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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Seekster:

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.

Actually, there have in fact been cases where a sex offender was murdered because his name was included on those lists.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501203_162-3597422.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-16-maine-shootings_x.htm

Now, in the case of sex offenders, the reward in terms of protecting the community is likely worth the increased risk of vigilantism. But I don't see how you can justify taking a similar risk (in fact, probably a higher risk, considering the history) of violence just in order to do...whatever it is they're trying to do.

I also don't imagine that the Tennessee government doesn't understand that there's a risk of violence here. About the best way you could possibly look at it is that they're willing to risk people being murdered in order to prove a point here. And that's if you're being really, really charitable about their motives.

Seekster:
Who the crap is Columbo?

A fictional detective. I can find your house with Google Earth if I have the address. I hope I'm not supposed to be particularly impressed with your ability to find a house on the internet.

Seekster:
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.

But it DOES make it significantly easier. If you're unwilling to admit that, you're utterly fucking hopeless.

It's a massive invasion of privacy, and anyone who defends even the intent of this odious bill should be ashamed of themselves, if they were capable of shame. It's sexual McCarthyism.

Yosarian2:

Seekster:

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.

Actually, there have in fact been cases where a sex offender was murdered because his name was included on those lists.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501203_162-3597422.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-16-maine-shootings_x.htm

Now, in the case of sex offenders, the reward in terms of protecting the community is likely worth the increased risk of vigilantism. But I don't see how you can justify taking a similar risk (in fact, probably a higher risk, considering the history) of violence just in order to do...whatever it is they're trying to do.

I also don't imagine that the Tennessee government doesn't understand that there's a risk of violence here. About the best way you could possibly look at it is that they're willing to risk people being murdered in order to prove a point here. And that's if you're being really, really charitable about their motives.

I would imagine there are a few cases with sex offenders but no notable rise after they started posting where sex offenders live online.

Again I don't see how the risk of abortion patients or doctors being murdered is notably increased by this. Like I said, at most its saves a would be terrorist an hour or two of research. If they are determined to kill someone its ridiculous to assume they are going to give up looking for the person they want to kill when its already so easy to find them.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
Who the crap is Columbo?

A fictional detective. I can find your house with Google Earth if I have the address. I hope I'm not supposed to be particularly impressed with your ability to find a house on the internet.

Seekster:
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.

But it DOES make it significantly easier. If you're unwilling to admit that, you're utterly fucking hopeless.

It's a massive invasion of privacy, and anyone who defends even the intent of this odious bill should be ashamed of themselves, if they were capable of shame. It's sexual McCarthyism.

Jokes on you I don't live in a house! Seriously though my point wasnt to impress people (well maybe a bit) it was to show how easy it is already to find people and thus this Tennessee bill is not going to to increase the danger of violence by any meaningful amount.

I guess this means you have run out of arguments and so are simply saying "but it does" to counter my logic?

Seekster:
I guess this means you have run out of arguments and so are simply saying "but it does" to counter my logic?

What "logic"? You're basically saying that if the fringies want to harass someone who's had an abortion, well, they'll catch up with that hussy anyway, so putting her info out in public is no big deal. Which is mindnumbingly asinine.

Rapists are gonna rape anyway, so might as well give them a map to the places where all the suggestively dressed women live, amirite?

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
I guess this means you have run out of arguments and so are simply saying "but it does" to counter my logic?

What "logic"? You're basically saying that if the fringies want to harass someone who's had an abortion, well, they'll catch up with that hussy anyway, so putting her info out in public is no big deal. Which is mindnumbingly asinine.

Rapists are gonna rape anyway, so might as well give them a map to the places where all the suggestively dressed women live, amirite?

LOL now you are just being willfully blind. The original claim here was that this law would put women who get abortions and abortion doctors in danger. I have shown logically that this law does not notably increase the danger they are already in and indeed the purpose of this law is not to encourage violence. The original argument therefore is nothing more than paranoid fear mongering, the likes of which I see more from Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.

