jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (89 posts)

let's publish names of women seeking abortions

  1. Mighty Mom profile image85
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Modern Day version of sewinga big red "A" on a adultress's dress -- like in The Scarlet Letter.
    Like Megan's Law, we could call it Hester's Law. lol

    Ann Coulter will say ANYTHING to shock people.
    How much you wanna bet she's had at least one abortion herself?
    http://aattp.org/ann-coulter-wants-to-p … ions-video

    1. gmwilliams profile image87
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ann Coutler in my opinion is a regressive gender traitor, enough said.  She is equivalent to Phyllis Schlafly, another gender traitor who strongly assert that women have the same access to opportunity that men have.   Ms. Schlafly was also against women's rights.   There is a special place for such women....in the lowest rungs of Hell. 

      They probably DID NOT have abortions themselves as I did not; however, I support every woman's right to reproductive freedom and access to abortion.   I will be prochoice until my passing. Not to digress, just because both women did not have abortions, to my knowledge, should not preclude their right to support their sisters regarding reproductive choice.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Well, if we can publish the names and addresses of gun owners... why not?

        In fact, let's publish every single person on a separate list for every single thing they do. Let's just throw privacy right out the window.

        Oh, and abortions are wrong, a fetus is a genetically distinct human entity.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I don't agree with publishing gun owner lists but an abortion is purely personal, it does not affect their neighbors, community or anyone not directly involved, guns on the other hand are different not just in the Sandy Hook rampage sense but also because rounds fired in self defense can hit neighbors, because children playing at their house may get access to the firearm etc. so the issue is non comparable. ,

          1. wilderness profile image99
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Abortions don't affect anyone else?  You do understand that the fetus, according to beliefs of millions, is someone else?  Someone that is being murdered for the convenience of the woman?

            I don't have a problem with abortion, but that fact is core to any debate on the subject and has to be understood if not accepted as truth.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              As I said I thought quite clearly "it does not affect their neighbors, community or anyone not directly involved" obviously the mother, father and fetus/zygote/baby are directly involved.

              1. wilderness profile image99
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Sorry, I didn't pick up on that. 

                I would have to say, though, that the kids killed at Sandy Hook were "directly involved".  Few, if any, of our laws are designed or written to have no one "directly involved" even if that involvement is simply seeing something you don't want to see.  Seat belt laws, for instance, promote the fantasy that other drivers are "directly involved" because a driver might be able to regain control of the car if they have a seat belt on.  Motorcycle helmets because the hospital,doctors and taxpayers are "directly involved" in paying for a severe accident that might have been less severe.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I was not talking about events after occurrence at that point obviously the victims are directly involved but rather in forbearance of the incident ie. the gun that was used at Sandy hook provided a direct threat to the community before it was used in the shooting.
                  An abortion does no such thing before or after and thus since the community is unaffected they are not entitled to know. (Assuming that being potentially affected does give you the right to know which I am unsure about).

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Because abortion is a medical procedure and thus protected by privacy rights.

          Regardless of the opinions or it's morality, you really do have to agree it is a medical procedure... right?

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            First, is-ought. We do protect the privacy of medical procedures, but we don't have to. We could also protect the privacy of purchases, but we don't.

            Second, no. A medical procedure is something you have done to yourself. An abortion is something you do to a genetically distinct human entity, which cannot consent. If a doctor went into your house and did something bad to you while you slept, we wouldn't call it a medical procedure, we would call it assault or murder.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              The abortion is as much done to the mother as the fetus, nor do children have the right of consent anyway.

              Don't take the example as inflammatory I am not labeling a zygote/fetus a parasite but if I did have a parasite removed it would be a medical procedure to me not the parasite and I would sure as hell have the right to sue the pants off of the doctor who made it public.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                ALL humans have the right to life by default.

                The parasite argument depends on whether or not the parasite has the right to life. A human does.

                There is no difference between a zygote, blastocyst, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, or teen. They are all different development stages of the same genetically unique human entity.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Right to life? Really? When did we agree on this? If I am starving to death I have the right to be fed and cared for, others must do this? That is not true.

                  By which logic the tree in my backyard is a table just a stage of development tongue

                  This is getting boring though lets deal with the real issues.

                  #1 Freedom, no one can be forced to undergo a dangerous procedure for anyone else's benefit. Giving birth is 14 times more likely to kill the mother than an abortion.

                  #2 No one can be forced to give life support against their will and that is exactly what the mother has to do for the entire period that abortions are legal.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    No, right to life doesn't mean people have to take care of you, it means people can't actively cause your death.

                    1 An abortion is much more likely to kill the fetus than birth is to kill the mother. One is an actual act that one person takes to end the life of the other. The other is a chance act of life.

