Should We Publish Names And Addresses of Abortion Havers?

[Night Strike]

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

You're welcome to read my arguments above, in which I point out that I disagree with both. And that the Blaze simply posted both, via links. That you felt it a good idea because of a misplaced sense of revenge (did the people who read the paper post the gun-owners names? No) is remarkably poor. That you chose to republicise both that list and the list of people via the Blaze, smacks of hypocrisy.

Will you apologise for publicising this?

It's called reporting the news so people are aware of the actions others are taking to restrict Constitutional rights.

[Symmetry]

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

You're welcome to read my arguments above, in which I point out that I disagree with both. And that the Blaze simply posted both, via links. That you felt it a good idea because of a misplaced sense of revenge (did the people who read the paper post the gun-owners names? No) is remarkably poor. That you chose to republicise both that list and the list of people via the Blaze, smacks of hypocrisy.

Will you apologise for publicising this?

It's called reporting the news so people are aware of the actions others are taking to restrict Constitutional rights.

It's called publishing hypocrisy, and you sir, are guilty of it. You don't like it when liberals publish a list of gun owners, you like it when the Blaze does it, and you like it when the Blaze reports a bunch of subscribers to the paper that originally did it, and you're ok with doing it on this site.

[Night Strike]

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

You're welcome to read my arguments above, in which I point out that I disagree with both. And that the Blaze simply posted both, via links. That you felt it a good idea because of a misplaced sense of revenge (did the people who read the paper post the gun-owners names? No) is remarkably poor. That you chose to republicise both that list and the list of people via the Blaze, smacks of hypocrisy.

Will you apologise for publicising this?

It's called reporting the news so people are aware of the actions others are taking to restrict Constitutional rights.

It's called publishing hypocrisy, and you sir, are guilty of it. You don't like it when liberals publish a list of gun owners, you like it when the Blaze does it, and you like it when the Blaze reports a bunch of subscribers to the paper that originally did it, and you're ok with doing it on this site.

So everyone is now banned from posting news on CC because they become hypocritical by spreading knowledge of events they don't like or agree with?

[Symmetry]

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

You're welcome to read my arguments above, in which I point out that I disagree with both. And that the Blaze simply posted both, via links. That you felt it a good idea because of a misplaced sense of revenge (did the people who read the paper post the gun-owners names? No) is remarkably poor. That you chose to republicise both that list and the list of people via the Blaze, smacks of hypocrisy.

Will you apologise for publicising this?

It's called reporting the news so people are aware of the actions others are taking to restrict Constitutional rights.

It's called publishing hypocrisy, and you sir, are guilty of it. You don't like it when liberals publish a list of gun owners, you like it when the Blaze does it, and you like it when the Blaze reports a bunch of subscribers to the paper that originally did it, and you're ok with doing it on this site.

So everyone is now banned from posting news on CC because they become hypocritical by spreading knowledge of events they don't like or agree with?

I doubt it NS, but perhaps you can take a couple of breaths and respond in a less hysterical fashion. I'd also object to considering the Blaze as News, but then I don't consider Glenn Beck a source of news, much less his site.

[Symmetry]

Are we both now posting in the wrong thread?

[Night Strike]

I doubt it NS, but perhaps you can take a couple of breaths and respond in a less hysterical fashion. I'd also object to considering the Blaze as News, but then I don't consider Glenn Beck a source of news, much less his site.

Shouldn't you first prove that something is not a news source before claiming they're not a news source? The site has plenty of news and opinion/commentary, just like all other news sources.

[Symmetry]

I doubt it NS, but perhaps you can take a couple of breaths and respond in a less hysterical fashion. I'd also object to considering the Blaze as News, but then I don't consider Glenn Beck a source of news, much less his site.

Shouldn't you first prove that something is not a news source before claiming they're not a news source? The site has plenty of news and opinion/commentary, just like all other news sources.

Are you still a mod? can you put these last few posts in the gun owner thread?

[Night Strike]

I doubt it NS, but perhaps you can take a couple of breaths and respond in a less hysterical fashion. I'd also object to considering the Blaze as News, but then I don't consider Glenn Beck a source of news, much less his site.

Shouldn't you first prove that something is not a news source before claiming they're not a news source? The site has plenty of news and opinion/commentary, just like all other news sources.

Are you still a mod? can you put these last few posts in the gun owner thread?

