Tennessee: "Get an abortion? We publish your information. And your Doctor."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Seekster:

Karthak:
I believe Seekster posted that he couldn't remember any abortion doctors being murdered. Well, wasn't Dr. George Tiller shot to death in church just a few years ago because he performed abortions?
And in January of this year a clinic was firebombed: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-05/abortion-fire-arrest/52398540/1

Well yes the Tiller thing I remembered and this is the first I heard about the clinic being firebombed. Its illegal and those involved deserve to be punished of course. However the people here are being hysterical and paranoid.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_extreme.asp

That's just the extreme violence section. But no, those would NEVER happen under this bill, for magical happy reasons...

Seekster:
I love how in the same post where you ask for me to show you my cited argument you also say I am full of shit. I appreciate you letting me know what your assessment is before I waste my time with trying to have an intelligent debate with you. How considerate.

So you don't think harassment being a crime means you have a right to not live in perpetual fear of what antagonistic people will do to you next?

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

Karthak:
I believe Seekster posted that he couldn't remember any abortion doctors being murdered. Well, wasn't Dr. George Tiller shot to death in church just a few years ago because he performed abortions?
And in January of this year a clinic was firebombed: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-05/abortion-fire-arrest/52398540/1

Well yes the Tiller thing I remembered and this is the first I heard about the clinic being firebombed. Its illegal and those involved deserve to be punished of course. However the people here are being hysterical and paranoid.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_extreme.asp

That's just the extreme violence section. But no, those would NEVER happen under this bill, for magical happy reasons...

They happen before the bill, they would happen after the bill. You are trying to connect this bill with terrorist attacks on abortion doctors and clinics when there is no basis for such a connection. You are either paranoid or fear-mongering.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
I love how in the same post where you ask for me to show you my cited argument you also say I am full of shit. I appreciate you letting me know what your assessment is before I waste my time with trying to have an intelligent debate with you. How considerate.

So you don't think harassment being a crime means you have a right to not live in perpetual fear of what antagonistic people will do to you next?

Harassment is a crime, but a woman who gets an abortion is statistically going to be more likely to be killed in an arm robbery than she is to be killed because she had an abortion. There are dangers and risks in life, we do not have a right to not have to fear the dangers and risks in life. The state can have police patrol the neighborhood but thats not going to stop all crime nor will it stop all fear of crime. That is what I mean by there not being a right to live without fear. Its not something any government can grant.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:
Hmm besides me being uncomfortable with it I don't see exactly what this is supposed to accomplish other than giving free advertisements for abortion doctors.

How about finding the doctor and setting their house, car, dog, and finally them on fire?

The entire point of the bill is for people to be scared of PERFORMING A LEGAL PROCEDURE.

No its to shame them for performing a legal but highly unethical procedure. If people are scared about this then they are probably scared without it anyway so there is nothing the law can do about that.

Seekster:
I think its a joke that people here criticize Sarah Palin and the like for talking about Death Panels and then they turn around and scream terrorism at this. It would be funny if you people didnt seriously believe that this was akin to terrorism.

No, the correct term in this case would be "Orwellian", or "Kafka-esque."

No its to shame them for performing a legal but highly unethical procedure. If people are scared about this then they are probably scared without it anyway so there is nothing the law can do about that.

Unethical? Your views on ethics is very, very different from mine, but to call other people unethical because they truly think abortion is the right thing in certain circumstances is .. well, unethical?

Personally I find the Christian conservatives to be very, very wrong when it comes to matters such as these. Anybody who does not conform to their twisted sense of morality is their enemy... it's disgusting.

Seekster:
No its to shame them for performing a legal but highly unethical procedure.

1. IN YOUR OPINION UNETHICAL.
2. Since when is that okay?

Also, how easy is it for a terrorist attacking such a clinic right now to get personal information on the patients?

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:
Hmm besides me being uncomfortable with it I don't see exactly what this is supposed to accomplish other than giving free advertisements for abortion doctors.

How about finding the doctor and setting their house, car, dog, and finally them on fire?

The entire point of the bill is for people to be scared of PERFORMING A LEGAL PROCEDURE.

No its to shame them for performing a legal but highly unethical procedure. If people are scared about this then they are probably scared without it anyway so there is nothing the law can do about that.

My great-uncle believed that a white woman and a black man getting married was "evil and unethical".

