Should We Publish Names And Addresses of Abortion Havers?

[thegreekdog]

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).

Joe Schmo may require access to this information for the following reasons:

(1) Determining whether someone has had or not had an abortion affects his hiring, promotion, bonus, etc. practices.
(2) Determining whether to marry (or date) someone who has had or not had an abortion is important to him and he does not wish to rely upon the word of his potential spouse or date.
(3) Determining whether someone can be a member of a church, mosque, synagogue congregation is dependent upon whether such person has had an abortion or not.

Abortion-havers is not a protected class and abortion-havers are not subject to the same standards as race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Therefore, there is arguably no violation of privacy, constitutionally, from publishing names.

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

Sing it with me now! Fuuuuuuccccckkkkkkk offfffffff!!!!

[AndyDufresne]

Abortion-havers is not a protected class and abortion-havers are not subject to the same standards as race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Therefore, there is arguably no violation of privacy, constitutionally, from publishing names.

Anytime 'arguably' is used in a conclusion, it always seems backward in reality.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

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.

There is a BIG difference between collecting medical histories, which I support for medical reasons, and making those histories public. The government also has a full list of everyone's social security number. By your argument, they all ought to be published.

This information should not be released for the same reason any other medical decision should not be published. Its private and personal, not any one else's business.

But my point is that folks here don't even understand the basic definition, remain in many cases outright wilfully and intentionally ignorant of basic definitions, reasoning and causes. People who wilfully remain ignorant of other people's reasoning have no right to have any say in those other people's decision.

I make a comment that the above poster doesn't even understand the definition he is throwing out... and suddenly I am presented as being someone with a "narrow agenda" and a pretty negative one at that.

Any comment I make to even clarify and eluminate folks on this issue results in me being called a "baby killer" and worse. This even when the posters, folks like you, have read enough of what I have posted to know full well that is absolutely the furthest from my position. IF you cannot even bother to understand the complexity, to actually behave and act honestly in this issue, the you have negated not just the right o have a real say in personal decisions, but to even make a real political view of this.

That is legally, you may have the right.. morally, you definitely do not. The FIRST step to any decision is education.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Wrong. Legally, before 3 months, there is no definition of life, no record of whether a fetus was alive when taken or not, no record if this was what you call an abortion or really just a miscarriage requiring surgery.

We have been through this before many, many times. Your continued insistance that you know better than medical science is just one of many reasons why you don't have the right to dictate to women what they do or do not do.

Jay ---
Today, the question is not so much about ending life, it is about when life should be forced to continue. THAT is what folks like you try to deny. God makes decisions that allow children to die. Medical science intervenes and says "we can save this child!". Sometimes that is perfectly justifiable, a good thing.. but to claim that human beings always have the right and knowledge to make that decisions is arrogance. To claim that the fact medical science has the ability to keep someone breathing means that breathing being is a person is every sense of the world or that you have the right to declare taxpayers are obligated to spend hundreds of thousands or millions on that one living being who many would not say is even really and truly "living" well... you are not talking Christianity. You are talking your own personal arrogant view that you know better than God.

[
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.

Funny how conservatives like to lapse back into stereotypes and pretend they show truth.

The fact is that I have very much addressed this issue, at length in basically all of the many abortion and abortion tangent threads that have arisen.

If you have not participated in those threads... go read them. If you have and still pretend ignorance, then shame on you.

Still, for clarity's sake.... death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a child. where the line is drawn depends a lot on your personal ethics and views.
In my grandmother's time, it was still considered humane to let die a child who would be born "deformed".. though today most people consider that repulsive. Surgery and medical advances now allow children to live who would unquestionably have died despite every effort just a few years ago.

[kentington]

Still, for clarity's sake.... death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a child. where the line is drawn depends a lot on your personal ethics and views.
In my grandmother's time, it was still considered humane to let die a child who would be born "deformed".. though today most people consider that repulsive. Surgery and medical advances now allow children to live who would unquestionably have died despite every effort just a few years ago.

"though today most people consider that repulsive" - Do you have a statistic for that? I find that statement hard to believe when people are having so many forced abortions, not to be taken as though I am saying miscarriage, and a large support for them. Through personal experience multiple doctors wanted us to have extra tests to find out if our children were going to have issues and told us that if the children were to have Down's we can consider aborting. Needless to say we moved on from each of these doctors. I don't want someone pressuring me to make a decision. This would suggest to me that most people today do not consider that true.

It may have been considered humane at the time because they would have died later on through a lot of pain. I am not saying I agree with this, but it seems more justifiable than the multitude of reasons available for abortion today.

[kentington]

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).

I agree with this. The only lists that should be available to the public are those records you have listed, I bolded them.
We have already seen what has happened to those who have records for pedophile actions. They have been hunted and this will continue, that is a consequence of breaking the law.