I only moderate tournament forums, so I don't have any mod access here.

[Symmetry]

I doubt it NS, but perhaps you can take a couple of breaths and respond in a less hysterical fashion. I'd also object to considering the Blaze as News, but then I don't consider Glenn Beck a source of news, much less his site.

Shouldn't you first prove that something is not a news source before claiming they're not a news source? The site has plenty of news and opinion/commentary, just like all other news sources.

Are you still a mod? can you put these last few posts in the gun owner thread?

I only moderate tournament forums, so I don't have any mod access here.

Then I owe an apology- it was my mistake to take the discussion we were having in the gun thread into this one.

[Symmetry]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Player, please post the link to the site that shows why women have abortions since you want to bring some facts.

I think we should publish names and addresses of people that have abortions.

Can I step in instead?

Spontaneous abortion (SAB), or miscarriage, is the term used for a pregnancy that ends on its own, within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The medical name spontaneous abortion (SAB) gives many women a negative feeling, so throughout this article we will refer to any type of spontaneous abortion or pregnancy loss under 20 weeks as miscarriage.

Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

Link

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

So let's restart- why do you think "they're", and I'm presuming that you don't mean doctors of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, publishing names of gun owners?

[Metsfanmax]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Try the fact that there is a big difference between a natural "abortion" and the medical procedure. One can not be aided nor stopped by a human being, the other is caused by a human being. The MOMENT you choicers admit human life exists, you have lost the argument.

That's because the typical liberal doesn't want to be bold and admit that there are some cases where innocent human life can be justifiably terminated. That step is logically necessary for the liberal case to be self-consistent, but it can be if that is done.

I'm not sure that is what Player was arguing, more that much of the so-called conservative side of the debate tends to ignore the actual practicalities of what abortion means in medical terms in favour of emotive politicking. If Jay is proposing a discussion of whether women who have abortions should be named and shamed, the obvious answer is no, but respect to Player for at least taking on the legal ramifications of politicians redefining a medical term to suit their own, more narrow, agenda.

Yes, Player is addressing one part of the larger issue. The validity of Player's critique, however, does not help us establish whether it should be right or wrong to intentionally abort a pregnancy. That is what Jay was talking about (and in doing so perhaps missing Player's point), and what I was responding to.

[Symmetry]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Try the fact that there is a big difference between a natural "abortion" and the medical procedure. One can not be aided nor stopped by a human being, the other is caused by a human being. The MOMENT you choicers admit human life exists, you have lost the argument.

That's because the typical liberal doesn't want to be bold and admit that there are some cases where innocent human life can be justifiably terminated. That step is logically necessary for the liberal case to be self-consistent, but it can be if that is done.

I'm not sure that is what Player was arguing, more that much of the so-called conservative side of the debate tends to ignore the actual practicalities of what abortion means in medical terms in favour of emotive politicking. If Jay is proposing a discussion of whether women who have abortions should be named and shamed, the obvious answer is no, but respect to Player for at least taking on the legal ramifications of politicians redefining a medical term to suit their own, more narrow, agenda.

Yes, Player is addressing one part of the larger issue. The validity of Player's critique, however, does not help us establish whether it should be right or wrong to intentionally abort a pregnancy. That is what Jay was talking about (and in doing so perhaps missing Player's point), and what I was responding to.

I guess I see that as a another nuance at best- If the thread is about abortion and whether people who have had abortions should be named and shamed for it, I guess I'd appreciate a bit more of medical take than just a political take.

I guess i don't understand the anger that people who seem to almost deliberately misunderstand abortion in a weird attempt at righteous indignation throw at people.

The answer to your question, is of course yes it is right to abort a pregnancy, but I feel that you're generalising and would like to ask another more specific question. What type of pregnancy perhaps. but then we're getting off the pretty awful name and shame game, which is, as Player pointed out, simply a poorly thought out argument.

[thegreekdog]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Player, please post the link to the site that shows why women have abortions since you want to bring some facts.

I think we should publish names and addresses of people that have abortions.

Why, Mr. Contrarian?

Why not? I haven't heard any good reasons why we shouldn't publish a list of people that have abortions. I mean, we just passed a law that apparently will allow the government to collect medical histories.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pet ... dical-info

In case you need reminding, the law was supported and passed by Democrats and signed by a Democratic president, all of whom are pro-choice.