Seekster:
LOL now you are just being willfully blind. The original claim here was that this law would put women who get abortions and abortion doctors in danger. I have shown logically that this law does not notably increase the danger they are already in and indeed the purpose of this law is not to encourage violence. The original argument therefore is nothing more than paranoid fear mongering, the likes of which I see more from Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.

No you haven't. Making it easier to obtain this information doesn't increase the danger? Are you FUCKING MENTAL?

I don't think the purpose of the law is to encourage violence; I think it's to encourage sexual McCarthyism and slut-shaming. What I'M saying is that greasing the skids for violence is at best an unintended consequence, and at worst just considered collateral damage.

It's low-hanging fruit, but I'll bite.

Dami i Gozpada, are we really in any way equating abortion patients and sex offenders?

While I'm a little bit opponent to sex offenders being publicly revealed on a list, I can see the merits. They could still be a danger to their enviroment, and have been proven to not be entirely trustworthy. If they are espescially dangerous, perhaps the need for safety outweighs the risk of vigilante retaliation in the greater good of things.

The difference is glaringly obvious. People who have had an abortion is not a risk to their enviroment whatsoever. There is no reason at all to put them through an irresponsible shame campaign.

Furthermore, the state doing this is in itself a silent acceptance of anti-abortion violence. Wether the risk is higher or not, they have certainly not shown any resolve whatsoever to combat this violence if they do make the information and details even more widely available.

Once again, this bill, whatever apparent and hidden purpose it might have or how it increase or decrease the risk of violence and harrasment, is utterly revolting.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
LOL now you are just being willfully blind. The original claim here was that this law would put women who get abortions and abortion doctors in danger. I have shown logically that this law does not notably increase the danger they are already in and indeed the purpose of this law is not to encourage violence. The original argument therefore is nothing more than paranoid fear mongering, the likes of which I see more from Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.

No you haven't. Making it easier to obtain this information doesn't increase the danger? Are you FUCKING MENTAL?

I don't think the purpose of the law is to encourage violence; I think it's to encourage sexual McCarthyism and slut-shaming. What I'M saying is that greasing the skids for violence is at best an unintended consequence, and at worst just considered collateral damage.

Yes I did, I even got you to say it.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
I guess this means you have run out of arguments and so are simply saying "but it does" to counter my logic?

What "logic"? You're basically saying that if the fringies want to harass someone who's had an abortion, well, they'll catch up with that hussy anyway, so putting her info out in public is no big deal. Which is mindnumbingly asinine.

Rapists are gonna rape anyway, so might as well give them a map to the places where all the suggestively dressed women live, amirite?

Seekster:

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
LOL now you are just being willfully blind. The original claim here was that this law would put women who get abortions and abortion doctors in danger. I have shown logically that this law does not notably increase the danger they are already in and indeed the purpose of this law is not to encourage violence. The original argument therefore is nothing more than paranoid fear mongering, the likes of which I see more from Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.

No you haven't. Making it easier to obtain this information doesn't increase the danger? Are you FUCKING MENTAL?

I don't think the purpose of the law is to encourage violence; I think it's to encourage sexual McCarthyism and slut-shaming. What I'M saying is that greasing the skids for violence is at best an unintended consequence, and at worst just considered collateral damage.

Yes I did, I even got you to say it.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
I guess this means you have run out of arguments and so are simply saying "but it does" to counter my logic?

What "logic"? You're basically saying that if the fringies want to harass someone who's had an abortion, well, they'll catch up with that hussy anyway, so putting her info out in public is no big deal. Which is mindnumbingly asinine.

Rapists are gonna rape anyway, so might as well give them a map to the places where all the suggestively dressed women live, amirite?

Huh? It's pretty obvious that I was pointing out that your "logic" was wrong.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:

Tyler Perry:

No you haven't. Making it easier to obtain this information doesn't increase the danger? Are you FUCKING MENTAL?

I don't think the purpose of the law is to encourage violence; I think it's to encourage sexual McCarthyism and slut-shaming. What I'M saying is that greasing the skids for violence is at best an unintended consequence, and at worst just considered collateral damage.