You know what I think is unethical? Forcing a rape victim to keep the rapists child.

Seekster:

Again if the person is crazy enough to call some woman up that an abortion at 2 in the morning they are probably crazy enough to follow her home from an abortion clinic, get her address and then match the address up with a phone number by looking at city property records which are public domain.

It does make it much easier though. Do we really want to make it easier to harass people, and allow those rare few who are total nutjobs to have a more convenient time tracking down targets?

Making harassment easier to do is never a good thing.

You can't paint on their house either because that is defacement or destruction of private property.

Graffiti is illegal, and we see it everyfreakingwhere. Piracy is illegal, and yet it's widespread as all hell. Something being illegal won't guarantee that no one will do it.

And how do you propose to catch a band of people that could roll up in a van with ski masks late at night, who then jump out with spray paint and quickly paint the words "baby killer" on a house, and then take off? Unless there's a cop at the scene already, how the hell do you catch them?

If the boss doesn't hire a woman because she had an abortion...yes they can legally do that but I don't see why that is a problem

Wat.

This is a personal issue the woman is going through. It's none of the boss' modsbanned business. That's like if someone found out that an employee was gay, or is a transsexual, or happens to be muslim and then went "I don't like those kinds of people. FIRED/Not hired!".

That's discrimination. It's pretty much the same damn thing in this case.

and I don't know for how many bosses that having an abortion is going to be deal breaker no matter how qualified the woman is.

Ok, granted, there's only going to be a handful of moralistic asshole bosses who would do it.

All the behavior you described is possible now. I don't see how this law is going to make it notably more possible than it already is.

It just makes it easier and more convenient to do. That's not good.

This reminds me a bit of those days in high school where if one kid did something bad, but was able to escape being caught, the teacher would sometimes punish the entire class. At first glance, it seems like a logical thing to do...But the problem is that if the class ever found out who did it and the guy didn't have a bunch of tough guys backing him up, his ass was toast. The method of punishment wasn't designed to cause this, but it did. It's not really the same as this law, but it just reminds me of that.

Stagnant:
how easy is it for a terrorist attacking such a clinic right now to get personal information on the patients?

About as easy as getting it on the internet. Like I said, all they would need to do is follow a person home from the clinic. If they are crazy enough to engage in terrorism they are crazy enough to do something like that.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

You know what I think is unethical? Forcing a rape victim to keep the rapists child.

I agree, which is why abortion in the case of rape is a matter for debate. Which practice is more unethical in other words.

aegix drakan:

Seekster:

Again if the person is crazy enough to call some woman up that an abortion at 2 in the morning they are probably crazy enough to follow her home from an abortion clinic, get her address and then match the address up with a phone number by looking at city property records which are public domain.

It does make it much easier though. Do we really want to make it easier to harass people, and allow those rare few who are total nutjobs to have a more convenient time tracking down targets?

Making harassment easier to do is never a good thing.

You can't paint on their house either because that is defacement or destruction of private property.

Graffiti is illegal, and we see it everyfreakingwhere. Piracy is illegal, and yet it's widespread as all hell. Something being illegal won't guarantee that no one will do it.

And how do you propose to catch a band of people that could roll up in a van with ski masks late at night, who then jump out with spray paint and quickly paint the words "baby killer" on a house, and then take off? Unless there's a cop at the scene already, how the hell do you catch them?

If the boss doesn't hire a woman because she had an abortion...yes they can legally do that but I don't see why that is a problem

Wat.

This is a personal issue the woman is going through. It's none of the boss' modsbanned business. That's like if someone found out that an employee was gay, or is a transsexual, or happens to be muslim and then went "I don't like those kinds of people. FIRED/Not hired!".

That's discrimination. It's pretty much the same damn thing in this case.

and I don't know for how many bosses that having an abortion is going to be deal breaker no matter how qualified the woman is.

Ok, granted, there's only going to be a handful of moralistic asshole bosses who would do it.

All the behavior you described is possible now. I don't see how this law is going to make it notably more possible than it already is.

It just makes it easier and more convenient to do. That's not good.

This reminds me a bit of those days in high school where if one kid did something bad, but was able to escape being caught, the teacher would sometimes punish the entire class. At first glance, it seems like a logical thing to do...But the problem is that if the class ever found out who did it and the guy didn't have a bunch of tough guys backing him up, his ass was toast. The method of punishment wasn't designed to cause this, but it did. It's not really the same as this law, but it just reminds me of that.