I don't agree with abortion, not talking about natural miscarriages. However, having an abortion is not against the law, so I see no reason to publish the records of teens who may not understand what they are doing.

Also, TGD had mentioned that churches may want to know so that they can keep these people from being church members. I find that odd. How about if someone had an abortion and later in their life realized it was a mistake and gave their life to "deity." Should a church then refuse a person?

[BigBallinStalin]

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).

Joe Schmo may require access to this information for the following reasons:

(1) Determining whether someone has had or not had an abortion affects his hiring, promotion, bonus, etc. practices.
(2) Determining whether to marry (or date) someone who has had or not had an abortion is important to him and he does not wish to rely upon the word of his potential spouse or date.
(3) Determining whether someone can be a member of a church, mosque, synagogue congregation is dependent upon whether such person has had an abortion or not.

Abortion-havers is not a protected class and abortion-havers are not subject to the same standards as race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Therefore, there is arguably no violation of privacy, constitutionally, from publishing names.

#1 is no ordinary Joe Schmo; it's an employer. However, from what I understand of the law, not even employers have legal access to a potential employee's medical history--except in circumstances where such information is deemed necessary. I don't see how having an abortion or not is substantial enough information for determining someone's ability to perform nearly any job.

#2 is about interpersonal trust. Going behind someone's back to examine their personal history does not lay the foundation of a loving relationship. Besides, this reason does not justify public disclosure of abortion histories--compared to other publicly disclosed information.

#3 it is? If so, then that's up to the religion to pay for or to discover through voluntary means. Why should the government be funding religious monitoring activities?

I'm still not seeing how the benefits offset the costs here.

_______________________________________________
RE: the final point, perhaps you're right, but if so, then it still does not justify the public disclosure of such information. Some of the examples you cite are publicly disclosed; whereas, medical history definitely is not. It's only granted to particular businesses and bureaucracies which have a more compelling reason then "I suspect my girlfriend had an abortion."

Furthermore, if your final point is correct, then let's be consistent. You have justified the public disclosure of AIDS victims--but it's not quite public, and this has been one of my points. Are you arguing in favor of public disclosure (e.g. financial information of publicly traded companies), or government/corporate limited-access (e.g. one's medical history), anonymous reporting (e.g. how AIDS is currently reported)?

Finally, it may not be a violation of privacy, but it could be a violation of a confidentiality agreement, so this policy would result in the breaching of many contracts. This would be illegal, wrong, and irresponsible.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, TGD had mentioned that churches may want to know so that they can keep these people from being church members. I find that odd. How about if someone had an abortion and later in their life realized it was a mistake and gave their life to "deity." Should a church then refuse a person?

Supposedly, they're all-forgiving, but maybe not?

[PLAYER57832]

Still, for clarity's sake.... death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a child. where the line is drawn depends a lot on your personal ethics and views.
In my grandmother's time, it was still considered humane to let die a child who would be born "deformed".. though today most people consider that repulsive. Surgery and medical advances now allow children to live who would unquestionably have died despite every effort just a few years ago.

"though today most people consider that repulsive" - Do you have a statistic for that? I find that statement hard to believe when people are having so many forced abortions, not to be taken as though I am saying miscarriage, and a large support for them. Through personal experience multiple doctors wanted us to have extra tests to find out if our children were going to have issues and told us that if the children were to have Down's we can consider aborting. Needless to say we moved on from each of these doctors. I don't want someone pressuring me to make a decision. This would suggest to me that most people today do not consider that true.

So many forced abortions???? In the US? Its actually pretty hard to get an abortion in most states.. you have to go through several hoops. Forced abortions are illegal in almost all cases. (even a minor child cannot be forced by their parent to have an abortion.. though parents can certainly put enough pressure on a child that that point becomes a legality, but not necessarily a true reality)
Interesting phrasing of the word "pressure". Suggesting you have a test and that options are available is hardly pressure. That said, doctors are human. Some are idiots, some are outright jerks who ought to have their licenses pulled. If you review the literature, blogs and just talk to people, you find that many people DO consider the idea of aborting fetus who has Downs to be very replusive. Even so, that was made as a casual statement that times and views have and do change, not a scientific assessment of views.

It may have been considered humane at the time because they would have died later on through a lot of pain. I am not saying I agree with this, but it seems more justifiable than the multitude of reasons available for abortion today.

And this problem STILL exists today. Even with all of our medical advances, children still suffer and still die.

However, as harsh as that is, there is still another issue. You mentioned Down's. Down's people can have quite full and happy lives. However, there are a myriad of other conditions that mean a child will be literally relegated to just laying on a table, unresponsive or physically responsive, but not mentally responsive. To say "well, some peopel abort Downs kids" therefore there is no point to this debate is ignorant -- that is is to ignore facts and reality. I don't advocate telling anyone to have an abortion, but I say that anyone wanting to voice their opinion on this at least owes the people involved the respect to consider their real choices and options.