Yes I did, I even got you to say it.

Tyler Perry:

What "logic"? You're basically saying that if the fringies want to harass someone who's had an abortion, well, they'll catch up with that hussy anyway, so putting her info out in public is no big deal. Which is mindnumbingly asinine.

Rapists are gonna rape anyway, so might as well give them a map to the places where all the suggestively dressed women live, amirite?

Huh? It's pretty obvious that I was pointing out that your "logic" was wrong.

If it were obvious I would have gotten it.

In any case my logic here in unassailable but at least you arent pushing the whole terrorism angle so I have no further issue with you here.

Seekster:
Like I said, at most its saves a would be terrorist an hour or two of research. If they are determined to kill someone its ridiculous to assume they are going to give up looking for the person they want to kill when its already so easy to find them.

Not really. Remember, we're not talking about "abortion doctors", we're talking about "any doctor, nurse, or medical professional who preforms an abortion". Many doctors, nurses medical techs who work in the maternity ward of every hospital in the country havee occasionally preformed an abortion; for example, when an ultrasound shows that the fetus has such serious issues that means it can not possibly survive after birth, or when it's necessary to save the life of the mother. People don't go to the hospital in order to get abortions, generally, so it's not that common, but if something goes badly wrong with the pregnancy, it usually is discovered in the hospital.

When a crazy extremist sees on a list published by the state that the nice doctor or nurse next door preformed an abortion, do you think that he's going to sit down with them and have a nice cup of tea and ask them about the situation before he shoots them?

Also, if someone wants to attack or kill women who have had an abortion, right now they have no easy way of finding that out. You don't think this law puts them at risk?

In any case, having a list like this actually put out by the state totally changes the situation. In the minds of some people, it will imply that the state government itself is saying that these are bad people and is giving the green light to go after them.

While I think publishing actual names is going a tad bit far, I'm not against this. I 100% support the statistics part, and how is knowing the doctors name going to stop any potential violence. If someone's going to do something, their name plays no part in it since it's not that hard just to walk into the clinic and find which doctors work there (or attack indisciminatively.)

I don't know where people are getting all this threats and intimidation from. It's called research... Which is already done, this will simply make it mandatory.

Blablahb:
-thousands of lives ruined
I don't know too many mothers who would consider their baby "life-ruining."

-educations not finished
If they are that worried about their future they shouldn't have risked pregnancy.

-women who die due to complications
This already happens. Nothing suggests this would increase.

-lifelong trauma for rape victims
It's not the baby's fault so stop blaming them.

-children who will be in a lot of trouble because their mother can't support them
That's simply called bad parenting.

-women will be injured and die as abortions quite simply go underground under unsafe conditions
Nothing suggests this would happen, despite all the major health organisations claiming such. The most important thing here is after-care if complications do take place. The reason so many die from abortions in Africa isn't that the procedure is illegal, but because they don't have up to date health care.

Yosarian2:

Seekster:
Like I said, at most its saves a would be terrorist an hour or two of research. If they are determined to kill someone its ridiculous to assume they are going to give up looking for the person they want to kill when its already so easy to find them.

Not really. Remember, we're not talking about "abortion doctors", we're talking about "any doctor, nurse, or medical professional who preforms an abortion". Many doctors, nurses medical techs who work in the maternity ward of every hospital in the country havee occasionally preformed an abortion; for example, when an ultrasound shows that the fetus has such serious issues that means it can not possibly survive after birth, or when it's necessary to save the life of the mother. People don't go to the hospital in order to get abortions, generally, so it's not that common, but if something goes badly wrong with the pregnancy, it usually is discovered in the hospital.

When a crazy extremist sees on a list published by the state that the nice doctor or nurse next door preformed an abortion, do you think that he's going to sit down with them and have a nice cup of tea and ask them about the situation before he shoots them?

Also, if someone wants to attack or kill women who have had an abortion, right now they have no easy way of finding that out. You don't think this law puts them at risk?