[thegreekdog]

I would say I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that Roe v. Wade was a decision based explicitly on privacy, but I'm not because this is an internet forum.

Not privacy in the "I don't want you to know what I'm doing." Privacy in the "you can't tell me what to do with my own body" kind of thing.

But yeah, the government shouldn't be allowed to publish medical records, including who has had abortions. I'm obviously playing devil's advocate, mostly because I don't like all your collective attitudes. So suck it.

[thegreekdog]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Player, please post the link to the site that shows why women have abortions since you want to bring some facts.

I think we should publish names and addresses of people that have abortions.

Can I step in instead?

Spontaneous abortion (SAB), or miscarriage, is the term used for a pregnancy that ends on its own, within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The medical name spontaneous abortion (SAB) gives many women a negative feeling, so throughout this article we will refer to any type of spontaneous abortion or pregnancy loss under 20 weeks as miscarriage.

Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

Link

I don't think we should publish the names.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about pro-choice in the "I want to have an abortion" context. Not "I had a spontaneous abortion or SAB" context. Just for future reference, when I refer to "abortions" I'm referring to "I want to have an abortion" abortions. When I use the phrase "spontaneous abortion" or the acronym "SAB" or the word "miscarriage," I'm talking about miscarriages.

[Symmetry]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Player, please post the link to the site that shows why women have abortions since you want to bring some facts.

I think we should publish names and addresses of people that have abortions.

Can I step in instead?

Spontaneous abortion (SAB), or miscarriage, is the term used for a pregnancy that ends on its own, within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The medical name spontaneous abortion (SAB) gives many women a negative feeling, so throughout this article we will refer to any type of spontaneous abortion or pregnancy loss under 20 weeks as miscarriage.

Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

Link

I don't think we should publish the names.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about pro-choice in the "I want to have an abortion" context. Not "I had a spontaneous abortion or SAB" context. Just for future reference, when I refer to "abortions" I'm referring to "I want to have an abortion" abortions. When I use the phrase "spontaneous abortion" or the acronym "SAB" or the word "miscarriage," I'm talking about miscarriages.

Sorry- you want women who have abortions to have their names published though? Just to clarify, you intend to be deliberately incorrect in future? For what purpose?

[thegreekdog]

Sorry- you want women who have abortions to have their names published though? Just to clarify, you intend to be deliberately incorrect in future? For what purpose?

I do not want women who have abortions to have their names published. I think it's a disgusting violation of privacy. The president and the Democrats in Congress should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm playing devil's advocate because you guys are annoying me.

[Symmetry]

Sorry- you want women who have abortions to have their names published though? Just to clarify, you intend to be deliberately incorrect in future? For what purpose?

I do not want women who have abortions to have their names published. I think it's a disgusting violation of privacy. The president and the Democrats in Congress should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm playing devil's advocate because you guys are annoying me.

An interesting position, why?

[thegreekdog]

Sorry- you want women who have abortions to have their names published though? Just to clarify, you intend to be deliberately incorrect in future? For what purpose?

I do not want women who have abortions to have their names published. I think it's a disgusting violation of privacy. The president and the Democrats in Congress should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm playing devil's advocate because you guys are annoying me.

An interesting position, why?

As I asked BBS, why not? You may get a better answer from the Democrats in Congress and/or the president and/or the Affordable Care Act supporters.

[Symmetry]

Sorry- you want women who have abortions to have their names published though? Just to clarify, you intend to be deliberately incorrect in future? For what purpose?

I do not want women who have abortions to have their names published. I think it's a disgusting violation of privacy. The president and the Democrats in Congress should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm playing devil's advocate because you guys are annoying me.

An interesting position, why?

As I asked BBS, why not? You may get a better answer from the Democrats in Congress and/or the president and/or the Affordable Care Act supporters.

While I agree that I'd likely get a better answer if I asked the President of the United States, I don't think it's likely that I'd get a response. Typical TGD cop-out from discussion.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Player, please post the link to the site that shows why women have abortions since you want to bring some facts.

I think we should publish names and addresses of people that have abortions.

Why, Mr. Contrarian?

Why not? I haven't heard any good reasons why we shouldn't publish a list of people that have abortions. I mean, we just passed a law that apparently will allow the government to collect medical histories.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pet ... dical-info

In case you need reminding, the law was supported and passed by Democrats and signed by a Democratic president, all of whom are pro-choice.