The real choices are to allow a child who won't function in society --- something WELL beyond Downs, being wheel chair ridden, or any of the other examples often brought up, to live.. and REQUIRING tax payers to support that child for life. Or, allowing parents to decide "enough is enough... this child is not meeting my religious definition of life". Keeping a child alive on a ventilator for life, with round the clock nursing care is extermely expensive and not the kind of life most people want, given the choice. Having surgery after surgery is expensive and gruelling.

I phrase this in the context of end of life decisions. These are things that we ALL should decide for OURSELVES. Yet, many of the same people who will say they don't want to be hooked up to a ventilator if there is no chance of recovery, etc, etc... somehow think that its perfectly OK to subject a child to nothing but that kind of life. I say its a difficult decision. For my part, I don't think I would abort a child just for that reason.. but I respect those who do take that kind of stance, WHEN it is well thought out and reasoned based upon their ethics and values.

The further irony here is that jay, Nightstrike and a few of the others who are most vocally opposed to allowing women the right to decide this are ALSO among those insisting that medical care is optional, that society cannot pay for it.. etc, etc. Oh, yeah.. and they also want limits on birth control besides. Oh, yeah.. and they are also the first to declare that the government should not intervene in their personal decisions. (I my memory is correct, jay has come out against mandatory vaccination, for example) -- yet they want the government to intervene in the case of abortion.

I don't, never have condoned "abortion as birth control", which is essentially what the arguments are against. BUT.. I know enough to realize that that narrow view is not the primary reason people have abortions.

[PLAYER57832]

It may have been considered humane at the time because they would have died later on through a lot of pain. I am not saying I agree with this, but it seems more justifiable than the multitude of reasons available for abortion today.

A PS, this actually goes back to biblical times. In the old Testament, those who are "imperfect" are not allowed to participate the way the "pure" are. While it sounds pretty harsh by today's standards, and was, it also has to be taken into the context of quarantine.

Back then, folks did not have the full and complete knowledge of illnesses that we have. (some vaccination practices existed, some knowledge that washing hands mattered, etc.. but not the way we know it). They knew that diseases could be spread and that space could keep diseases from spreading. Keeping the imperfect "out" was a primitive way of protecting the greater society. Some people also believed that birth problems were vested by God for a purpose. Even so, compassion existed. Some people distinguished between, say the man who's arm was torn off and the one who was born that way.

What has changed is that today we know the difference between diseases passed by bacteria, viruses and some other causes. We know how to prevent the spread and even to cure many diseases.

Still... when you talk about say, whether people with Tay Sachs or some other genetic disease should have children..... the issues emerge again. It also emerges when we talk about the edges of life preservation and medicine.

God allows people to die. Humans try to prevent it, but fail. At some point, it is up to humans to listen to God and say "OK... we get it". In some cases, that means preserving life. In others it means the opposite. However, unless people are willing to understand the issues, then we have just people shouting at each other, not discussion.

On this issue, most of those against abortion want to just shout "God!" or "Life!" and pretend that that ends the discussion. It doesn't. That is just one of many reasons why they have no right to know who has or does not have an abortion.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Already done, repeatedly. I also showed how several of the links you tried to post in the past were utterly inaccurate -- either invalid links, did not say what you claimed, etc.

In most cases, you debate reasonably. This topic is sometimes not one of them.

Your ideas and beliefs come from your church. That is OK, as far as your life goes. But your church's right to dictate MY life ends at their doors.

PS the percentages vary, but confusion (often intentional) over terms is a big part of the problem.

For example, a lot of people cite statistics for "at will" or "on demand" abortions and try to claim that means basically using abortion as birth control, when it really just means that the abortion was not medically mandated, in many cases any abortion not done to save the mother's life is considered "at will", medically and legally.

The rate of miscarriages is generally given at around 30%, based on known miscarriages after a known pregnancy, though if you count very early miscarriages and later still births, the percentage can jump to over 70%.

[spurgistan]

Have we forgotten about Dr. George Tiller? Come on, now.

[kentington]

So many forced abortions???? In the US? Its actually pretty hard to get an abortion in most states.. you have to go through several hoops. Forced abortions are illegal in almost all cases. (even a minor child cannot be forced by their parent to have an abortion.. though parents can certainly put enough pressure on a child that that point becomes a legality, but not necessarily a true reality)

By forced I mean not natural. You get on people about using the word abortion, when it includes miscarriage. I was removing miscarriages from my use of the word. I don't mean the government or parents forcing someone else to get an abortion.

Interesting phrasing of the word "pressure". Suggesting you have a test and that options are available is hardly pressure. That said, doctors are human. Some are idiots, some are outright jerks who ought to have their licenses pulled.