                    2 A mother who causes the life to come about has the obligation to support it, just as a mother who births a child has the obligation to support it. The fetus' right to life trumps every other right. The right to life is the foundation for all other rights.

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Your second argument is is-ought

              An abortion is a medical procedure as it is done on my(universal my) body with my permission by a medical professional in a hospital/clinic setting. 

              Whether you consider it as a medical procedure or murder... whatever... it IS a medical procedure... whether you believe it ought to be is on you.

              As it IS a medical procedure it IS protected by medical privacy laws. Guns aren't a medical procedure so aren't protected by those laws... and shouldn't be.  If you wish to set up privacy laws on material possessions, have at it.  It's not going to work very well, but have at it anyway.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                No, my second argument shows why an abortion, depending on your morals, isn't a medical procedure. If your moral belief is that the fetus is a human being, then it is a violation of its right to live, not a medical procedure, just like someone else having a doctor cut you open while you slept wouldn't be a medical procedure.

                It's not is-ought because you brought the 'no matter your morals' into the argument.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Your morals have nothing to do with the law or the legal definition... therefore, REGARDLESS OF YOUR MORALS...abortion is a medical procedure.

                  Meaning, despite your completely irrelevant definition, abortion is legally defined as medical procedure.  Your opinion cannot change a fact, hence... is-ought.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    If the law allowed doctors to kill newborns, would you call it a medical procedure?

                    Technically you're correct, the legal definition is what it is. But when you bring up morals, you allow for the moral definition of what an act is.

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Even if you believe it is a violation of the right to live for the zygote/fetus it is still a medical procedure for the woman involved.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Legally, yes. Morally, no.

    2. Stacie L profile image90
      Stacie Lposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ann is the female version of Glen Beck. She loves controversy and getting attention.

    3. ElSeductor profile image61
      ElSeductorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Does anybody remember privacy?  It is none of our business what people choose to do with their lives, unless it affects the rest of us. 

      I have heard the statement, "If you would not do something in private, then don't do it in public."  That statement makes no sense.  We all have the right to privacy, as long as what we do in private does not affect the public.

      R

      1. profile image53
        abt79posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        This argument, which i have seen man a time, makes no sense. If you abuse your child, do you have a right to do so with no one coming in and stopping you? No, of course not. Abusing your child will probably not affect anyone else outside of your family, but it is still wrong. Abortion, which is the cold-blooded murder of an innocent human, is by far much worse than abuse, is it not?

        1. Zelkiiro profile image95
          Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Nope. It's the halting of the development of a creature that, one day, would have become a human.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Correct.

  2. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    ^ I may have just ruined the thread. Sorry MM tongue

  3. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    Most people who seek abortion mostly are disadvantaged already, adding perceived insult is just that inhuman. Shame.

    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      For years I have heard the "disadvantaged" story and to a point I did believe it. Makes sense not to burden someone who cannot even take care of themselves. But if anything can come out of the Gosnel trial, is I learned abortions cost between $1,500 and $3,000. I do not see many disadvantaged people having that much cash on hand. Maybe I was naive, but I thought abortions cost like $400-$500, I was not even close.

      So I wonder, what is the real percentage of abortions performed on disadvantaged people?

      1. profile image52
        Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Snipping the spinal cord of a baby on a table is not abortion it is murder, and it costs more apparently.

  4. profile image52
    Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago

    My question to those in favor of abortion would be if you have ever been pregnant did you smoke, drink, use drugs or engage in any activity that could possibly cause harm to the life growing inside you, if not then why not?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Presumably because they WANTED a healthy child.

      1. profile image52
        Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I would hope so, but if it isn't a child and that is what the debate is really about then why bother?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          No one in the world believes that a fetus won't become a child given the right circumstances, just like the tree I just cut down is going to be a table, doesn't make it one now though but I am not going to set fire to it either because that would ruin the POTENTIAL for a table.

          1. profile image52
            Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Is a fetus a living thing?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Scientifically speaking it becomes a living thing at some point, I could not tell you what week but I suspect around 12 or so when self respiration begins.

              1. wilderness profile image99
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Nope - not scientifically. Science has a difficult (impossible) task in even defining "living" as opposed to "unliving" - in the abortion debate it doesn't even have a voice.

                Life, particularly "human" life, in the abortion debate is totally a defined concept, defined by society as well as the individual.  Societies definition will make the law; individual definition will determine the actions of the individual (if they care at all - many don't).

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  There are biological qualifiers for "life".