Be that as it may, I don't see how the benefits of collecting and publishing information of particular patients' medical histories justify the costs (taxation/deficit spending, violation of privacy, and the release of easy to access information to groups which shouldn't have such easy access, e.g. 'anti-abortion haters'.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Since Obama and many Democrats approved of this measure (according to TGD), how are the Democrats and Obama-fans handling this?

Do they approve?

And, do they realize that their preferences don't really matter for the intricacies of public policy?

[thegreekdog]

Be that as it may, I don't see how the benefits of collecting and publishing information of particular patients' medical histories justify the costs (taxation/deficit spending, violation of privacy, and the release of easy to access information to groups which shouldn't have such easy access, e.g. 'anti-abortion haters'.)

In recent history, taxation/deficit spending and violation of privacy do not seem to be impediments to collecting and publishing information to either party. Information is released by the government regarding driving records, criminal records, pedophile records, tax records and other financial information, and with respect to terrorists. What are the benefits of releasing these pieces of information and do they outweight the taxation/deficit spending and violations of privacy? So far, the answer is yes.

[BigBallinStalin]

Be that as it may, I don't see how the benefits of collecting and publishing information of particular patients' medical histories justify the costs (taxation/deficit spending, violation of privacy, and the release of easy to access information to groups which shouldn't have such easy access, e.g. 'anti-abortion haters'.)

In recent history, taxation/deficit spending and violation of privacy do not seem to be impediments to collecting and publishing information to either party. Information is released by the government regarding driving records, criminal records, pedophile records, tax records and other financial information, and with respect to terrorists. What are the benefits of releasing these pieces of information and do they outweight the taxation/deficit spending and violations of privacy? So far, the answer is yes.

Sure, these records are justifiable from the state's perspective of streamlining surveillance and compliance and from the perspective of insurance companies and such businesses for providing coverage at appropriate prices, but those are different, and one needs compelling reason to view such information (except for criminal records, pedophile records, and the financial information of publicly listed companies).

In other words, I wouldn't want Joe Schmo having access to such information--just as I wouldn't want Joe Schmo having access to anyone's 'abortion history'. Why would Joe Schmo require access to such information? I ask because the public disclosure of this information entails such a scenario.


If I may be allowed to get on my fear-mongering pulpit, enabling the general public to view abortion histories would reduce the costs of anti-abortionist haters. Since this policy would subsidize the price of hate crimes, harassment, and terrorist tactics, then I am concerned that the American people could experience an unjustified increase in these crimes. If the purpose of government is to protect people and their property, then surely we must reject the public disclosure of abortion histories.
(no wonder politicians and bureaucrats use the Slippery Slope argument to justify their policies).

[Symmetry]

Be that as it may, I don't see how the benefits of collecting and publishing information of particular patients' medical histories justify the costs (taxation/deficit spending, violation of privacy, and the release of easy to access information to groups which shouldn't have such easy access, e.g. 'anti-abortion haters'.)

In recent history, taxation/deficit spending and violation of privacy do not seem to be impediments to collecting and publishing information to either party. Information is released by the government regarding driving records, criminal records, pedophile records, tax records and other financial information, and with respect to terrorists. What are the benefits of releasing these pieces of information and do they outweight the taxation/deficit spending and violations of privacy? So far, the answer is yes.

Sure, these records are justifiable from the state's perspective of streamlining surveillance and compliance and from the perspective of insurance companies and such businesses for providing coverage at appropriate prices, but those are different, and one needs compelling reason to view such information (except for criminal records, pedophile records, and the financial information of publicly listed companies).

In other words, I wouldn't want Joe Schmo having access to such information--just as I wouldn't want Joe Schmo having access to anyone's 'abortion history'. Why would Joe Schmo require access to such information? I ask because the public disclosure of this information entails such a scenario.


If I may be allowed to get on my fear-mongering pulpit, enabling the general public to view abortion histories would reduce the costs of anti-abortionist haters. Since this policy would subsidize the price of hate crimes, harassment, and terrorist tactics, then I am concerned that the American people could experience an unjustified increase in these crimes. If the purpose of government is to protect people and their property, then surely we must reject the public disclosure of abortion histories.
(no wonder politicians and bureaucrats use the Slippery Slope argument to justify their policies).

That would be an interesting reply. I suspect he'll agree to disagree.