When I used the word pressure. I thought you would understand that they do more than suggest a test. I didn't want to go into great detail. These were three different doctors.

If you review the literature, blogs and just talk to people, you find that many people DO consider the idea of aborting fetus who has Downs to be very replusive. Even so, that was made as a casual statement that times and views have and do change, not a scientific assessment of views.

You say now that I would find many people who would consider aborting a child with Downs to be repulsive, but your statement was about deformed children. I don't see Downs as deformed. I was using an example to say that people today don't find aborting deformed fetuses repulsive.

It may have been considered humane at the time because they would have died later on through a lot of pain. I am not saying I agree with this, but it seems more justifiable than the multitude of reasons available for abortion today.

And this problem STILL exists today. Even with all of our medical advances, children still suffer and still die.

However, as harsh as that is, there is still another issue. You mentioned Down's. Down's people can have quite full and happy lives. However, there are a myriad of other conditions that mean a child will be literally relegated to just laying on a table, unresponsive or physically responsive, but not mentally responsive. To say "well, some peopel abort Downs kids" therefore there is no point to this debate is ignorant -- that is is to ignore facts and reality. I don't advocate telling anyone to have an abortion, but I say that anyone wanting to voice their opinion on this at least owes the people involved the respect to consider their real choices and options.

The real choices are to allow a child who won't function in society --- something WELL beyond Downs, being wheel chair ridden, or any of the other examples often brought up, to live.. and REQUIRING tax payers to support that child for life. Or, allowing parents to decide "enough is enough... this child is not meeting my religious definition of life". Keeping a child alive on a ventilator for life, with round the clock nursing care is extermely expensive and not the kind of life most people want, given the choice. Having surgery after surgery is expensive and gruelling.

I phrase this in the context of end of life decisions. These are things that we ALL should decide for OURSELVES. Yet, many of the same people who will say they don't want to be hooked up to a ventilator if there is no chance of recovery, etc, etc... somehow think that its perfectly OK to subject a child to nothing but that kind of life. I say its a difficult decision. For my part, I don't think I would abort a child just for that reason.. but I respect those who do take that kind of stance, WHEN it is well thought out and reasoned based upon their ethics and values.

The further irony here is that jay, Nightstrike and a few of the others who are most vocally opposed to allowing women the right to decide this are ALSO among those insisting that medical care is optional, that society cannot pay for it.. etc, etc. Oh, yeah.. and they also want limits on birth control besides. Oh, yeah.. and they are also the first to declare that the government should not intervene in their personal decisions. (I my memory is correct, jay has come out against mandatory vaccination, for example) -- yet they want the government to intervene in the case of abortion.

I don't, never have condoned "abortion as birth control", which is essentially what the arguments are against. BUT.. I know enough to realize that that narrow view is not the primary reason people have abortions.

I wasn't getting into defending or attacking abortion. I was just saying that I think your view point was wrong by your definitions. Throughout this long post you have proved my point.

In my grandmother's time, it was still considered humane to let die a child who would be born "deformed".. though today most people consider that repulsive. Surgery and medical advances now allow children to live who would unquestionably have died despite every effort just a few years ago.

The real choices are to allow a child who won't function in society --- something WELL beyond Downs, being wheel chair ridden, or any of the other examples often brought up, to live.. and REQUIRING tax payers to support that child for life. Or, allowing parents to decide "enough is enough... this child is not meeting my religious definition of life". Keeping a child alive on a ventilator for life, with round the clock nursing care is extermely expensive and not the kind of life most people want, given the choice. Having surgery after surgery is expensive and gruelling.

For my part, I don't think I would abort a child just for that reason.. but I respect those who do take that kind of stance, WHEN it is well thought out and reasoned based upon their ethics and values.

These show that you don't agree with the view point you posted. In my opinion you seem to claim one thing and that our views have changed today and we are so much more enlightened. Yet, none of these quotes suggest that you even find the idea of aborting a deformed fetus repulsive. -Just because you wouldn't have the abortion for that reason, does not mean you find it repulsive.

I don't think the views have really changed much from your Grandmother's time to now in that sense. I may be missing something, but it is hard to tell because you add things in that don't always have to do with the point you are trying to make. (I am also a bit under the weather and tired) I do this at times and I am sure it makes it difficult for others.

[PLAYER57832]

So many forced abortions???? In the US? Its actually pretty hard to get an abortion in most states.. you have to go through several hoops. Forced abortions are illegal in almost all cases. (even a minor child cannot be forced by their parent to have an abortion.. though parents can certainly put enough pressure on a child that that point becomes a legality, but not necessarily a true reality)

By forced I mean not natural. You get on people about using the word abortion, when it includes miscarriage. I was removing miscarriages from my use of the word. I don't mean the government or parents forcing someone else to get an abortion.

