack on free women in the US.

If you can't see or understand the analogy between the Taliban and those of your ilk we really do need to improve the educational system in the US.

Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose. Stay out of my business and I will stay out of yours... live and let live... there are a bunch of other ways to say it but basically stay the f out of my business.

Because they have tiny, flaccid genitalia, and cannot impregnate a woman. They also hate women, and it shows.

Nancy, I'll try one time to provide a rational explanation to your question. Since the radical liberal to rational person ratio is about 10 to 1 this morning, no doubt my explanation will be collapsed by the "community", but I'll give it a shot.

The entire question of whether or not abortion should be legal revolves around the question of when society defines the beginning of life. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court made the assertion that it was not necessary to define the beginning of life because people have a fundamental right to privacy in making reproductive choices. While seemingly sound, their logic was flawed and has resulted in decades of entrenched, unmovable thinking on the part of both pro- and anti- abortion "forces".

Not even the most ardent pro-abortion adherent (and there are plenty here this morning to respond) believes that a mother has the right to kill her child after the child is born. Most would say that there is some point while the child is in utero that the right to abortion ceases. For example, even many pro-abortion folks would admit that 10 minutes before delivery, the clump of tissue in the woman's uterus is in fact a child.

Given that many pro-abortion people admit that at some point PRIOR to delivery, its a child; then the question becomes at what point does society bestow "personhood" on the fetus. Once we reach the point of societally determined and accepted personhood, then abortion becomes murder. So really, the only question of importance in Roe v. Wade was, in fact, the question of when society believes life begins.

Pro-life adherents believe that personhood is established at the moment of conception. Therefore they see no difference between aborting a one day old embryo and killing a six month old child. I know that many on this blog this morning disagree with that position and ascribe personhood at a much later point in the development of this new person.

That Nancy, is why men get to have a opinion about abortion. If I believe that personhood is established at conception then the "clump of tissue" referred to earlier is a separate life and worthy of societal protection. It is not the mother's life or body to do with as she pleases.

I know you will disagree, but I hope you and others will find the moral strength to disagree respectfully.

Because the men who place themselves there have some sort of idea that they know how women should live their lives.

These anti-choice people just don't seem to realize that women have been seeking birth control and, unfortunately, abortions since they figured out why their tummy was growing and what it meant. Before the discovery of good birth control it was the 'old woman who lived at the edge of town (usually called a witch), in later days it was the friendly family doctor or the rich girls simply 'went on vacation to Europe'.

Every civilization who has left written information has left remedies for birth control. Men never cared if the woman had too many children and died in childbirth. They just acquired a younger wife and kept on going. Proving just how 'manly' they were by the number of children they sired.

Abortion will never be a thing of the past until birth control is used by every woman. Even then there will be the need to protect the life of the mother. If outlawed again we will simply revert to the same old routines, poor girls will visit back alleys and the rich, well, same 'vacations'.

I'm 61 years old. I remember the days before Roe v Wade and before we had birth control pills. Unfortunately the younger generations don't or they would be more concerned with the direction the right-wing is trying to take us.

JoeMike - TEHRE WERE NO ABORTIONS PERFORMED AT THIS CLINIC. Are you so dense to see that the 'protester' who knifed the father of the daughter he was verbally and physically abusing was protesting against the womans right to have an exam? She wasn't getting an abortion.

You are a right-wing nut case who use a fairy-tale from 2000 years ago to suppress and abuse women.

Go back into your cave because you are an endangered species. Your thoughts and methods are centuries old and you belong in the history books with the Taliban for suppressing womens rights.

New world - Clearly rationality escapes you this morning. The article doesn't say that what he was protesting. I was responding to Nancy's question. You have no idea what my political or ethical believes are. Trying to understand and explain someone else's point of view doesn't necessarily mean that I agree or support that view. Understanding those who disagree with you leads to finding common ground and improving society. You should try it some time. Clearly my request that those who disagree with my statement above do so respectfully fell on deaf ears in your case.

Joemike
So if you believe that conception is 'the' moment I assume that you are fully in favor of readily avaliable birth control? So that 'the' moment doesn't happen unless it is wanted and intended? Correct? Because to be honest, no baby should ever be unwanted. Every pregnancy should be planned.

I ask because it seems that most on the personhood side of the debate are also against birth control being readily and easily available to any woman who wants it. In fact the clinic in this story would have, as one of their services, dispensed birth control or at least referred the woman to a doctor and helped pay of the exam and prescription.