In any case, having a list like this actually put out by the state totally changes the situation. In the minds of some people, it will imply that the state government itself is saying that these are bad people and is giving the green light to go after them.

Sorry but I think you are just being paranoid or hysterical. This is like with the whole "targets" things with the bullseye that were such bs during the whole debate after the Tuscon shooting. The state puts out a bunch of lists I very much doubt nutters take this to mean the state wants those people dead.

If someone is willing to kill abortion doctors (or nurses) then whether the state has them online or not they are still going to go after them.

Also if they are crazy enough to kill them all they would need to do is wait for them to get off work at the clinic and then follow them home. That is only one way you could do it without the list. That is why I think you are grasping at straws.

Yeah Ill agree its a bad idea to post the list but not because its going to encourage crazy people to do something that they would do anyway if they are crazy enough to do it.

F4LL3N:

-lifelong trauma for rape victims
It's not the baby's fault so stop blaming them.

It's a foetus (or a zygote, or an embryo), not a baby.

F4LL3N:

I don't know where people are getting all this threats and intimidation from. It's called research... Which is already done, this will simply make it mandatory.

What research purpose does publishing the doctor's name have?

Amnestic:

F4LL3N:

-lifelong trauma for rape victims
It's not the baby's fault so stop blaming them.

It's a foetus (or a zygote, or an embryo), not a baby.

Don't bother.

I can see people defending against accusations that publishing personal details will lead to people being targeted but I don't think this even matters.

Can anyone actually provide a legitimate reason for personal details to be published for having an abortion? You can't, there just isn't one.

Instead of defending any negative consequences of a law provide an argument for benefits for the law. If there are no actual benefits to the law than any possible negatives, no matter how slim the chances may be, far outweigh the lack of actual benefits.

O_O

Yeah...um....

image

This cant be right. That must be a misprint. There is no way they are legitimately considering doing this. I have no problems with abortions becoming less common[1] but this seems....I dont know, whats the word I am looking for...oh yes, Extreme. Please, Tennesse....just..stop. You are making us pro-lifers look bad.

ps: Being from Kansas, I actually remember the whole Dr. Miller thing. I know that when that happened, the media (excluding Kansas) jumped all over it. We dont need that again.

[1] and illegal *hopes Roe V. Wade is eventually overturned*

pyrate:
I can see people defending against accusations that publishing personal details will lead to people being targeted but I don't think this even matters.

Can anyone actually provide a legitimate reason for personal details to be published for having an abortion? You can't, there just isn't one.

Instead of defending any negative consequences of a law provide an argument for benefits for the law. If there are no actual benefits to the law than any possible negatives, no matter how slim the chances may be, far outweigh the lack of actual benefits.

Oh cool. I've finally encountered an instance where one post accounts for approximately 100% of the reason in an online forum thread. This is like, a forum singularity or something. I should write this up and publish it in some physics journal.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

LOL No there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison.

Unless Tennessee opted to institute something like this, of course.

You realize that bill was dropped right? Link. Yes, there are crazy stupid bills that garner national news, however most of the time they're dropped because they're crazy and stupid

Seekster:
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.

Terrorism is about sowing fear, and pro-life terrorism has been doing that on a massive scale.

Now some crazed legislators are proposing publishing ready-to-use target lists for an terrorist movement that large and effective... Do you honestly not see what the problem is here?

Seekster:
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.

The fact that you're afraid of getting a nightstick to the face when I call the police on your ass?

Again, you're arguing that stalking happens anyway, so why bother protecting people at all? Jesus, my Slavic grandmother isn't this defeatist.

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

Except when it comes to upholding laws about doctor-patient confidentiality? Then it's totally okay to break those laws?

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.

That would be more reasonable if I didn't (and I hope I'm wrong) detect a note of regret in your voice. So to speak.

Seekster:
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.