OK, but I think you can see why I misunderstood. Some abortions are actually forced, though not many legally in this country.

Interesting phrasing of the word "pressure". Suggesting you have a test and that options are available is hardly pressure. That said, doctors are human. Some are idiots, some are outright jerks who ought to have their licenses pulled.

When I used the word pressure. I thought you would understand that they do more than suggest a test. I didn't want to go into great detail. These were three different doctors.

OK. corrected accepted. Even so, I think your experiences were unusual, unless there was more than just Downs involved.

In the case of some very serious genetic diseases, there is sometimes pressure. I don't agree even then, but there can be a very fine line between informing and pressuring.

If you review the literature, blogs and just talk to people, you find that many people DO consider the idea of aborting fetus who has Downs to be very replusive. Even so, that was made as a casual statement that times and views have and do change, not a scientific assessment of views.

You say now that I would find many people who would consider aborting a child with Downs to be repulsive, but your statement was about deformed children. I don't see Downs as deformed. I was using an example to say that people today don't find aborting deformed fetuses repulsive.

OK, I probably should have clarified a bit more. I remember reading the tale of a doctor who had agonized, not because he let a child die in childbirth, but because he let her live despite her having a seriously deformed arm. In the story, he came to meet the woman later and realized he had made a good decision. The thing is, his thinking was not uncommon in that day (the 40's and even some of the 50's). I use that as a "jumping off point" basically to just counter folks like Jay who like to insinuate that this is a debate between moral/ethical people on one side and immoral/unethical or unthinking people on the other side.

It may have been considered humane at the time because they would have died later on through a lot of pain. I am not saying I agree with this, but it seems more justifiable than the multitude of reasons available for abortion today.

And this problem STILL exists today. Even with all of our medical advances, children still suffer and still die.

However, as harsh as that is, there is still another issue. You mentioned Down's. Down's people can have quite full and happy lives. However, there are a myriad of other conditions that mean a child will be literally relegated to just laying on a table, unresponsive or physically responsive, but not mentally responsive. To say "well, some peopel abort Downs kids" therefore there is no point to this debate is ignorant -- that is is to ignore facts and reality. I don't advocate telling anyone to have an abortion, but I say that anyone wanting to voice their opinion on this at least owes the people involved the respect to consider their real choices and options.

The real choices are to allow a child who won't function in society --- something WELL beyond Downs, being wheel chair ridden, or any of the other examples often brought up, to live.. and REQUIRING tax payers to support that child for life. Or, allowing parents to decide "enough is enough... this child is not meeting my religious definition of life". Keeping a child alive on a ventilator for life, with round the clock nursing care is extermely expensive and not the kind of life most people want, given the choice. Having surgery after surgery is expensive and gruelling.

I phrase this in the context of end of life decisions. These are things that we ALL should decide for OURSELVES. Yet, many of the same people who will say they don't want to be hooked up to a ventilator if there is no chance of recovery, etc, etc... somehow think that its perfectly OK to subject a child to nothing but that kind of life. I say its a difficult decision. For my part, I don't think I would abort a child just for that reason.. but I respect those who do take that kind of stance, WHEN it is well thought out and reasoned based upon their ethics and values.

The further irony here is that jay, Nightstrike and a few of the others who are most vocally opposed to allowing women the right to decide this are ALSO among those insisting that medical care is optional, that society cannot pay for it.. etc, etc. Oh, yeah.. and they also want limits on birth control besides. Oh, yeah.. and they are also the first to declare that the government should not intervene in their personal decisions. (I my memory is correct, jay has come out against mandatory vaccination, for example) -- yet they want the government to intervene in the case of abortion.

I don't, never have condoned "abortion as birth control", which is essentially what the arguments are against. BUT.. I know enough to realize that that narrow view is not the primary reason people have abortions.

I wasn't getting into defending or attacking abortion. I was just saying that I think your view point was wrong by your definitions. Throughout this long post you have proved my point.

You will have to explain that one. What point do you feel I have refuted?

My point, in this thread was that names should not be published, in part because people are not willing to even bother to really understand the issues, they just want to put forward religious opinions as if they were facts or something they have the right to dictate for other people.

In my grandmother's time, it was still considered humane to let die a child who would be born "deformed".. though today most people consider that repulsive. Surgery and medical advances now allow children to live who would unquestionably have died despite every effort just a few years ago.

The real choices are to allow a child who won't function in society --- something WELL beyond Downs, being wheel chair ridden, or any of the other examples often brought up, to live.. and REQUIRING tax payers to support that child for life. Or, allowing parents to decide "enough is enough... this child is not meeting my religious definition of life". Keeping a child alive on a ventilator for life, with round the clock nursing care is extermely expensive and not the kind of life most people want, given the choice. Having surgery after surgery is expensive and gruelling.

