Should We Publish Names And Addresses of Abortion Havers?

[BigBallinStalin]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still not seeing the benefits of this policy, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to subsidize criminal actions (e.g. printing a 'free' list, so the haters can more easily locate and terrorize/harm/kill 'abortion-havers').

[thegreekdog]

Still not seeing the benefits of this policy, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to subsidize criminal actions (e.g. printing a 'free' list, so the haters can more easily locate and terrorize/harm/kill 'abortion-havers').

We publish lists of, for example, pedophiles. Haters could use those lists to locate and terrorize pedophiles, no? And yet we still publish those peoples' names. What is the benefit of that program? I would argue that there is no benefit any different from merely knowing who has had an abortion.

With respect to abortion terrorists, they typically stand outside abortion clinics as women go in and out. They can certainly find the identities of the individual in that fashion, but tend to focus more on the doctors. So, I'm not convinced there would be any negative reaction from abortion haters.

[Baron Von PWN]

Still not seeing the benefits of this policy, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to subsidize criminal actions (e.g. printing a 'free' list, so the haters can more easily locate and terrorize/harm/kill 'abortion-havers').

We publish lists of, for example, pedophiles. Haters could use those lists to locate and terrorize pedophiles, no? And yet we still publish those peoples' names. What is the benefit of that program? I would argue that there is no benefit any different from merely knowing who has had an abortion.

With respect to abortion terrorists, they typically stand outside abortion clinics as women go in and out. They can certainly find the identities of the individual in that fashion, but tend to focus more on the doctors. So, I'm not convinced there would be any negative reaction from abortion haters.

The idea(right or wrong) behind publishing lists of pedophiles is to let people in the area know so they can protect their children ect. What is the purported benefit from publishing lists of women who've had abortions? Slut shaming?

[kentington]

Still not seeing the benefits of this policy, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to subsidize criminal actions (e.g. printing a 'free' list, so the haters can more easily locate and terrorize/harm/kill 'abortion-havers').

We publish lists of, for example, pedophiles. Haters could use those lists to locate and terrorize pedophiles, no? And yet we still publish those peoples' names. What is the benefit of that program? I would argue that there is no benefit any different from merely knowing who has had an abortion.

With respect to abortion terrorists, they typically stand outside abortion clinics as women go in and out. They can certainly find the identities of the individual in that fashion, but tend to focus more on the doctors. So, I'm not convinced there would be any negative reaction from abortion haters.

The idea(right or wrong) behind publishing lists of pedophiles is to let people in the area know so they can protect their children ect. What is the purported benefit from publishing lists of women who've had abortions? Slut shaming?

Publish their names so they don't abort your children!

I don't think abortion should be legal, and I don't see the point in publishing the names. Yes, it can be done cheaply, but what is the purpose or end goal. Let's say TGD is right and no one uses this list for harm, is there any real reason for it?

Checking on your girlfriend isn't a legitimate reason, just get a key logger if you don't trust her.

[thegreekdog]

Still not seeing the benefits of this policy, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to subsidize criminal actions (e.g. printing a 'free' list, so the haters can more easily locate and terrorize/harm/kill 'abortion-havers').

We publish lists of, for example, pedophiles. Haters could use those lists to locate and terrorize pedophiles, no? And yet we still publish those peoples' names. What is the benefit of that program? I would argue that there is no benefit any different from merely knowing who has had an abortion.

With respect to abortion terrorists, they typically stand outside abortion clinics as women go in and out. They can certainly find the identities of the individual in that fashion, but tend to focus more on the doctors. So, I'm not convinced there would be any negative reaction from abortion haters.

The idea(right or wrong) behind publishing lists of pedophiles is to let people in the area know so they can protect their children ect. What is the purported benefit from publishing lists of women who've had abortions? Slut shaming?

Right, they want to protect their children. I would like to know which hussies have had abortions so I can protect my children from said hussies.

[BigBallinStalin]

Still not seeing the benefits of this policy, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to subsidize criminal actions (e.g. printing a 'free' list, so the haters can more easily locate and terrorize/harm/kill 'abortion-havers').

We publish lists of, for example, pedophiles. Haters could use those lists to locate and terrorize pedophiles, no? And yet we still publish those peoples' names. What is the benefit of that program? I would argue that there is no benefit any different from merely knowing who has had an abortion.

With respect to abortion terrorists, they typically stand outside abortion clinics as women go in and out. They can certainly find the identities of the individual in that fashion, but tend to focus more on the doctors. So, I'm not convinced there would be any negative reaction from abortion haters.

The idea(right or wrong) behind publishing lists of pedophiles is to let people in the area know so they can protect their children ect. What is the purported benefit from publishing lists of women who've had abortions? Slut shaming?

Right, they want to protect their children. I would like to know which hussies have had abortions so I can protect my children from said hussies.

If this is your goal, then it can be most effectively served by encouraging your children to date through respectable websites. This is more transparent, efficient, and less risky compared to bumbling around, finding someone, then going through this protracted dialogue about each others' past. At least with a profile, reference points are readily available.

You see, TGD. The free market of the Internet has provided solutions to your very concerns. Appealing to the state to fix your perceived problems will not only fail to achieve your goal but will also unnecessarily entrench the state within our lives. In order to best serve one another, we must learn to interact with each other on a voluntary basis--a basis that is not provided and is definitely undermined by the coercive power of the state.

[thegreekdog]

Still not seeing the benefits of this policy, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to subsidize criminal actions (e.g. printing a 'free' list, so the haters can more easily locate and terrorize/harm/kill 'abortion-havers').

We publish lists of, for example, pedophiles. Haters could use those lists to locate and terrorize pedophiles, no? And yet we still publish those peoples' names. What is the benefit of that program? I would argue that there is no benefit any different from merely knowing who has had an abortion.

With respect to abortion terrorists, they typically stand outside abortion clinics as women go in and out. They can certainly find the identities of the individual in that fashion, but tend to focus more on the doctors. So, I'm not convinced there would be any negative reaction from abortion haters.

The idea(right or wrong) behind publishing lists of pedophiles is to let people in the area know so they can protect their children ect. What is the purported benefit from publishing lists of women who've had abortions? Slut shaming?

Right, they want to protect their children. I would like to know which hussies have had abortions so I can protect my children from said hussies.

If this is your goal, then it can be most effectively served by encouraging your children to date through respectable websites. This is more transparent, efficient, and less risky compared to bumbling around, finding someone, then going through this protracted dialogue about each others' past. At least with a profile, reference points are readily available.

You see, TGD. The free market of the Internet has provided solutions to your very concerns. Appealing to the state to fix your perceived problems will not only fail to achieve your goal but will also unnecessarily entrench the state within our lives. In order to best serve one another, we must learn to interact with each other on a voluntary basis--a basis that is not provided and is definitely undermined by the coercive power of the state.

The state is more effective than the free market in protecting our children. As someone once said, "It takes a village to raise a child." For me, the village is the state. The free market has not yet provided safety for my children against women who would choose to have abortions rather than have the child. Similarly, the free market was not succesful in letting concerned citizens know about pedophiles or other criminals active in a neighborhood. These are activities that the government should engage in, if only because the government has more resources and can therefore be more effective than the free market. As long as the government's violation of perceived privacies doesn't affect me, I'm fine with such violations on people from whom I need to protect my children.

[patches70]

So...where is this list of women who are loose and superficial? I'd be quite interested in such a list, we all need a little company now and again. Women that are belly slapping happy and not interested in baking buns in the oven? Pure Gold I say.

Bring on the list!

[PLAYER57832]

Still not seeing the benefits of this policy, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to subsidize criminal actions (e.g. printing a 'free' list, so the haters can more easily locate and terrorize/harm/kill 'abortion-havers').

We publish lists of, for example, pedophiles. Haters could use those lists to locate and terrorize pedophiles, no? And yet we still publish those peoples' names. What is the benefit of that program? I would argue that there is no benefit any different from merely knowing who has had an abortion.

The difference is public good.

A pedophile represents an inherent harm to society. Knowing that a pedophile lives 5 blocks from my house makes us more cautious about letting our son head over in that direction. When he goes to his friend's house just a block away from that street, we tended to watch him the whole way when he was younger and now to want him to call us when he arrives and when he is leaving. ALL the kids in the neighborhood have orders to not go on a certain block of a certain street alone.

Abortion, to contrast, is a very private medical procedure. It is no one's business. It presents no inherent harm to anyone other the the people involved.

With respect to abortion terrorists, they typically stand outside abortion clinics as women go in and out. They can certainly find the identities of the individual in that fashion, but tend to focus more on the doctors. So, I'm not convinced there would be any negative reaction from abortion haters.

Perhaps and perhaps not. No one on the street has to give their name and address to a protester, and if they are followed... stalking rules can come into play.

The bottom line is that abortion is a legal right. Some people, you seemingly included, want to deny that and claim that their morality gives them the right to dictate to other people how to behave.

Oh, and because this arose from the gun thread... I am not in favor of publishing addresses of legal gun owners, either.. though there is at least a slightly greater justification. When I did childcare, I was legally required to notify parents that we had guns in our house so that they could decide not to have their kids come here. In this county... not a problem, at all. (you would have a hard time finding a house without guns!). In other areas, though parents really do decline to take their kids to houses with guns. I don't agree that the danger of simply owning guns is enough to warrent publically listing those people. HOWEVER, there is at least the justification that some people might not want their kids in or even around a house that has guns. Abortion, to contrast is a wholly private and very personal medical procedure. The ONLY justification people have for wanting to know is that they feel they have the moral right to tell other people how to act. They feel that their morality concerning abortion is greater than that of those having them. Also, given that ALL of those having abortions are women and a large percentage of those opposing are men who will never have to face the choice at all.... it is hard not to consider this a male domination issue as well.

AND.. the churches that take this issue on are also, not cooincidentally, highly patriarchal.