Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You ought to see the questions I was asked at the eye doctor yesterday all because of the federal government requirement for electronic medical records which by the way, was buried in the Stimulus bill. Seriously, if I'm going for glasses that I'm paying for myself by the way, why for example, do the Feds ask for my parents' first names and my mother's maiden name? There were a slew of questions none which have anything to do with my visit to the eye doctor. I left them blank but I wanted to write, "none of your d*mn business.".
Well that's funny, because the worry about identifying the woman was enough to cause those provisions to be dropped from the bill.
So apparently, other Republicans, who have common sense, did think that publishing all that info on a person who underwent a legal medical procedure was not a prudent move.
It's an election year. Nothing more, nothing less.
Name those identifying details. Tell us what the public will know that will definitely point to Jane Smith as the latest abortion recipient.
You live in a county with 1200 people in it. Let's call it AeroGuyNoPrivacyVille.
In AeroGuyNoPrivacyVille, there lives one Asian lady with 3 kids who is 45 years old and married.
Now, let's try and figure out who she is using this data:
B) The county and state in which the woman resides;
(C) The woman's age, race and marital status;
(D) The number of prior pregnancies and prior abortions of the woman;
Guilting someone out of having an abortion with endless inane laws such as this one do not change the situation of the mother. {snip}
Just because laws like this make it more and more difficult for people to have abortions does not translate to the situation for the mother and baby all of a sudden becoming sunshine and unicorns and trouble-free.
I was not commenting on any of that, just pointing out how pro-abortion types claim to be self righteous because they think they can absolve themselves for killing the unborn by essentially claiming "at least I care about them once they are born." Where does the knee jerk comment come from, that a person who is pro-life abandons concern for children once they are born?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
If an abortion is planned for a fetus with birth abnormalities, do you support assistance, both medical and social, to take care of a special needs baby?
Well, if it's okay to kill a retard or a cripple in the womb, why not after they take a breath?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
If the mother is very young, do you support public assistance for her to take care of it?
If it's ok to kill an unborn in the womb over economic concerns, why not after they are born, and the family falls on hard times? After all, "do you support public assistance for her to take care of it?"
Make your case for being for abortion, but don't rely on a crutch, and use that ignorant attack against people, as if they do not care about children once they are born.
You live in a county with 1200 people in it. Let's call it AeroGuyNoPrivacyVille.
In AeroGuyNoPrivacyVille, there lives one Asian lady with 3 kids who is 45 years old and married.
Now, let's try and figure out who she is using this data:
B) The county and state in which the woman resides;
(C) The woman's age, race and marital status;
(D) The number of prior pregnancies and prior abortions of the woman;
I don't advocate for laws that protect one person simply because that one person exists. Neither do the legislative bodies scattered across this nation.
Oh please, you are just being obtuse. The answer has been spelled out multiple times in this thread.
I just re-read the thread. I didn't see anything other than those who make up "what if" scenarios. Fortunately, the law is not written for what ifs. So tell me....how would you discern if it were Jane Smith who got the latest abortion in your town using the bill as it was written?
The little one-legged asian lady with 13 kids in a 400 person town is not a valid example of the law's unworthiness.
You live in a county with 1200 people in it. Let's call it AeroGuyNoPrivacyVille.
In AeroGuyNoPrivacyVille, there lives one Asian lady with 3 kids who is 45 years old and married.
Now, let's try and figure out who she is using this data:
B) The county and state in which the woman resides;
(C) The woman's age, race and marital status;
(D) The number of prior pregnancies and prior abortions of the woman;
True. In a small town, a woman was pregnant, now she isn't, and oh look, a woman in our town who fits her description just had an abortion. Then again, in small towns, everyone seems to know what's what even without this extra info.
But if the obscure data was made public, and represented as state-wide, and not by individual towns, then would that be ok?
Edit: Oh, and leave out the name of the doctor too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