For my part, I don't think I would abort a child just for that reason.. but I respect those who do take that kind of stance, WHEN it is well thought out and reasoned based upon their ethics and values.

These show that you don't agree with the view point you posted. In my opinion you seem to claim one thing and that our views have changed today and we are so much more enlightened. Yet, none of these quotes suggest that you even find the idea of aborting a deformed fetus repulsive. -Just because you wouldn't have the abortion for that reason, does not mean you find it repulsive.

I see the point of misunderstanding now.

I can talk objectively, as a scientist, about things, admit and acknowledge that other people have the right to various views, even when I disagree.

The basic concept.. that just breathing is not the full definition of life (more or less), persists. What HAS changed is where we draw the line, partly because medical technology and advancements mean we can fix many problems that were unsurmountable before, so that some kids who might have been born "deformed" are not now, and partially because society has changed so that we now have "room" and "places" for people with various disabilities. A person in a wheelchair even in 1940 would have a difficult time supporting themselves and just "getting around". Today, while its not easy for anyone to find employment, plenty of people are able to support themselves and gain respected positions in society despite being in wheelchairs.

I don't think the views have really changed much from your Grandmother's time to now in that sense. I may be missing something, but it is hard to tell because you add things in that don't always have to do with the point you are trying to make. (I am also a bit under the weather and tired) I do this at times and I am sure it makes it difficult for others.

I post when tired, too, so I give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

The overall idea that not all "life" is really worth living, that sometimes death is really a better alternative, that idea -- persists. What has changed is where we draw that line. Each person needs to make that individually, for themselves. I don't want to get into the specifics of where to actually draw that line in this thread.. have done so elsewhere and its a very messy debate. I just say that making an intelligent choice means being able to actually discuss this issue fully.

I ALSO say that there is a very, very big difference between the discussion over where we each might draw that line for ourselves and where we will draw it for other people, particularly legally.

The individual decision is a very, very personal and difficult decision that its almost impossible to lay out in advance of actually facing the particular issues. Generally, we can say things like "I would not abort a child just because of Downs , though I would abort an a-cephalic child". However, when you get into the nitty fgritty line, its just too difficult.

The line we draw legally is much different. I don't believe we should force other people to bear children. Children are a gift, a priviliage, and they take a lot of work and effort. Death is absolutely not the worst thing that can happen to a child.

A very big grey area is the point of talking with friends, family and church members. I have talked to more than a few friends about this issue when they were in the midst of making decisions. I am careful. If there is any doubt voiced by the person, I do my best to give the potential negative ramifications of having an abortion in a factual and non-confrontational way. (think about this... be sure of..., etc, etc,). Abortions are terrible things, not to be taken lightly. HOWEVER, when it comes down to someone saying "yes, I understand.... and I still want to..". Then my reaction really depends. If I know that the person is having serious medical issues, then I just listen and maybe ask for clarification or such, allow myself to be a kid of "sounding board" for my friend. My role is just to do my best to make sure that the person is making the choice that is best for THEM. If, on the other hand, they simply "don't find having a child convenient" right then... well, I won't say I approve. I will, depending on the circumstances, try to get them to rethink their choice or may just say I don't agree... and leave it at that. I don't hate people because they have had an abortion, but I won't, say, drive them to the clinic unless it is for serious medical reasons. In a few cases, I have essentially dissassociated myself with people, though not just because they had an abortion, more because of how they talked about it or talked about having another casually, etc. See, the basic point is that this is the other person's choice, decision, not mine. MY obligation is to make sure facts are known, to do my best to make sure that the person is really thinking about this and not just doing what is easy and pretending it all did not happen. (which will inevitably haunt them later) It is to make sure that they can live with whatever choice they make... and to gently steer them toward having the child whenever possible.

The bottom line is that allowing people to make decisions we dislike is part of freedom. The alternative is not a nice world, its a world in which all of our behavior is dictated by other people, by the government whether a government backed by some religion or not.

In this particular thread, I simply say that whether someone has an abortion or not should be private information. I further state that a lot of people seem to think they have the right to dictate other people's behavior without even bothering to understand fully the other person's position .. in many cases don't even bother to get their definitions correct.

Jay, etc want to claim "religion", but ignore that people making the decision with which they disagree are ALSO following religion.. just not the same views.

[Ray Rider]

The real choices are to allow a child who won't function in society --- something WELL beyond Downs, being wheel chair ridden, or any of the other examples often brought up, to live.. and REQUIRING tax payers to support that child for life.

How about a kid with no arms or legs?

[PLAYER57832]

The real choices are to allow a child who won't function in society --- something WELL beyond Downs, being wheel chair ridden, or any of the other examples often brought up, to live.. and REQUIRING tax payers to support that child for life.

How about a kid with no arms or legs?