As for myself I don't really consider it to be a 'baby' until the fetus has progressed far enough to actually be viable outside the mother's body but I can accept no late-term abortions as a limitation. To be honest, if you were a woman you would realize that conception is not the beginning of real life. Had you ever been pregnant you would probably realize that it's not until the second trimester at least that you actually feel pregnant.

I don't mind having a civilized conversation but most of the anti-choice people are so blinded that they refuse to even listen. And don't talk to us about how tolerant you gas are because you aren't. Tolerance is a give and take and people who are advocating 'personhood' are unwilling to even consider that their views are not the same as the rest of us and yet they insist on everyone adhering to their views. Sorry, that's not the way we do things in America.

JoeMike - please don't feign ignorance - you do it very well though.... if you did any research such as clicking the links to the original article you will find that the whack-job was protesting abortions and planned parenthood.

You and this protester are one in the same - American Taliban who want to keep women in the home with the windows painted shut, no school and absolutely no health care.

joemike404,

Good post. But here's how I disagree with your assertions:

The Roe vs Wade decision wasn't simply a matter of the question of regarding when "personhood rights" should be conferred on a fetus, but also dealt with the integrity of the "personhood rights" of individual carrying the fetus.

The decision was a compromise between these two conflicting rights. Before Roe vs Wade women were culturally seen as subordinate beings in many societal situations and in the case of pregnancy as mere vessels and not just vassals. The decision was part of an ongoing cultural evolution, including suffrage, which granted women's legitimacy to choice and self-determination and continues even to this day.

To my mind, the compromise was a practical and good one insofar as there really IS no perfect solution to the conflict of rights between fetus and mother any more than there is a correct world view or religion. The only plausible way of dealing with such collisions of existential purpose in a plurality based society is to make tolerance and choice the over-arching legal principle.

What is happening at the moment is a resurgence of one religiously inspired world view trying to assert its faith based premises as superior, which inherently demands the removal of choice and self determination for women and completely dismisses the idea of tolerance as a guiding principle. In that, it is flawed and should be resisted by women (and their male supporters) at all costs.

The Taliban comparison people are using is based on the idea of "enforced intolerance", something anti-pro-choice people fit to a tee.

dsb - Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The opposition to some forms of birth control is also based on the belief that life begins at conception. Depending on the method of birth control used, the fertilization of the ovum is not prevented, the birth control simply creates a uterine environment that prevents implantation of the fertilized ovum. Therefore, these methods don't prevent conception only implantation. Again, the decision of when we ascribe personhood is a personal one based on many factors, one of which might be our faith tradition and I have no problem with making various birth control methods available to women.

I agree with you that many, but not all, anti-choice people are intolerant and refuse to listen, but no more so than are pro-abortion people. I also agree that many people ascribing personhood at conception want others to adhere to their position and are unwilling to accept anything less. Understand though that if you believe that life begins at conception then the logical conclusion of that belief is that more than 4000 children are being murdered every day in the US through abortion. If that is what you believe, why would you accept anything less than that it stop? That is the state of this argument today. The pro-choice people will accept nothing less than completly free access to abortion and the pro-life people will accept nothing less than making all abortions illegal. We've been stuck here since 1973. At what point to we realize that the ultimate goal of both groups is exactly what you suggest. That all babies conceived and born are wanted and loved. If we accept that as our mutual goal then we can seek common ground. We can except that perhaps all abortions shouldn't be permitted, but some should and that unwanted pregnancies will occur. When they do we have a societal obligation to ensure that the child of that unwanted pregnancy finds a loving home or that if the mother decides to keep the child that there is support for that decision.

culheath, Great response, thanks. I'm not sure though that tolerance is a legal principle. The overarching legal principle applied to Roe v. Wade was privacy, not tolerance. I'm also not sure that anything is happening at the moment that hasn't been happening since 1973 regarding the abortion debate. Roe v. Wade was a legal compromise to be sure. I don't see though that it resulted in a shift in our national culture (related to abortion, not suffrage, etc.), hence 39 years of debate that hasn't move one inch.

I think perhaps the debate continues because "enforced tolerance" isn't necessarily any better than "enforced intolerance".

Roe v. Wade was essentially a non-decision. The supreme court recognized that the medical community could not agree and establish the point at which a fertilized egg becomes a person. The court agreed that if the professionals could not decide that it was not their duty to decide and left the decision to the individual. Men are only involved in this opinion when they want to force their religious views on others.

At some point it will become necessary to block personhood legislation as a violation of the 1st amendment. Until then...

Men are involved because they are a part of this society, and abortion is a societal issue.

Everyone on both sides agrees that women have a right to do as they please with their own bodies.

It's what happens to the other person's body, the body of the child that is at issue. This person has their own DNA, their own mind, heart, arms, legs.....body.

The question then is, do we have a right to kill another person?

What if that person is very young (or old)?

Do parents have the right to kill their children?

This is not about religion, this is about civil rights.

Science has already proven that the unborn child is a separate human being. Not all who are pro-choice are aware of this medical evidence, however all pro-abortionists are. The end for them is not killing an unborn child, but the ability to eliminate those whom they deem "the unwanted segments of our society" in general.

A just government protects the lives of it's citizens. This protection is afforded in America via the constitution and needs to be recognized for all people, not just the "wanted".

@JoeMike404. The question of personhood really comes down to a deeper question of what we as a society value most as being "human" or as being a "person". Philosophically speaking, an embryo, a zygote, and a fetus do not really fit what most others would call a person. It is personality, the experiences, influences and values that are developed over time using in part cognition. It is as far as we can tell scientifically not possible to experience anything or employ cognition prior to the development of a functioning cerebral cortex. This development happens in about the 20th week of a pregnancy. So the idea, at least scientifically and philosophically speaking, of becoming a "person" at the point of conception is not warranted nor supported by what we know of human development. Bluntly stated, abortion of a pregnancy before the cerebral cortex is formed is nothing more significant than uprooting a carrot.

@katie,

The question then is, do we have a right to kill another person?

A fertilized egg is clearly not an unborn child nor a separate human being. What gives you the authority to make an assumption that a fertilized egg is a person and grant constitutional protection to it? I think those who make this stretch are being disingenuous.

Human beings, as with any living organism are defined by their chromosomal make up. We have 46 chromosomes, half contributed by our father, half contributed by our mother. Each person has unique DNA. A "fertilized egg" is the first instant when that person exists, because he/she has a full compliment of human chromosomes that are unique. It's not real complicated. This person then continues to grow from this point until their natural death, unless it is interrupted, either by an accident, illness or termination of this person's existence. This is just science.

Katie,

That isn't science, it's poetry.

What makes a being a "human"? Certainly it isn't just body shape. What do you call the being born from a human but without any cerebral matter whatsoever? Do you call that human?

A human being is animal that has been culturally constructed via language and group interaction over a long period of time. The "feral child" concept where a human child is raised, say, by wolves will be more wolf than human even as a teen. A fetus has even less "human" qualities.

Please don't assume that science supports your concept of what is human as you described it, because it doesn't. The zygote is potentially a human just as an acorn is potentially an oak tree. There is a huge difference between an acorn and an oak tree...except perhaps poetically.

@katie,

Science is wonderful, however, we have made decisions in our society with regard to our tolerance for ending a life. In some states, laws allow a living adult human to be put to death and a few states allow physician-assisted suicides. There are no federal laws prohibiting or promoting physician-assisted suicides and the death penalty is allowed and governed by the constitution. The Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade is different in that it was petitioned by a citizen and stands as legal precedent on the issue. Which means that we, as a society, accept and allow the termination of a human fetus.

What I asked you was - what gives YOU the authority to override the supreme court ruling and grant constitutional rights to a fertilized egg?

During the final months of Terry Schivo's existence, was she a person even though her brain had atrophied to the size of a peanut? She looked like a person, but her personality and her soul were gone. Was that murder?

Bryan, you are conflating philosophy and science. You first state that an embryo, fetus, zygote are not persons from a philosophical perspective then state that they are not people from a scientific perspective. No one is ever a person from a scientific perspective, its not a scientific question. It is a human value question. An embryo is not a person from YOUR philosophical perspective. Your philosophical perspective is not universally held.

Thank you Joemike404, but I disagree. I do not see where I am conflating Philosophy and Science. I am rather using two separate disciplines to support my position. Again the question comes down to what we as a society most value as being a person. I contend that what we most value is personality (Philosophical argument) and that a personality cannot form without a developed and functional cerebral cortex which happens in or around the 20th week of a pregnancy (Scientific support for the Philosophical argument above). Now, I certainly understand that not everyone sees things the same way I do philosophically, however I believe before we can have a serious debate on where we draw the line on the beginning of personhood, we must first decide what it is that we consider (or most value) as "being a person". Again using science as our guide we can say that a fertilized egg is a collection of cells, even human cells, but so too are tumors. Do we afford those tumors the rights of personhood? We can say of both that they are a collection of human cells, are alive, and perhaps even that they are growing, but that does not necessarily make either one a person. Here I am calling upon science in an attempt use an objective, measurable, ~testable, repeatable, and falsifiable means of determining what may meet the necessary criteria for being a person. I have two examples that meet the same criteria, but some would call one a person and yet not the other (fertilized egg, and tumor respectively). If someone determines that personhood begins at fertilization, by what means they arrive at and support this position?

You CANNOT force women to carry something that they do not want. Pro-lifers claim to care so much about life but could care less about the lives that already exist! And I understand men may have their opinions on it but I honestly don't believe they can really argue it...they will NEVER have to deal with the situation at hand.

Pro-choice people do NOT try and force wanted pregnancies to be aborted, they respect the decision of WANTED children. So why do "pro-life"ers try to force women to carry an unwanted child? Not only is that inhumane for the woman but it is also forcing a child to the huge possibility of neglect and other dangers.

Many argue by saying, "Then put the child up for adoption!" Ok, so you want the child to be born then just tossed in some home where its already packed with kids that are not being adopted?

...and when I said "men" I meant to say men in politics trying to make laws and preach about what women can and cannot do or should and should not do with their bodies.

Actually, this country and the liberties afforded to it's citizens are as a result of religion and more importantly religious tolerance.

"Religious tolerance" had very noble beginnings, though these days it is nothing more than an oxymoron.

Undoubtedly, the United States government and the laws we adopt are far more tolerant than the citizens it protects. That's the way it should be... and laws like Roe v. Wade should stand.

Religious tolerance in the United States can be traced back to the colony of Maryland, where the catholic (woman) appointed to take care of Lord Baltimore's estate during a transition, decided to incorporate protestants, in order to create harmony within the colony. The founding father's referenced this in framing the constitution.

Gotta get to work! Enjoy my tax dollars today!

Hey Katie, you have the propensity to make the sound of knowledgeable person and then you ruin it with partisan rhetoric.

Violence is never the answer. Have you seen the video of the 500 pro-choice protesters who attacked a christian community in Buenos Aires recently? The pro-choice protesters were spray painting on the walls of the church, so members of that church, linked arms and stood as a human shield before their church. The protesters then assaulted them, spit on them, ripped their clothing form their bodies, spay-painted on them, wrote with markers on them, and shoved items in their mouths to try to get them to stop praying. The christians, stood arm in arm and prayed. Never lifted a finger to protect themselves. With the violence that was being committed on them, thank God no one was killed. This is the true face of the pro-choice movement left to it's own devices, as is attested to by the posts on this article.

Katie7,

Even if your story is true ( a link would be nice) is it possible that the situation is one of tit for tat?

Maybe the pro-choicers were pushed to that point? I'd like to know what precursed this event.

I highly doubt the pro-choice people suddenly went on a rampage against their Christian fellows out of the blue.

Maybe they were the Buenos Aires version of the Westmont Baptist Church?

If a gun had been present more than one person would have been killed or injured. A knife - while providing devastating injuries - can only impart its wrath in a close area. A knife wound does not fly down the street and injure scores of other people.

Thank goodness for these people they are still alive to tell the tale and learn lessons from this incident.

If that is in fact possible. This guy will probably be out next week protesting another clinic where NO Abortions are performed.

I wish someone at Planned Parenthood would consider a name change. Great organization - but the naming needs to be changed if they are ever going to escape being a target of the right wing lifers. Planned Parenthood provides healthcare for women - there has got to be a name to better describe this organization.

Doesn't matter what name they change it to... there will still be American Taliban who don't want women to get any healthcare.

Oh I totally agree with you New World. Just thinking it would eventually lighten the load and take some of the nastiness away. There are actually some people who would forget what they were named and view them as a medical facility instead of an abortion factory. Companies do this all the time - they change their names to win new market segments.

If a business predominantly assists women to help make sure they don't get cancer or other diseases - and only a does a small percentage of "parenthood planning" then it just doesn't make sense to keep the name Planned Parenthood.

Zeivah,

Do you think these things through all the way before you post? Planned Parenthood was named Planned Parenthood long before first trimester elective abortion was legal in this country. Planned Parenthood can be anything from the use of various types contraceptives to abstinence. Planned Parenthood can also involve maintaining ones reproductive health until the point in time that one does decide to conceive through routine medical exams.

Your dichotomous thinking has led to you to all kinds of errors in your conclusions.

I didn't see in the report - where you claim the entrance was being blocked.

You need to get the facts straight.

She wasn't there to get an abortion, Timothy, and the protester didn't get beat up for being pro-life; he got beat up for assaulting a man's daughter. I hope your little rant made you feel better, but it was irrelevant to the article.

I agree.