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.
You know that just by standing outside of the clinic? I don't think so. I also seriously doubt you make them feel better by standing outside, judging them.
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.
You're pushing your ideals on them when it's a sensitive decision that belongs to the people involved alone, i.e. the mother and, depending on his position, the father. It's an important decision and I think that people like you, no matter how good your intentions are, should mind your own business.
EDIT: I think financially supporting the girl was a great thing to do but it depended on her coming around to your way of thinking so it wasn't an entirely selfless act. Would you have helped her if you heard her story and she still decided to have an abortion?
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.
Would have been totally unnecessary if they could have simply looked up her details.
You are just proving my point, nutty people already do this so you can't argue that the government is doing something for them that they could not already do themselves. Its only rational then to conclude that this law does not notably increase the danger of some nutjob doing something. Like I said, at best it saves the nutjob an hour or two of research.
Seekster: You are just proving my point, nutty people already do this so you can't argue that the government is doing something for them that they could not already do themselves. Its only rational then to conclude that this law does not notably increase the danger of some nutjob doing something. Like I said, at best it saves the nutjob an hour or two of research.
No, it fucking doesn't. Yes, people are trying to do this stuff, that doesn't mean making it easier for them isn't an obviously fucking terrible idea.
This isn't rocket science. A law that has the effect of making it easier for criminals to commit crimes is a bad idea. The fact that the previous lack of such a law hadn't stopped crime doesn't magically invalidate this.
Laws are supposed to protect the innocent, not make them more vulnerable. It's that simple.
You are just proving my point, nutty people already do this so you can't argue that the government is doing something for them that they could not already do themselves. Its only rational then to conclude that this law does not notably increase the danger of some nutjob doing something. Like I said, at best it saves the nutjob an hour or two of research.
Jesus fucking Christ, saving the nutjob an hour or two INCREASES THE FUCKING DANGER. I refuse to believe that you are this willfully moronic, so I will chalk this up to a difference of perspective.
Seekster: You are just proving my point, nutty people already do this so you can't argue that the government is doing something for them that they could not already do themselves. Its only rational then to conclude that this law does not notably increase the danger of some nutjob doing something. Like I said, at best it saves the nutjob an hour or two of research.
No, it fucking doesn't. Yes, people are trying to do this stuff, that doesn't mean making it easier for them isn't an obviously fucking terrible idea.
This isn't rocket science. A law that has the effect of making it easier for criminals to commit crimes is a bad idea. The fact that the previous lack of such a law hadn't stopped crime doesn't magically invalidate this.
Laws are supposed to protect the innocent, not make them more vulnerable. It's that simple.
So why do you oppose SOPA? It makes it harder for criminals to commit crimes. Just a consistency check.
The law doesnt make them any more vulnerable though.
Seekster: So why do you oppose SOPA? It makes it harder for criminals to commit crimes. Just a consistency check.
Pirating movies = harassing women.
JUST A CONSISTENCY CHECK.
Way to purposely miss the point. You said your issue was that you think the law should not make it easier for people to commit crimes. If this is what you truly believe then the opposite must also be true, namely that laws should make it harder for people to commit crimes.
Basically I am calling bullshit on the reason you are giving for why you oppose this bill. I don't think your opposition has anything to do with your respect for the law.
Seekster: So why do you oppose SOPA? It makes it harder for criminals to commit crimes. Just a consistency check. The law doesnt make them any more vulnerable though.
SOPA raises serious rights issues because an arbitrary private group is given force of law without any form of regulation, and unrelated third persons would fall victims of that.
So you see one can oppose that without even getting into the 'copying good or bad' debate.
Quite contrary to publishing who people are and where they live so pro-life terrorists have an easier time intimidating, attacking and murdering people.
So what would you say if you were travelling rural Afghanistan alone and unarmed, and I were to broadcast your exact position over the radio and say "Did you know there is an unarmed Christian American missionary from a very rich family alone out here at exactly this place?".
This bill is basically the same as doing that.
Except of course the Taliban have the courtesy of announcing it with battle cries and missed shots that they intend to kill you. No such principles among pro-lifers.
Seekster: So why do you oppose SOPA? It makes it harder for criminals to commit crimes.
Um, you might have missed this, but assuming it made it harder for criminals, SOPA does a bunch of other stuff as well, which many people find objectionable.
Seekster: The law doesnt make them any more vulnerable though.