"Making harassment easier to do is never a good thing."

Then we should ban internet forums, twitter, youtube, and facebook.

"Something being illegal won't guarantee that no one will do it."

No it wont, but most people are going to try and not break the law because most people don't want to face the punishment for breaking the law.

If a boss can decide to not hire you or even fire you for a picture on your facebook page of you at a kegger party I think they are well within their right to fire you or not hire you if you have an abortion. Not very ethical or smart to base your decision only on that factor but you legally can do so I understand.

Seekster:
The funny thing is I disagree with this legislation though for different reasons than most of the people here. Also I think the terrorism angle is utterly absurd and laughably baseless.

Yeah sure, and Al Qaida is nothing more than a misunderstood group or urban redevelopers with a dislike of skyscrapers.


Actually, that sarcastic remark holds true. Pro-lifers have committed more terrorist attacks against the US than Al Qaida has.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
The funny thing is I disagree with this legislation though for different reasons than most of the people here. Also I think the terrorism angle is utterly absurd and laughably baseless.

Yeah sure, and Al Qaida is nothing more than a misunderstood group or urban redevelopers with a dislike of skyscrapers.

To be fair, skyscrapers bring the worst out all of us.

But don't bother. Seekster has made up his mind: his ethics are good, ours are bad, no matter how freaking weird his idea of ethics seems to us.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
The funny thing is I disagree with this legislation though for different reasons than most of the people here. Also I think the terrorism angle is utterly absurd and laughably baseless.

Yeah sure, and Al Qaida is nothing more than a misunderstood group or urban redevelopers with a dislike of skyscrapers.


Actually, that sarcastic remark holds true. Pro-lifers have committed more terrorist attacks against the US than Al Qaida has.

They have killed far less though and that is the point, to save lives. Terrorism is terrorism no matter who commits it but I am willing to consider any measure opposed to abortion SHORT of actual violence.

Also part of me wants Al Qaeda to become addicted to Minecraft and then declare jihad on the creepers for destroying their buildings.

Seekster:

Also part of me wants Al Qaeda to become addicted to Minecraft and then declare jihad on the creepers for destroying their buildings.

Regardless of whatever your stance on the issue at hand is, I think we can all agree with Seekster on this one.

Because that would be very, very funny.

I had to get this far before I had a concern:

But the bill also requires the Department of Health to release patient data broken down by county. Critics say that could reveal the identities of some women who receive abortions, particularly in small, rural communities.

Yeah, that's a problem. First rule of privacy should be data can never be published in a way that it can identify individuals. If they added, "but in no case into reportable populations of <500,000 people" (or insert better number, not sure) then it might make sense. Sometimes stats like that can point out important social or medical issues. Like where I live they figured out doctors in one part of the province were several times more likely to do C-sections and now they are trying to find out why to make sure best practice is followed everywhere.

But identifying individuals based on medical procedures? Shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Then I guess you shouldn't live in Tennessee if you disagree with the policy. It may be dumb, but it's a state issue. If you don't like it, move.

/shrug

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Then I guess you shouldn't live in Tennessee if you disagree with the policy. It may be dumb, but it's a state issue. If you don't like it, move.

/shrug

Because that's the way we should treat these kind of issues.

I lied. That's the worst way to treat those kind of issues.

Seekster:

Again, proved it before but proof is like kryptonite to some people. It wouldnt eliminate all abortions sure but it would reduce the number.

If you've done it before, do so again. As it stands, we've provided evidence that it wouldn't really do much, whereas you've provided nothing more than the assertion that at some point in time you provided evidence to prove your point. Considering how often you're in this sort of thread, I'd have thought you'd keep that sort of stuff on hand.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Then I guess you shouldn't live in Tennessee if you disagree with the policy. It may be dumb, but it's a state issue. If you don't like it, move.

/shrug

1) Yeah, it's totally that simple, especially with a recovering economy and a recent housing crash.
2) Do you really think that's a reasonable response? 'Just move'? Would you be willing to move if...the government banned all guns and instituted a mandatory collection of them or would you be saying "FUCK THIS SHIT" and objecting?