                  1. wilderness profile image99
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    From Wikipedia:
                    Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[27][29]

                        Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
                        Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
                        Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
                        Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
                        Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
                        Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
                        Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

                    These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

                    We, and biologists, all have an instinctive definition of life, but it is less and less encompassing as time passes and we find more and more "things" that are neither "alive" nor "dead" in the sense we are used to. 

                    Science does not have a definition of "life" that can be unilaterally applied.  Even the all important zygote could be considered "alive", or not.

          2. profile image52
            Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The right circumstances are merely being left alone.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              They really are not, not only will certain diets and intakes do terrible harm to the fetus even being left alone miscarriage is common, furthermore a mother feeding a fetus inside her and then undergoing a very painful and potentially fatal experience to give birth to it is hardly "being left alone".

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          You can fertilize the ground...

          That doesn't make it a tomato.

          Prepping for the appropriate development of a potential life doesn't make it a life any more than laying manure on soil makes it vegetables.

          1. profile image52
            Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Its distinct DNA sequence makes it a life.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              my blood has a distinct DNA sequence and is not alive, so do spermatozoa btw and they are not alive either, congratulations on abandoning that other argument it really wasn't working tongue

              1. profile image52
                Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I haven't abandoned anything and yes your blood and spermatozoa is alive.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Both have distinct DNA sequences neither meets the requirements of life (in terms of ability to reproduce with itself or others of it's kind specifically amongst other things.).

                  BTW is "killing" the not actually alive spermatozoa murder then?

                  1. profile image52
                    Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    We are not talking about blood or spermatozoa, we are talking about the living child growing in the womb.

              2. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Your blood has your DNA.

                A zygote and a fetus has different DNA, and contains the full sequence of DNA and growth cells that constitute a unique human being. It is no different from an infant than an infant is from a child than a child is from a teenager than a teenager is from an adult.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  My DNA is the combination of that of my father and my mother just as a zygotes is and a zygote is actually less complex than my blood structure due to the highly developed cell structures developed humans have where as zygotes are still lumps of basic cells.
                  Not an argument I am afraid.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Your DNA is distinctly unique. It is different from both your fathers and your mothers. Since it is different, it cannot be, by definition, part of your mother.

                    Trace your DNA back until it no longer exists... once the egg is fertilized and your DNA is created, that is the genesis of your being. Every second of your development from where you are back to that moment, you were distinctly you.

                    ANY line created (brain activity, respiration, heart beat, etc) is simply an arbitrary line in the course of your development. The only ACTUAL line in the course of your development was when you were created.

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Oh look!  The DNA in my mole has now developed it's own code.  Oh the beauty of new life forming!

              No doctor, don't cut it off!  It has a unique DNA sequence... different than mine!

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Yay for cancer indeed it is a separate dysfunctional DNA sequence without the section that tells it to undergo apoptosis it is different and unique, Save it! *sigh*

                1. profile image52
                  Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes it is a dysfunctional DNA sequence, what does that or a mole have to do with a baby?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    If you define life by unique DNA... everything.

                    If you don't... nothing.

                    Cancerous cells contain unique DNA separate from the host's DNA... it is unique.  It is also capable of reproducing.

              2. profile image52
                Lie Detectorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I agree no need to cut it off.

  5. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    I was part of 4,000 plus survey respondents (hospital and community abortions), meaning clandestine and non clandestine abortion. We found out in the research study that there are numerous reasons to abortion, diverse ones and most are dangerous abortion. It happens to anybody with different religious affiliations, blah, blah.

    Maternal mortality rate is high of course bec. of clandestine ones (they don't have access).

  6. profile image0
    Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago

    I'm glad to see that this thread has devolved into the old stand-by argument of is it murder, no it's not. 

    To steer things back on track.
     
    1.  Ann Coulter is a miserable, wretched and awful human being.
    2.  Regardless of what you 'believe' abortion to be, it is indeed a medical procedure and as such should be protected by privacy laws.  If we're going to publish the name of every woman having an abortion, then so should we publish the name of every man having penile implants, every woman having a breast augmentation, and every human being having a sex-change operation.  NOT ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED.
    3.  As a woman, whether pro-choice, or pro-life, I'd thank the world to get their collective nose out of my uterus. 
    4.  Despite the fact that abortion is legal, any woman who gets one still has to deal with the horrible end result of being castigated and ripped to psychological threads by a nation of people who think they know better than she does about e v e r y t h i n g.  Because of that, I don't think that she should have to add to that list of worries whether she's broken a law, or whether her most personal business will be sung out in harmony to the masses.

    Screw off, Ann Coulter.

    1. autumn18 profile image66
      autumn18posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with all of that. Well said.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you.  I'm a little sheepish, because I don't usually tell people to screw off...lol  But, man, that woman seriously gets my blood boiling.

 
working