Of course it fucking does. You are identifying people as targets for terrorists. How the fuck does that not make them more vulnerable? And don't give me some bullshit about terrorists having some fool proof identification system in place already, such as standing around outside clinics. That is not remotely the same.
...
Look, why are you bothering to pretend? You're not fooling anyone, just come out and say you don't mind terrorism when its targeted at people you don't approve of.
Seekster: So why do you oppose SOPA? It makes it harder for criminals to commit crimes. Just a consistency check. The law doesnt make them any more vulnerable though.
SOPA raises serious rights issues because an arbitrary private group is given force of law without any form of regulation, and unrelated third persons would fall victims of that.
So you see one can oppose that without even getting into the 'copying good or bad' debate.
Quite contrary to publishing who people are and where they live so pro-life terrorists have an easier time intimidating, attacking and murdering people.
So what would you say if you were travelling rural Afghanistan alone and unarmed, and I were to broadcast your exact position over the radio and say "Did you know there is an unarmed Christian American missionary from a very rich family alone out here at exactly this place?".
This bill is basically the same as doing that.
Except of course the Taliban have the courtesy of announcing it with battle cries and missed shots that they intend to kill you. No such principles among pro-lifers.
Oh my God...you did not just compare Pro-lifers to the freaking Taliban. Someone find out who kidnapped Blab and replaced him with this guy.
Seekster: So why do you oppose SOPA? It makes it harder for criminals to commit crimes.
Um, you might have missed this, but assuming it made it harder for criminals, SOPA does a bunch of other stuff as well, which many people find objectionable.
Seekster: The law doesnt make them any more vulnerable though.
Of course it fucking does. You are identifying people as targets for terrorists. How the fuck does that not make them more vulnerable? And don't give me some bullshit about terrorists having some fool proof identification system in place already, such as standing around outside clinics. That is not remotely the same.
...
Look, why are you bothering to pretend? You're not fooling anyone, just come out and say you don't mind terrorism when its targeted at people you don't approve of.
EXACTLY and that is what I was driving at. Even though not passing SOPA makes it easier for people to commit crimes, that is not the only factor to consider.
Nobody here is supporting this bill, we are just debating over why its a bad idea.
If you believe that second part then we need to ban the phone book.
Seekster: Oh my God...you did not just compare Pro-lifers to the freaking Taliban.
Yes, I did just compare two groups of religious extremists who intimidate and kill others to see their religion enforced.
What of it?
I'm sorry Blab, I can't deal with this kind of disconnect from reality. I'm going to have to ignore you or else I am going to end up getting myself banned.
Seekster: EXACTLY and that is what I was driving at. Even though not passing SOPA makes it easier for people to commit crimes, that is not the only factor to consider.
Nobody here is supporting this bill, we are just debating over why its a bad idea.
If you believe that second part then we need to ban the phone book.
A phone book is useful for people who aren't terrorists.
This law is useful for people who aren't terrorists, how?
If phone books were used by terrorists or other criminals (which they would be) and nobody else, obviously phone books would need to be banned, but obviously this is not the case.
Blablahb: Yes, I did just compare two groups of religious extremists who intimidate and kill others to see their religion enforced.
What of it?
One is "Them" and the other is "Us", or close to it. You'll note that charges of terrorism tend not to get used against various US people that attack MLK day parades with explosives devices with anti-coagulants on the shrapnel...or that firebomb abortion clinics. Far too many people approve, or "don't approve, but".
Seekster: EXACTLY and that is what I was driving at. Even though not passing SOPA makes it easier for people to commit crimes, that is not the only factor to consider.
Nobody here is supporting this bill, we are just debating over why its a bad idea.
If you believe that second part then we need to ban the phone book.
A phone book is useful for people who aren't terrorists.
This law is useful for people who aren't terrorists, how?
If phone books were used by terrorists or other criminals (which they would be) and nobody else, obviously phone books would need to be banned, but obviously this is not the case.
Blablahb: Yes, I did just compare two groups of religious extremists who intimidate and kill others to see their religion enforced.
What of it?
One is "Them" and the other is "Us", or close to it. You'll note that charges of terrorism tend not to get used against various US people that attack MLK day parades with explosives devices with anti-coagulants on the shrapnel...or that firebomb abortion clinics. Far too many people approve, or "don't approve, but".
"This law is useful for people who aren't terrorists, how?"
People who morally object to abortions may not want to go to doctors who perform abortions.
On publishing the patient's info yeah Ill agree that crosses the line.
And my problem with Blab is he seems to act as if anyone who is pro-life is a terrorist. There are people who commit acts of terrorism against abortion clinics and doctors and what not and yes you can fairly compare those people to Al Qaeda...but that is not what Blab said and from my past experience with Blab I think he really believes that all pro-life people or even just most of us are terrorists. I would like nothing better than to be wrong about his views here.
Seekster: People who morally object to abortions may not want to go to doctors who perform abortions.
I'll grant that. If that was the extent of the law, then depending on the details, there might be some concerns, but on the whole that is a reasonable enough idea.
Extending it to patients, however, is something else altogether. You'll also note that some of the details collected are very strange. The race of the woman, for example, I can't think of any remotely good reason for adding that on, but a few rather dubious ones spring to mind.
Seekster: And my problem with Blab is he seems to act as if anyone who is pro-life is a terrorist. There are people who commit acts of terrorism against abortion clinics and doctors and what not and yes you can fairly compare those people to Al Qaeda...but that is not what Blab said and from my past experience with Blab I think he really believes that all pro-life people or even just most of us are terrorists. I would like nothing better than to be wrong about his views here.
I didn't get that from what he wrote, he didn't seem to be comparing the Taliban with pro-lifers as a whole any more than he was comparing pro-life terrorists with the people of Afghanistan as a whole.
I can't be on the wrong side of every issue because you and I disagree on most issues. ^_^
[...]
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.
Because clearly, shaming is not a problem, but advertising and creating sympathy is.
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.
Ever considered why it's such a horrible experience for them? If you genuinely care about these people, you might wanna think about this for a minute or two, and think about what role the people calling her "murderer" or "slut" play. People who want to have abortions have it hard enough. They have to grapple with their own morality, deal with a society that thinks poorly aof
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.
As others have pointed out, that's nice, but if this was the rule instead of the rare exception, we wouldn't have that many abortions. Anecdotes are nice, but not evidence. For some people, there is no other option. They simply cannot deal with the child right now, or at all. For many, there isn't a supporting community standing around waiting to help. Seriously, what's the ratio of "people we helped" to "people we didn't"? If it's better than 1:100, I'd be shocked.
I can't be on the wrong side of every issue because you and I disagree on most issues. ^_^
[...]
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.
Because clearly, shaming is not a problem, but advertising and creating sympathy is.
Seekster: People who morally object to abortions may not want to go to doctors who perform abortions.
I'll grant that. If that was the extent of the law, then depending on the details, there might be some concerns, but on the whole that is a reasonable enough idea.
Extending it to patients, however, is something else altogether. You'll also note that some of the details collected are very strange. The race of the woman, for example, I can't think of any remotely good reason for adding that on, but a few rather dubious ones spring to mind.
Seekster: And my problem with Blab is he seems to act as if anyone who is pro-life is a terrorist. There are people who commit acts of terrorism against abortion clinics and doctors and what not and yes you can fairly compare those people to Al Qaeda...but that is not what Blab said and from my past experience with Blab I think he really believes that all pro-life people or even just most of us are terrorists. I would like nothing better than to be wrong about his views here.
I didn't get that from what he wrote, he didn't seem to be comparing the Taliban with pro-lifers as a whole any more than he was comparing pro-life terrorists with the people of Afghanistan as a whole.
On that we will agree. Doctors might actually promote themselves on the internet and give their phone number, address of their clinic, and may even have a picture of themselves in a lab coat with a smile on his face. Under the services tab they may also list abortions.
With patients I agree that it goes to far publishing this kind of info for the patients. If they want to go on yelp and say "hey I got an abortion from this guy" they can choose to do that if they wish but I don't think its effective or proper for the government to make that information publicly available.
"I didn't get that from what he wrote, he didn't seem to be comparing the Taliban with pro-lifers as a whole any more than he was comparing pro-life terrorists with the people of Afghanistan as a whole."
Well Blab was that what you meant? I really hope I misunderstood you. Do you Blab believe that most pro-lifers are comparable with the Taliban or did you just mean the few nutjobs that actually do commit acts of terrorism?
Seekster: They will carry the image of their child on that screen with them for the rest of their life.
You are a good Christian.
No I am not. A good Christian wouldnt be so conflicted about abortion in cases of rape.
Indeed, as the punishment for killing a fetus in the old testament is closer to the punishment for theft than the punishment for murder. And if you can't see what's so sickening about your statement above, then you are a sick person.
I remember reading something similar about some church group that was protesting an adult bookstore being built near their town. After it was built they apparently stationed someone outside 24/7 to take the picture of anyone who went in which they then published on their website.
Gnoekeos: I remember reading something similar about some church group that was protesting an adult bookstore being built near their town. After it was built they apparently stationed someone outside 24/7 to take the picture of anyone who went in which they then published on their website.
You what would be great? Have a friend go with you to take pictures of you mugging for the camera with the religious wacko. Or record it on video and put it on YouTube as you do a little Vaudeville and he refuses to participate.
Wouldn't do much, but the troll in me thinks it would be hilarious.
Gnoekeos: I remember reading something similar about some church group that was protesting an adult bookstore being built near their town. After it was built they apparently stationed someone outside 24/7 to take the picture of anyone who went in which they then published on their website.
Is that so? Where is that? Cause now I want to take a week's vacation, go there and walk into that store three times every day. Conspicuously. In a way that's nearly as obvious as walking up to them and saying "You sure you got a good picture of me? I can go walk in again, if you need me to." Alternatively, I'd very conspicuously pretend as if I'm trying to sneak in without anyone seeing me. Yeah that'd be even more fun.
Basically, if someone takes a photo of me in public and then publishes it online, fine, in public, people can see me. But, what they can see is just you know, how I look. Not who I am. So, picture, okay. Not personal information, really.
Seekster: Well Blab was that what you meant? I really hope I misunderstood you. Do you Blab believe that most pro-lifers are comparable with the Taliban or did you just mean the few nutjobs that actually do commit acts of terrorism?
The two are comparable. Both pro-life terrorists and Al Qaida members are violent extremists who use terror attacks to try and impose their religion onto others.
Obviously I am amazed even talking positively of Al Qaida is a federal crime, while there's a big acceptance of and even government money going to pro-life movements. Quite frankly I'd advocate equal treatment.
Funny how GOP is so pro life, but wants to restrict health care by opposing the health care reform. Hypocrites. They are not pro life. They are pro sperm.
Abortion - Life is sacred. Health care bill. Life is not sacred.
I think it's pretty clear what they're trying to accomplish. They're basically doing the real-world equivalent of posting someone's personal information on /b/. They want their personal army to "take out" people they hate. The politicians (and the group supporting the bill) know that there are people like Scott Roeder out there who will put this personal information to "good use."
Yep. All it takes is one disposable schizophrenic, and they ratchet this country one notch closer to the theocracy they think they want.
It is more likely they mean to shame people out of having an abortion.
And I'm sure NO implicit threats are involved.
On the other hand... How's your goose sauce feel, Mr. Gander? :D (But note the forced-birthers harassing little kids. THAT'll teach those little creeps to have the wrong parents!)
Rastelin: Funny how GOP is so pro life, but wants to restrict health care by opposing the health care reform. Hypocrites. They are not pro life. They are pro sperm.
Abortion - Life is sacred. Health care bill. Life is not sacred.
Don't forget forced-birthers ALSO are often pro-war, pro-death penalty, and anti-any-welfare-they-don't-get. Life is only sacred as long as it's inside a uterus, it seems.
arbane: Don't forget forced-birthers ALSO are often pro-war, pro-death penalty, and anti-any-welfare-they-don't-get. Life is only sacred as long as it's inside a uterus, it seems.
This type of minds are propelled by religious motivation. It is about control over women. Which explains why they don't give a shit about the sick and the poor. Their minds are still living in a tent in some bloody desert working to create a society hostile to women. A number of them believe the earth is just 6000 years old for crying out loud. It is embarrassing to know they belong to the human race.
i used to joke that america was turning into the theocratic states of america but these days with things like this its not funny anymore, its becomming scary
nikki191: i used to joke that america was turning into the theocratic states of america but these days with things like this its not funny anymore, its becomming scary
In deed. Brings to mind the saying! When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross.
Put this together to honor GOP's effort to piss on women and their rights to their own bodies.
You know that just by standing outside of the clinic? I don't think so. I also seriously doubt you make them feel better by standing outside, judging them.
You're pushing your ideals on them when it's a sensitive decision that belongs to the people involved alone, i.e. the mother and, depending on his position, the father. It's an important decision and I think that people like you, no matter how good your intentions are, should mind your own business.
EDIT: I think financially supporting the girl was a great thing to do but it depended on her coming around to your way of thinking so it wasn't an entirely selfless act. Would you have helped her if you heard her story and she still decided to have an abortion?