Seekster:

Also I think the terrorism angle is utterly absurd and laughably baseless.
report

Provide another reason for publishing the names of the Doctors who perform this (nevermind the women. GO 'SLUT SHAMING'. Let's just focus on the Doctors for now) that doesn't involve making them afraid for their lives.

Go.

Bassik:

Seekster:

Also part of me wants Al Qaeda to become addicted to Minecraft and then declare jihad on the creepers for destroying their buildings.

Regardless of whatever your stance on the issue at hand is, I think we can all agree with Seekster on this one.

Because that would be very, very funny.

I think there is a youtube series to be made about this. Al Qaeda vs Creepers...may the best suicide bombers win.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Also I think the terrorism angle is utterly absurd and laughably baseless.
report

Provide another reason for publishing the names of the Doctors who perform this (nevermind the women. GO 'SLUT SHAMING'. Let's just focus on the Doctors for now) that doesn't involve making them afraid for their lives.

Go.

I think the intent is to shame them as well or have women who oppose abortion avoid going to those doctors (I assume they do more than just perform abortions). Personally I think the bill could potentially have the opposite effect of providing free advertisement which is a big reason I oppose this legislation; it doesnt strike me as particularly useful.

Seekster:
Harassment is a crime, but a woman who gets an abortion is statistically going to be more likely to be killed in an arm robbery than she is to be killed because she had an abortion.

So as long as it's not murder, it's morally okay?

There are dangers and risks in life, we do not have a right to not have to fear the dangers and risks in life.

But nobody has the right to stalk and harass you. And the government shouldn't be publishing information that makes it easier for them to stalk and harass.

The state can have police patrol the neighborhood but thats not going to stop all crime nor will it stop all fear of crime. That is what I mean by there not being a right to live without fear. Its not something any government can grant.

But the police protect you from the aberrations who would do that. Why? Because their actions are illegal and cause damage to innocent people. Are you saying that if someone does something disagreeable but perfectly legal they no longer have the right to be protected?

Seekster:
Then we should ban internet forums, twitter, youtube, and facebook.

Those are privately owned companies who do have anti-harassment policies. This may come as a shock to you, but a privately owned business is in fact not a government.

No it wont, but most people are going to try and not break the law because most people don't want to face the punishment for breaking the law.

Bullshit. There are three reasons why people break the law: profit, passion, and compulsion. Profit is the only one that can be deterred, not by making punishment a threat, but by making it certain. Crimes of profit are pre-meditated to some degree or another. The culprit does not believe they will be caught.

Also, you seem to be assuming that human nature is inherently evil, that people only are good out of the fear of punishment rather than the actual ability to tell right from wrong. So in effect, you're arguing that if not for the law stopping you, you would be a homicidal kleptomaniac yourself.

If a boss can decide to not hire you or even fire you for a picture on your facebook page of you at a kegger party I think they are well within their right to fire you or not hire you if you have an abortion. Not very ethical or smart to base your decision only on that factor but you legally can do so I understand.

By putting that picture on Facebook, you have willingly made it public. But what goes on between you and your doctor is legally protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. It is not the place of the government to make that public. And if any doctor made it public without your consent, he would lose his medical license immediately. The only person who has the authority to make these decisions public is you. If a woman does not wish to tell her employer that she had an abortion, that is her goddamn right. What happens in the doctor's office is nobody's business but the patient's.

Seekster:
Personally I think the bill could potentially have the opposite effect of providing free advertisement which is a big reason I oppose this legislation; it doesnt strike me as particularly useful.

Yes, the violation of doctor-confidentiality? Pfft! Who gives a shit about that? We gave women the right to vote and wear pants, now they want the right to keep their medical records in strict confidence? Talk about ungrateful.

No, the real problem is that someone, somewhere might find out that there is an abortion clinic within driving distance of their home. And then we'll all be fucked!

Seekster:

I think the intent is to shame them as well or have women who oppose abortion avoid going to those doctors (I assume they do more than just perform abortions). Personally I think the bill could potentially have the opposite effect of providing free advertisement which is a big reason I oppose this legislation; it doesnt strike me as particularly useful.

What other completely legal medical procedures should also publish the names of doctors who perform them? IVF treatments? Some people (Catholics, a rather large voting bloc apparently) see those as unethical; at least doctrinally. Blood transfusions? Jehovah's Witnesses as I recall object. Maybe viagra? I mean, why not, right? We're in the business of 'slut shaming', may as well get around to manslut shaming too, right?