I really don't want to get into specifics, because there are just too many variables.
In a general way, I will say that plenty of those kids survive and do well. But, more to the point... those that do live in families that have embraced and encouraged them. What would it be to be such a child in a household that did not support you?

The issue here is not what decision I or you might make, it is what decision individuals have the right to make, given their religion and ethics.

Further, for this particular thread, its about whether you, a stranger, have a right to participate, to even know about such a very personal decision... and particularly without having full and complete access to all the information and emotions involved in making that decision at the time it is made.

[Baron Von PWN]

Have we forgotten about Dr. George Tiller? Come on, now.

Seriously there are anti abortion nut jobs who would likely use such a list to exact "justice" or cold blooded murder.

This isn't even a they might do this, they have done this in the past murdering doctors who have performed abortions. I don't see why they wouldn't take it out on the women who have them as well.

[kentington]

I wasn't getting into defending or attacking abortion. I was just saying that I think your view point was wrong by your definitions. Throughout this long post you have proved my point.

You will have to explain that one. What point do you feel I have refuted?

My point, in this thread was that names should not be published, in part because people are not willing to even bother to really understand the issues, they just want to put forward religious opinions as if they were facts or something they have the right to dictate for other people.

This is why I first replied to you. You say that your point in this thread is that names should not be published, but the whole time you have just been talking about the definition of abortion and peoples view points on them. Up until this post you haven't stated this. Your first post was one of the shortest I have seen from you and was just to talk about Jays definition of abortion.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184295#p4025474

You then tell Metsfanmax to either search through threads that you have posted in or that he is pretending to be ignorant if he has read them.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184295&start=45#p4027177
Your response to him ends with your claification. "death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a child." That is the only clear part. The rest is your assumption on how humanity has changed today and we now would find those acts repulsive.

I then point out that I don't believe the majority would find it repulsive. The reason I pointed this out is because I believe even you don't find that act repulsive, which you later confirm. It intrigued me that you got annoyed with Metsfanmax, when even if he had read all of your other posts it wouldn't have helped because your posts have a lot of contradictions.

[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.

Already done, repeatedly. I also showed how several of the links you tried to post in the past were utterly inaccurate -- either invalid links, did not say what you claimed, etc.

In most cases, you debate reasonably. This topic is sometimes not one of them.

Your ideas and beliefs come from your church. That is OK, as far as your life goes. But your church's right to dictate MY life ends at their doors.

PS the percentages vary, but confusion (often intentional) over terms is a big part of the problem.

For example, a lot of people cite statistics for "at will" or "on demand" abortions and try to claim that means basically using abortion as birth control, when it really just means that the abortion was not medically mandated, in many cases any abortion not done to save the mother's life is considered "at will", medically and legally.

The rate of miscarriages is generally given at around 30%, based on known miscarriages after a known pregnancy, though if you count very early miscarriages and later still births, the percentage can jump to over 70%.

Since I'm pro-choice, my beliefs do not come from my church. I'm challenging the reason why you regularly bring up miscarriages (and their reference as abortions) in any argument about non-spontaneous (i.e. planned) abortions. If you are pro-choice I have no argument with you. However, your argument as to why you are pro-choice is misguided at best and ridiculous at worst. It appears, to me, that you are pro-choice because you think it's unfair for the government to make spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, illegal. No one is suggesting that. There is no pro-lifer that suggests that. My wife is pro-life and understands that a miscarriage is one of the hardest things for a woman to go through; she would never suggest that a miscarriage be prosecuted under an anti-abortion statute.

In any event, your other defense is that most abortions are done for health reasons. This is also bullshit. I've provided you with the same data at least three times which you've never refuted or even tried to refute that shows that most women have abortions (not miscarriages) because of financial or "I'm not ready" reasons. As far as I'm concerned, that is not a justification for having an abortion, but it is also not the realm of the government to tell a woman what to do with her own body. If your argument as a pro-choice person was "right-to-privacy" then I would not be having this conversation with you. That does not seem to be the crux of your argument, so we have this conversation every few months.

[thegreekdog]

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).

Joe Schmo may require access to this information for the following reasons:

(1) Determining whether someone has had or not had an abortion affects his hiring, promotion, bonus, etc. practices.
(2) Determining whether to marry (or date) someone who has had or not had an abortion is important to him and he does not wish to rely upon the word of his potential spouse or date.
(3) Determining whether someone can be a member of a church, mosque, synagogue congregation is dependent upon whether such person has had an abortion or not.

Abortion-havers is not a protected class and abortion-havers are not subject to the same standards as race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Therefore, there is arguably no violation of privacy, constitutionally, from publishing names.

#1 is no ordinary Joe Schmo; it's an employer. However, from what I understand of the law, not even employers have legal access to a potential employee's medical history--except in circumstances where such information is deemed necessary. I don't see how having an abortion or not is substantial enough information for determining someone's ability to perform nearly any job.