I would love to see you put your money where your mouth is but we both know that won't happen for two reasons:

1. You're a dude. You've never had an abortion. Consequently, that rather narrows down the list of controversial medical procedures you've had that psycho-Christian activist groups are willing to hurt people over.
2. You'd find some excuse not to do it anyway.

Lionsfan:

Amnestic:

Seekster:

LOL No there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison.

Unless Tennessee opted to institute something like this, of course.

You realize that bill was dropped right? Link. Yes, there are crazy stupid bills that garner national news, however most of the time they're dropped because they're crazy and stupid

Yes. I also realise that the bill I linked to there was from South Dakota, not Tennessee. My statement was a postulation about a possible future bill in the Tennessee state government which emulated (to a degree) the bill which South Dakota put forth but ultimately dropped. A bill which may not be dropped.

I thought that was quite clear.

Amnestic:

Lionsfan:

Amnestic:

Unless Tennessee opted to institute something like this, of course.

You realize that bill was dropped right? Link. Yes, there are crazy stupid bills that garner national news, however most of the time they're dropped because they're crazy and stupid

Yes. I also realise that the bill I linked to there was from South Dakota, not Tennessee. My statement was a postulation about a possible future bill in the Tennessee state government which emulated (to a degree) the bill which South Dakota put forth but ultimately dropped. A bill which may not be dropped.

I thought that was quite clear.

I got you were talking about this Tennessee bill, but the way you posted the South Dakota bill made it seem like it was passed, and that now South Dakota people were killing Abortion Doctors left and right.

Lionsfan:

Amnestic:

Lionsfan:
You realize that bill was dropped right? Link. Yes, there are crazy stupid bills that garner national news, however most of the time they're dropped because they're crazy and stupid

Yes. I also realise that the bill I linked to there was from South Dakota, not Tennessee. My statement was a postulation about a possible future bill in the Tennessee state government which emulated (to a degree) the bill which South Dakota put forth but ultimately dropped. A bill which may not be dropped.

I thought that was quite clear.

I got you were talking about this Tennessee bill, but the way you posted the South Dakota bill made it seem like it was passed, and that now South Dakota people were killing Abortion Doctors left and right.

Wasn't the intention, especially since the MotherJones article links to updates on the story. Was merely using it as a comparison of a potential Tennessee bill.

And I think the bill is mentioning since even though it got dropped, someone thought it was a good idea to put it forward.

And people WONDER why I hate religion, and inbreeding?

Yep, no real reason to justify my hate.
None at all.

Just to add from my personal experience- I've stood outside an abortion clinc. Yes, I am one of "those people". One day, we had 13 women go into the office. Not all were going for an abortion, some were for consults/follow-ups. You can tell the ones going in for a procedure, and let me tell you, it is an awful day in their lives.

One of the three women going in for a procedure was incredibly distraught. She was young, she was alone. She was three months pregnant, and we were able to stop and talk to her. She was nearly homeless, and had no way to take care of a baby. One parent gone, another an alcoholic.

We convinced her not to go through with it. Her girl was born. I (and my wife) personally have given the family over $5000 in the past 2 years. Another woman from our church allowed her to stay rent-free in half of a duplex she owns for a year. The woman now has a job, and is supporting her baby, and comes to church almost every week.

There's just situations where an abortion seems like the only hope, when it isn't. Things change in life, even when it's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel. So before anyone wants to shit on the people who wait at the clinic and try to talk to the women going in, remember that we aren't doing it out of some malicious intent to further make the persons life worse.

chronobreak:
Just to add from my personal experience- I've stood outside an abortion clinc. Yes, I am one of "those people". One day, we had 13 women go into the office. Not all were going for an abortion, some were for consults/follow-ups. You can tell the ones going in for a procedure, and let me tell you, it is an awful day in their lives.

One of the three women going in for a procedure was incredibly distraught. She was young, she was alone. She was three months pregnant, and we were able to stop and talk to her. She was nearly homeless, and had no way to take care of a baby. One parent gone, another an alcoholic.