Fuck it, why not just make all medical records public! I'm sure someone out there sees casts for broken bones as 'unethical', so we'd best cater to their backwards medieval viewpoints too.

And why is 'shaming Doctors' useful? You think it'll make them perform fewer abortions and as a result fewer abortions will occur? Except...you still haven't provided that evidence while we have. Until you do provide some evidence, all you're doing is encouraging harassment of someone performing a perfectly legal medical procedure and breaching doctor-patient confidentiality so you can satisfy your own slutshaming desires.

Wow, just wow. I won't even get into this discussion at this late point, but... damn, Seekster. That's just awful. Seems like on this issue you really will go the route of "ends justify the means", no matter the means and their own consequences. That's a very bad way of going about things, because it leads you to... well, this. A point where you are willing to defend a measure to shame patient and doctor, violate confidentiality and risk exposing people to harassment, violence and death because it's for the greater good. I've said it in an earlier discussion we had once, that pro-choice people aren't in favour of abortions, but that there are better ways of reducing the number of abortions (through reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and all that entails). Rethink your approach, man. Seriously. You want to be moral, don't you? You want to be good? Well, this isn't it. You don't fix a problem by throwing this kind of shit at it.

Oh, I suppose you could try voting the people responsible for this kind of idiocy out of office. But considering how corrupt our political system is at the local, state and federal levels, and Americans unwillingness to actually get off their ass and do something about it, that's pretty much the only way you're going to solve it.

It may be narrow-minded, but it's the only way that you're going to get away from a stupid policy like this one. You can't elect them out. You can challenge it in court, which won't do any good because the judges and the lawmakers probably all go to the same church.

Look, I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying you'd be better off moving away than fighting the system. It's Tennessee. They're not going to change because some liberal in California or some conservative in Texas thinks they should. And they shouldn't have to. This is why we have "states rights".

Everyone is different. You can either accept that, as the "intelligent" beings that you claim to be, or you can be hypocrites, who preach "diversity" but don't really mean it. Diversity doesn't just mean race, gender or sexual orientation. It also includes religious preference (or the lack thereof), whether you like it or not. So, if you're going to be pro-diversity, you have to take the good with the bad. Either way, you don't get to dictate policy for everyone, and every state. Would they tolerate this in California? Probably not. But they will in Tennessee. And until the SCOTUS says differently, they have a right to.

So you can "fight the system" in Tennessee, which of course won't work. Or you can work smarter, not harder, and move. Simple.

Skeleon:
Wow, just wow. I won't even get into this discussion at this late point, but... damn, Seekster. That's just awful. Seems like on this issue you really will go the route of "ends justify the means", no matter the means and their own consequences. That's a very bad way of going about things, because it leads you to... well, this. A point where you are willing to defend a measure to shame patient and doctor, violate confidentiality and risk exposing people to harassment, violence and death because it's for the greater good. I've said it in an earlier discussion we had once, that pro-choice people aren't in favour of abortions, but that there are better ways of reducing the number of abortions (through reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and all that entails). Rethink your approach, man. Seriously. You want to be moral, don't you? You want to be good? Well, this isn't it. You don't fix a problem by throwing this kind of shit at it.

I did make it clear more than once that I oppose this bill though for different reasons than most of those here.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
Harassment is a crime, but a woman who gets an abortion is statistically going to be more likely to be killed in an arm robbery than she is to be killed because she had an abortion.

So as long as it's not murder, it's morally okay?

There are dangers and risks in life, we do not have a right to not have to fear the dangers and risks in life.

But nobody has the right to stalk and harass you. And the government shouldn't be publishing information that makes it easier for them to stalk and harass.

The state can have police patrol the neighborhood but thats not going to stop all crime nor will it stop all fear of crime. That is what I mean by there not being a right to live without fear. Its not something any government can grant.

But the police protect you from the aberrations who would do that. Why? Because their actions are illegal and cause damage to innocent people. Are you saying that if someone does something disagreeable but perfectly legal they no longer have the right to be protected?

Seekster:
Then we should ban internet forums, twitter, youtube, and facebook.

Those are privately owned companies who do have anti-harassment policies. This may come as a shock to you, but a privately owned business is in fact not a government.

No it wont, but most people are going to try and not break the law because most people don't want to face the punishment for breaking the law.

