While I probably share your views, I actually do think you need to change your mind on your terminology.
Terrorism is all of these elements
1- violence or the threat of violence
2- by a non-state actor
3- against non-combatant targets
4- with a religious or ideological motivation
5- in an attempt to influence a third party audience
And while you can make a pretty good argument for parts 1-4, the fifth criterion is where it falls flat. Abortion doctors don’t kill a baby so that other people will be scared into complying, they kill a baby for the personal wishes of the mother. Basically, if the goal of the violence is the death of the recipient of the violence, you dont have terrorism. You only get terrorism if the goal of the violence is that you create a big terrifying violent news story.
it's difficult with PP but easier with the activist groups that support PP.
4 on the religious front there are a few groups, mostly supremacy from white to islamist. And of course, there's the radical groups.. a lot of conservatives have begun embracing radical feminists because of their stance on transgender but seem to be oblivious to their rhetoric in wanting to abort the majority ofo male babies to create a feminist dystopia.
see 4, see the democratic voters. (the third parties are more scattered, even those that promote choice have waivered in the last few years debating how far along, the revolving door, the decreased of push towards prevention in the last two decades, and the promotion of PP as a women's health clinic.. which has had detrimental affect on actual health clinics by way of public funding and private donations when they move into an area.. and by PP's donations to candidates in the areas they're setup which rarely sides with local voters aka lobbyist organization, like many lobbyists organizations masquerading as community organizations - slightly off topic, there was a radical takeover of lgbt, ethnic and other minority organizations by leftwing, soon catering to celebrities and politicians as the services became more limited despite the donations overflowing... even politicians acting against their interests, all one party.
on topic, it's where we have even more pro-life secular activists and pro-choice but anti-pp groups now... for related reasons.)
‘Third parties’ in this discussion does not refer to political parties. It refers to people other than the perpetrator of the violence and the victim of violence.
While I probably share your views, I actually do think you need to change your mind on your terminology.
Terrorism is all of these elements
1- violence or the threat of violence
2- by a non-state actor
3- against non-combatant targets
4- with a religious or ideological motivation
5- in an attempt to influence a third party audience
And while you can make a pretty good argument for parts 1-4, the fifth criterion is where it falls flat. Abortion doctors don’t kill a baby so that other people will be scared into complying, they kill a baby for the personal wishes of the mother. Basically, if the goal of the violence is the death of the recipient of the violence, you dont have terrorism. You only get terrorism if the goal of the violence is that you create a big terrifying violent news story.
it's difficult with PP but easier with the activist groups that support PP.
4 on the religious front there are a few groups, mostly supremacy from white to islamist. And of course, there's the radical groups.. a lot of conservatives have begun embracing radical feminists because of their stance on transgender but seem to be oblivious to their rhetoric in wanting to abort the majority ofo male babies to create a feminist dystopia.
on topic, it's where we have even more pro-life secular activists and pro-choice but anti-pp groups now... for related reasons.)
‘Third parties’ in this discussion does not refer to political parties. It refers to people other than the perpetrator of the violence and the victim of violence.