#2 is about interpersonal trust. Going behind someone's back to examine their personal history does not lay the foundation of a loving relationship. Besides, this reason does not justify public disclosure of abortion histories--compared to other publicly disclosed information.

#3 it is? If so, then that's up to the religion to pay for or to discover through voluntary means. Why should the government be funding religious monitoring activities?

I'm still not seeing how the benefits offset the costs here.

_______________________________________________
RE: the final point, perhaps you're right, but if so, then it still does not justify the public disclosure of such information. Some of the examples you cite are publicly disclosed; whereas, medical history definitely is not. It's only granted to particular businesses and bureaucracies which have a more compelling reason then "I suspect my girlfriend had an abortion."

Furthermore, if your final point is correct, then let's be consistent. You have justified the public disclosure of AIDS victims--but it's not quite public, and this has been one of my points. Are you arguing in favor of public disclosure (e.g. financial information of publicly traded companies), or government/corporate limited-access (e.g. one's medical history), anonymous reporting (e.g. how AIDS is currently reported)?

Finally, it may not be a violation of privacy, but it could be a violation of a confidentiality agreement, so this policy would result in the breaching of many contracts. This would be illegal, wrong, and irresponsible.

Although I have no argument vis-a-vis the financial costs, I would posit that since the government could accumulate this information now, it would cost virtually nothing to publish this information on a government website.

In terms of the non-financial costs, I'm still not sure I understand what the costs are. I would agree with a financial impediment/cost, but I cannot agree with an "it's just wrong" argument.

[Night Strike]

Wrong. Legally, before 3 months, there is no definition of life, no record of whether a fetus was alive when taken or not, no record if this was what you call an abortion or really just a miscarriage requiring surgery.

Do you really think even a fraction of the 333,964 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2011 were for miscarriages that had to be surgically removed? Why would a woman go to Planned Parenthood to remove a miscarried child instead of going to an actual hospital?

[Symmetry]

Wrong. Legally, before 3 months, there is no definition of life, no record of whether a fetus was alive when taken or not, no record if this was what you call an abortion or really just a miscarriage requiring surgery.

Do you really think even a fraction of the 333,964 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2011 were for miscarriages that had to be surgically removed? Why would a woman go to Planned Parenthood to remove a miscarried child instead of going to an actual hospital?

Hmm, poor stuff NS. Read again, though I suspect you'll find another way to get angry at someone who is pointing out the facts.

[Night Strike]

Wrong. Legally, before 3 months, there is no definition of life, no record of whether a fetus was alive when taken or not, no record if this was what you call an abortion or really just a miscarriage requiring surgery.

Do you really think even a fraction of the 333,964 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2011 were for miscarriages that had to be surgically removed? Why would a woman go to Planned Parenthood to remove a miscarried child instead of going to an actual hospital?

Hmm, poor stuff NS. Read again, though I suspect you'll find another way to get angry at someone who is pointing out the facts.

And I'm asking if player and others really think that the 333,964 abortions documented at Planned Parenthood were dead (miscarried) before arriving at Planned Parenthood.

[Symmetry]

Wrong. Legally, before 3 months, there is no definition of life, no record of whether a fetus was alive when taken or not, no record if this was what you call an abortion or really just a miscarriage requiring surgery.

Do you really think even a fraction of the 333,964 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2011 were for miscarriages that had to be surgically removed? Why would a woman go to Planned Parenthood to remove a miscarried child instead of going to an actual hospital?

Hmm, poor stuff NS. Read again, though I suspect you'll find another way to get angry at someone who is pointing out the facts.

And I'm asking if player and others really think that the 333,964 abortions documented at Planned Parenthood were dead (miscarried) before arriving at Planned Parenthood.

Nah- you're changing your argument, and getting weird over a simple argument- that miscarriages are abortions. I appreciate that you don't like being told that you're an idiot, and want to double down, but Player was correct, and you're now seeking another obnoxious argument.

[Metsfanmax]

You then tell Metsfanmax to either search through threads that you have posted in or that he is pretending to be ignorant if he has read them.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184295&start=45#p4027177
Your response to him ends with your claification. "death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a child." That is the only clear part. The rest is your assumption on how humanity has changed today and we now would find those acts repulsive.

I then point out that I don't believe the majority would find it repulsive. The reason I pointed this out is because I believe even you don't find that act repulsive, which you later confirm. It intrigued me that you got annoyed with Metsfanmax, when even if he had read all of your other posts it wouldn't have helped because your posts have a lot of contradictions.

What's even more intriguing is that PLAYER seems to accuse me of being conservative when in fact my views on abortion are far more extreme (relative to the American discourse on abortion) than the typical liberal justification, which is not self-consistent even though they mostly get the right answer. If PLAYER had even read my posts in this thread she would have recognized that.