Bullshit. There are three reasons why people break the law: profit, passion, and compulsion. Profit is the only one that can be deterred, not by making punishment a threat, but by making it certain. Crimes of profit are pre-meditated to some degree or another. The culprit does not believe they will be caught.

Also, you seem to be assuming that human nature is inherently evil, that people only are good out of the fear of punishment rather than the actual ability to tell right from wrong. So in effect, you're arguing that if not for the law stopping you, you would be a homicidal kleptomaniac yourself.

If a boss can decide to not hire you or even fire you for a picture on your facebook page of you at a kegger party I think they are well within their right to fire you or not hire you if you have an abortion. Not very ethical or smart to base your decision only on that factor but you legally can do so I understand.

By putting that picture on Facebook, you have willingly made it public. But what goes on between you and your doctor is legally protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. It is not the place of the government to make that public. And if any doctor made it public without your consent, he would lose his medical license immediately. The only person who has the authority to make these decisions public is you. If a woman does not wish to tell her employer that she had an abortion, that is her goddamn right. What happens in the doctor's office is nobody's business but the patient's.

Seekster:
Personally I think the bill could potentially have the opposite effect of providing free advertisement which is a big reason I oppose this legislation; it doesnt strike me as particularly useful.

Yes, the violation of doctor-confidentiality? Pfft! Who gives a shit about that? We gave women the right to vote and wear pants, now they want the right to keep their medical records in strict confidence? Talk about ungrateful.

No, the real problem is that someone, somewhere might find out that there is an abortion clinic within driving distance of their home. And then we'll all be fucked!

"And the government shouldn't be publishing information that makes it easier for them to stalk and harass."

You are aware that I can legally and freely find out how the value of your property with only your phone number right? So what is stopping me from opening up a phone book and harassing people at random? Because I have better things to do...like talk to you fine people.

"Are you saying that if someone does something disagreeable but perfectly legal they no longer have the right to be protected?"

No they absolutely have the right to be protected. I don't see how any of this is relevant to the bill.

"By putting that picture on Facebook, you have willingly made it public. But what goes on between you and your doctor is legally protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. It is not the place of the government to make that public. And if any doctor made it public without your consent, he would lose his medical license immediately. The only person who has the authority to make these decisions public is you. If a woman does not wish to tell her employer that she had an abortion, that is her goddamn right. What happens in the doctor's office is nobody's business but the patient's."

That is very well put and I agree, thats why even if this law were passed I think it would be thrown out in the courts.

Seekster:
I did make it clear more than once that I oppose this bill though for different reasons than most of those here.

Yes, which kind of misses the point of my post, doesn't it?
"I oppose it because it could be an advertisement" not "because it may incite harassment, violence, murder and because it is an incredible big government infiltration of privacy, doctor/patient-confidentiality and won't actually help with the underlying issue of unwanted pregnancies".
I honestly don't care whether you support or oppose the bill when your reasoning is so awful, basically clearly stating that you don't care about any of those issues and you would gladly see a bill like this installed if you thought it would help your cause, no matter the costs.
You are on a dangerous path when your argumentation - and it isn't just in this thread, but practically everywhere abortion is touched upon, be it vaginal ultrasounds or whatever - boils down to "the ends justify the means", is my point. Rethink your approach and support something that helps without causing more harm than the problem you are opposed to itself. You are willing to inflict so much damage to get your way on this issue, it's appalling.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
I did make it clear more than once that I oppose this bill though for different reasons than most of those here.

Yes, which kind of misses the point of my post, doesn't it?
"I oppose it because it could be an advertisement" not "because it may incite harassment, violence, murder and because it is an incredible big government infiltration of privacy, doctor/patient-confidentiality and won't actually help with the underlying issue of unwanted pregnancies".
I honestly don't care whether you support or oppose the bill when your reasoning is so awful, basically clearly stating that you don't care about any of those issues and you would gladly see a bill like this installed if you thought it would help your cause, no matter the costs.
You are on a dangerous path when your argumentation - and it isn't just in this thread, but practically everywhere abortion is touched upon, be it vaginal ultrasounds or whatever - boils down to "the ends justify the means", is my point. Rethink your approach and support something that helps without causing more harm than the problem you are opposed to itself. You are willing to inflict so much damage to get your way on this issue, it's appalling.