We convinced her not to go through with it. Her girl was born. I (and my wife) personally have given the family over $5000 in the past 2 years. Another woman from our church allowed her to stay rent-free in half of a duplex she owns for a year. The woman now has a job, and is supporting her baby, and comes to church almost every week.

There's just situations where an abortion seems like the only hope, when it isn't. Things change in life, even when it's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel. So before anyone wants to shit on the people who wait at the clinic and try to talk to the women going in, remember that we aren't doing it out of some malicious intent to further make the persons life worse.

and tell me about the 1000's upon 1000's of people that did not have access to an abortion or were talked out of it and then not given the help needed that has resulted in not one but two lives in ruin. anecdotes are not evidence.

-_-

This is why I want a "right to privacy" amendment added to the constitution. This is an obvious plow to scare away people from abortions by making a "list of shame."

Edit: This is very ironic considering on the opposite side of the political spectrum, a liberal "Anti-violence" (I.E. anti-gun) group in Wisconsin wants to have the list of conceal carry permit holders to be made public.

I am not supporting either.

I have no problem with anonymous demographic information being made available. However, the doctors' names absolutely must remain confidential.

Seekster:
If it were obvious I would have gotten it.

In all seriousness, I don't think this is true, Seekster. Just independent of the discussion, whether or not in this particular case something was obvious, it does not seem true that obviousness relates to your apprehension.

chronobreak:
There's just situations where an abortion seems like the only hope, when it isn't. Things change in life, even when it's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel. So before anyone wants to shit on the people who wait at the clinic and try to talk to the women going in, remember that we aren't doing it out of some malicious intent to further make the persons life worse.

Correction: you don't. You walk your talk and attempt to be Christlike by giving of yourself to help others. I have no objection to that.

But not all anti-choice activists are like you. Mind that groups like Operation Rescue openly advocate using harassment and intimidation tactics against abortion providers. Your hands are clean. That doesn't mean everyone else in the lifer camp can say the same.

Amnestic:
snippety

The funiest thing in all this is that the party for small government is more than willing to spend all the money they want on oppressing those that don't agree with their interpretation of a near 2000 year old book.

"We're the government, and we're here to help you!"

Seekster:
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.

Well, congratulations on not being quite so vile then.

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.

Alright, so your means have some limits. But looking at this thread as well as others and looking at the reaction you've garnered, maybe you should consider drawing some new, tighter limits, because you are horrendously far, far out there with the means you are willing to employ. I'd like to really vent my disgust, but it wouldn't really serve to illustrate my points beyond what I've already said.

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.

If it were just demonstrating and marching, making your voice heard as this kind of implies, I think far less people would have such a big problem with your stance. I'd certainly still disagree with you, but I'd feel less sickened at least. But you actually do support awful actions with very problematic, anti-individualistic consequences. The very thing Americans pride themselves on, freedom, individualism, small government, get trampled underfoot, just as the rights of people who don't follow one narrow moral code. It's awful.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
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.

Terrorism is about sowing fear, and pro-life terrorism has been doing that on a massive scale.

Now some crazed legislators are proposing publishing ready-to-use target lists for an terrorist movement that large and effective... Do you honestly not see what the problem is here?

So in your mind negative political ads or terrorism?

The difference between terrorism and simply fear mongering or whatever is that terrorism involves actually killing civilians.

Seekster:
The difference between terrorism and simply fear mongering or whatever is that terrorism involves actually killing civilians.

I'm not sure it's so clear cut as that. I would say that fear-mongering is when you say there's a threat, terrorism is when you are that threat. Actually attacking civilians would make which side of the line you are on clearer, yes.

Now, even if simple harassment and threats aren't terrorism, they are most certainly still a bad thing, and this is the sort of thing this law would have made easier (and more or less the only thing the law would have done).

Yes, you absolutely can try following people home, but this makes it easier. Which is most certainly also a bad thing.

This sort of thing:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/11/14/radical-anti-choice-group-puts-out-all-points-bulletin-to-track-pregnant-woman

Would have been totally unnecessary if they could have simply looked up her details.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here