Should We Publish Names And Addresses of Abortion Havers?

[pretender77]

Why or why not?

[Army of GOD]

No because you're an idiot

[tzor]

No.

When you publish the names of gun owners, robbers can know who to rob to get guns.

When you publish the names of people who have had abortions, what can robbers "rob" from them?

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes. Truth syrup and pillow parties.

[Metsfanmax]

No.

When you publish the names of gun owners, robbers can know who to rob to get guns.

When you publish the names of people who have had abortions, what can robbers "rob" from them?

http://www.ecns.cn/in-depth/2011/11-15/3837.shtml

[PLAYER57832]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

[jay_a2j]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Try the fact that there is a big difference between a natural "abortion" and the medical procedure. One can not be aided nor stopped by a human being, the other is caused by a human being. The MOMENT you choicers admit human life exists, you have lost the argument.

[Metsfanmax]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Try the fact that there is a big difference between a natural "abortion" and the medical procedure. One can not be aided nor stopped by a human being, the other is caused by a human being. The MOMENT you choicers admit human life exists, you have lost the argument.

That's because the typical liberal doesn't want to be bold and admit that there are some cases where innocent human life can be justifiably terminated. That step is logically necessary for the liberal case to be self-consistent, but it can be if that is done.

[2dimes]

That's because the typical liberal doesn't want to be bold and admit that there are some cases where innocent human life can be justifiably terminated.

Like when a buck toothed chick you tagged while drinking gets pregnant?

[BigBallinStalin]

That's because the typical liberal doesn't want to be bold and admit that there are some cases where innocent human life can be justifiably terminated.

Like when a buck toothed chick you tagged while drinking gets pregnant?

Certainly, one cannot take seriously the notion that buck-toothed children will promote liberal causes.

My good man, we must 'put the fetus in the bag'.

[Johnny Rockets]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Try the fact that there is a big difference between a natural "abortion" and the medical procedure. One can not be aided nor stopped by a human being, the other is caused by a human being. The MOMENT you choicers admit human life exists, you have lost the argument.

Out of curiosity how much time and dollars have you and pretender allocated to help foster kids in the past year?
Donations of time or money to shelters, send kids to camp charities, your involvement in Big Brothers or Big Sisters?

Anything? Anything at all?

I thought not.

Try working on the kids out there that need your guidance, support and a good role model, and less focus on a bunch of backwards ideology over a thimble full of tissue.

JRock

[jonesthecurl]

Jay is usually wrong-headed, but I wouldn't assume he's ungenerous. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear he does a lot for various charities. I don't know anything about "pretender" - except of course that the Pretenders didn't form until 1978.

[Symmetry]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Try the fact that there is a big difference between a natural "abortion" and the medical procedure. One can not be aided nor stopped by a human being, the other is caused by a human being. The MOMENT you choicers admit human life exists, you have lost the argument.

That's because the typical liberal doesn't want to be bold and admit that there are some cases where innocent human life can be justifiably terminated. That step is logically necessary for the liberal case to be self-consistent, but it can be if that is done.

I'm not sure that is what Player was arguing, more that much of the so-called conservative side of the debate tends to ignore the actual practicalities of what abortion means in medical terms in favour of emotive politicking. If Jay is proposing a discussion of whether women who have abortions should be named and shamed, the obvious answer is no, but respect to Player for at least taking on the legal ramifications of politicians redefining a medical term to suit their own, more narrow, agenda.

[Timminz]

I suppose publishing names and addresses of people who've had abortions is a bit better than arresting pregnant women for considering having one. Only a bit though.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/14/t ... pregnancy/

[Symmetry]

I suppose publishing names and addresses of people who've had abortions is a bit better than arresting pregnant women for considering having one. Only a bit though.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/14/t ... pregnancy/

Aye, a fair bit of what strident anti-abortionists ignore, apart from the obvious medical terms they dislike, is that the sperm meets egg personhood arguments are pretty lethal. They simply kill women.

It's no surprise they want to redefine the law and medical terms so that there arguments sound nicer than their brutal and callous practice. Anti abortionists should really think about the practical issues with their stances,

[Gillipig]

Is this what OT has come to? I'm glad I don't spend much time here anymore lol.

[thegreekdog]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Player, please post the link to the site that shows why women have abortions since you want to bring some facts.

I think we should publish names and addresses of people that have abortions.

[jay_a2j]

Out of curiosity how much time and dollars have you and pretender allocated to help foster kids in the past year?
Donations of time or money to shelters, send kids to camp charities, your involvement in Big Brothers or Big Sisters?

Anything? Anything at all?

I thought not.

Try working on the kids out there that need your guidance, support and a good role model, and less focus on a bunch of backwards ideology over a thimble full of tissue.

JRock

Why is it that some feel that a person must actively work against something to BE against something?

Global warming believer? You better be green from your NON plastic trash bags to your solar powered laptop!


Anti-gun nut? Are you teaching hand to hand combat classes to everyone in your neighborhood?


Save the spotted owl protester? Do you spend just as much time trying to save HUMAN BEINGS from abortion?


I thought not, so save your illogical logic for someone else.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Player, please post the link to the site that shows why women have abortions since you want to bring some facts.

I think we should publish names and addresses of people that have abortions.

Why, Mr. Contrarian?

[Neoteny]

I would say I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that Roe v. Wade was a decision based explicitly on privacy, but I'm not because this is an internet forum.

[Symmetry]

Why or why not?

Try the fact that you probably are not even aware that any miscarriage is an "abortion".

Don't believe me... try looking up the medical definition.

And once you do that, try looking up some other facts, since you seem to have an opinion on this subject.... but not many facts.

Player, please post the link to the site that shows why women have abortions since you want to bring some facts.

I think we should publish names and addresses of people that have abortions.

Can I step in instead?

Spontaneous abortion (SAB), or miscarriage, is the term used for a pregnancy that ends on its own, within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The medical name spontaneous abortion (SAB) gives many women a negative feeling, so throughout this article we will refer to any type of spontaneous abortion or pregnancy loss under 20 weeks as miscarriage.

Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

Link

I don't think we should publish the names.

[Night Strike]

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

[Bones2484]

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

Two wrongs make a right?

[Night Strike]

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

Two wrongs make a right?

Neither should be published. But if they're going to go around publishing names of people who are licensed to own a gun yet have done absolutely nothing to harm another person with it, then they definitely should be publishing the names of those who have actually killed unborn humans.

But in reality, this is just another way of pointing out the massive hypocrisy of liberals in this nation. They have no problem invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens who exercise Constitutional rights they disagree with yet would sustain massive outcries if anyone ever published the name of a person who had an abortion and didn't consent to have their name published.

[Symmetry]

I don't think we should publish the names.

Why not? They're publishing the names of legal gun owners.

You're welcome to read my arguments above, in which I point out that I disagree with both. And that the Blaze simply posted both, via links. That you felt it a good idea because of a misplaced sense of revenge (did the people who read the paper post the gun-owners names? No) is remarkably poor. That you chose to republicise both that list and the list of people via the Blaze, smacks of hypocrisy.

Will you apologise for publicising this?