Also the doctor-patient relationship thing bugs me. Oh sure for stuff like sonograms its one thing but I think actually publishing the name of the patient goes too far and publishing the name of the doctor seems counter productive.

I am against violence to achieve an end to abortion on demand in the United States, that is where I draw the line. Anything else I am willing to CONSIDER but not necessarily support if the ends are not worth the means. So no my stance is not "ends justify the means" however the end to be achieved is worth a lot to me and there are a number of means I would be willing to consider on the abortion issue which I might not otherwise be willing to consider on other issues.

To simplify, I would sooner march in a gay pride parade and speak out in open support of federally mandated same-sex marriages against the will of the states than support abortion on demand.

Seekster:

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
Privacy is a right sure, there is no right to not live in fear but thats beside the point.

You are full of shit beyond your years. If you don't have any right to not live in constant fear, then why is harassment a crime?

I love how in the same post where you ask for me to show you my cited argument you also say I am full of shit. I appreciate you letting me know what your assessment is before I waste my time with trying to have an intelligent debate with you. How considerate.

Seekster. Intelligent debate. Hmm. Let me just flip over my word-a-day calender here and...oooh will ya look at that, today's word is "oxymoron", how apt.

If you weren't serious about your despicable views Seeks, you'd be funny. As it is, it's just depressing.

So they Red States gone through "invasive bullshit", straight past "making them watch the screen" with a glance at "making the doctors lie to them" and now they're onto "publicly shaming them."

Why can't they just publicly come out and say "okay, you got us. We hate abortion with every fibre of my being and we're prepared to do anything we feel like doing to make it so nobody has one ever again!"? At least then I'd respect their honesty.

In a country where people can be and have been killed and assaulted because of this stupid fucking subject, wanting to openly publish people's information because of having abortions or performing is nothing short of irresponsible.

Seriously America? Sort yourself out. You're making the rest of the developed nations all collectively facepalm.

Seekster:
I think its a joke that people here criticize Sarah Palin and the like for talking about Death Panels and then they turn around and scream terrorism at this. It would be funny if you people didnt seriously believe that this was akin to terrorism.

Sarah Palin's "death panels" were complete fiction designed to scare people and confuse the issue; it's an example of the "big lie" theory of political propaganda, where if you say a lie that's big and extreme and outrageous, and you say it often enough and in enough places, people will start to believe it.

On the other hand, people murdering abortion doctors, anti-abortion groups making "wanted" posters with the name and home address of abortion doctors, is reality.

If you don't think that this was intended to scare doctors and to remind them that they are risking their lives in order to preform abortions, and that this is being done in full knowledge that this kind of behavior on the part of the state has a significant chance of pushing some nutjob over the edge into committing violence, then I fear you are rather naive about politics. Politicians know exactly what they are doing when they do something like this. There is a long history in this country of subtle "wink and a nod" types of co-operation between state governments and violent hate groups in order to intimidate and control people, especially in the south.

For the record, Seekster: a bill whose sole effect is more or less enabling harassment? Not a great idea. And I love how it seems like you're on the wrong side of just about every single social issue. ^_^ "I'd rather support gay rights than support abortion!" LMAO.

Seekster:

All the behavior you described is possible now. I don't see how this law is going to make it notably more possible than it already is.

Because the information will be public fucking record! Come on, you're smarter than this.

OK, Seekster ...

1. You claim to disagree with this legislation, but for a different reason than the rest of us. What reason would that be?

2. If not to publicly shame, what goddamn point is there to this legislation?

3. Why do you think it's OK for people to be publicly shamed for engaging in a perfectly legal medical procedure?

4. Are you honestly going to say that publishing people's records doesn't make harassment (or worse) much easier for anti-abortion groups? REALLY?

Yosarian2:

Seekster:
I think its a joke that people here criticize Sarah Palin and the like for talking about Death Panels and then they turn around and scream terrorism at this. It would be funny if you people didnt seriously believe that this was akin to terrorism.

Sarah Palin's "death panels" were complete fiction designed to scare people and confuse the issue; it's an example of the "big lie" theory of political propaganda, where if you say a lie that's big and extreme and outrageous, and you say it often enough and in enough places, people will start to believe it.

On the other hand, people murdering abortion doctors, anti-abortion groups making "wanted" posters with the name and home address of abortion doctors, is reality.

