"...the court asked the attorneys to address the meaning of "property," which is the basis for determining extortion...Clayton said "property" means anything tangible or intangible that someone obtains from someone else...(&)...pro-life activists used violence to scare away clients seeking abortions and temporarily shut down clinics...several justices questioned if "property" can be loosely defined in cases where actual property was not seized...controlling something does not translate into obtaining it.."My clients don't have the property today," Englert said."
Property?
Just who does "My clients don't have the property today," best apply to?
Or, must we now assume that our lives are NOT "our property" - that they can be forfeit for economic or political purposes absent any criminal act or legal recourse?
I know for a fact that if I shoot a car thief as he tries to drive away in my car - I'm the one who will be prosecuted and not the thief. Protecting my property would not keep me out of jail or worse. Only in an entirely perverse system could the case of willful, often tax supported, often for-profit, abortion of life be decided by holding (intangible) property above life.
PS: And, I'm not even particularly anti-abortion in general terms (rape,incest, etc.) it's the details that make the issue so nearly impossible to resolve.
Unbelievably insightful and telling words. Your post nails it exactly.