If you don't think that this was intended to scare doctors and to remind them that they are risking their lives in order to preform abortions, and that this is being done in full knowledge that this kind of behavior on the part of the state has a significant chance of pushing some nutjob over the edge into committing violence, then I fear you are rather naive about politics. Politicians know exactly what they are doing when they do something like this. There is a long history in this country of subtle "wink and a nod" types of co-operation between state governments and violent hate groups in order to intimidate and control people, especially in the south.

Palin's death panels (which is funny because it makes it sound like her idea when its not but I digress) have as much basis in reality as connecting this bill to encouraging terrorism. In both cases you take one thing in the bill, twist it, add in some paranoia and fear mongering, and go to town with it screaming. Its pitiful.

I don't deny that abortion terrorists do exist but the idea that this bill is designed to help them or even would help them is a stretch to put it lightly. Its utterly ludicrous if you don't put it lightly. Again, they already do this with sex-offenders and you don't see sex-offenders getting knocked off right and left.

And I repeat, your logic here reminds me of the logic Rush Limbaugh typically employs when he is talking about the Media and the Democratic party scheming together.

Stagnant:
For the record, Seekster: a bill whose sole effect is more or less enabling harassment? Not a great idea. And I love how it seems like you're on the wrong side of just about every single social issue. ^_^ "I'd rather support gay rights than support abortion!" LMAO.

I can't be on the wrong side of every issue because you and I disagree on most issues. ^_^

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:

All the behavior you described is possible now. I don't see how this law is going to make it notably more possible than it already is.

Because the information will be public fucking record! Come on, you're smarter than this.

Which again is another reason I oppose this legislation. For the patients yeah that going to far. Its not going to far to publish the location of abortion clinics and doctors but its redundant because that information is already out there on the web for all to see.

Tyler Perry:
OK, Seekster ...

1. You claim to disagree with this legislation, but for a different reason than the rest of us. What reason would that be?

2. If not to publicly shame, what goddamn point is there to this legislation?

3. Why do you think it's OK for people to be publicly shamed for engaging in a perfectly legal medical procedure?

4. Are you honestly going to say that publishing people's records doesn't make harassment (or worse) much easier for anti-abortion groups? REALLY?

1. It doesnt seem to serve any useful purpose. I get the intent is to shame people but it seems to me that it would instead create sympathy for the people who get abortions and would give doctors free advertising. Both of which are counter productive from my view. Also see what I said earlier in my post about doctor-patient relationships.

2. It is to publicly shame, I just don't think it would do that very well...then again this is Tennessee we are talking about so it just might.

3. Because that sort of thing is considered a form of expression (so long as it doesnt become harassment in the legal sense).

4. Consistency check: Are you honestly going to say that not doing a body search on every person before they bored a plane doesnt make it easier for a hijacker?

To answer the question though, its very easy to get someone's information with only their phone number and maybe address if you know where to look. For private parties (individuals) its a little bit more difficult but still shockingly simple. Property records are public record after all. I am a journalist by profession and gathering information is something I am particularly good at. In fact I do it on a daily basis at my job. Given your phone number and probably a street address (don't even need the country, city, or state) I can probably tell you how much your house is worth and what color your roof is, and whether or not you have a pool...all from in front of my computer.

Seekster:
Given your phone number and probably a street address (don't even need the country, city, or state) I can probably tell you how much your house is worth and what color your roof is, and whether or not you have a pool...all from in front of my computer.

Well, no fucking shit, Columbo. And you don't see the problem with publishing said information, of people who received a legal-yet-controversial medical procedure, and those who provided it, readily available for people who have PROVEN they are willing to use violence to intimidate people from receiving or providing said procedure? You can't be THAT willfully in denial.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
Given your phone number and probably a street address (don't even need the country, city, or state) I can probably tell you how much your house is worth and what color your roof is, and whether or not you have a pool...all from in front of my computer.

Well, no fucking shit, Columbo. And you don't see the problem with publishing said information, of people who received a legal-yet-controversial medical procedure, and those who provided it, readily available for people who have PROVEN they are willing to use violence to intimidate people from receiving or providing said procedure? You can't be THAT willfully in denial.

Who the crap is Columbo?

Im not in denial, im just not paranoid. The information we are talking about is already readily available for those crazy enough to want to use it for violent purposes. This bill does not change that or make it significantly easier. At most it saves them an hour or two on Spokeo.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked