Coulter Tears Into Liberal Gun Hypocrisy: Why Can't We Publish List Of Women Who Get Abortions?

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by queenofswords

Do you NOT understand the underlying IDEA? It is not about whether the act of publishing that information is legal or not. It is about the meaning of the SUBSTANCE of the act of doing so and what it represents.

edit on 5-1-2013 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

Do you NOT understand that there is a very big difference in owning a gun and having an abortion??? If not, then you have so psychological issues that may need to be addressed.

Again...it is not about OWNING a gun, or, HAVING an abortion. It is about the idea that it is okay or not okay to publish information about someone that owns something or has done something perfectly LEGAL.

It is about DEMONIZING something that might be repulsive to one segment of society, although legal.

It is about mind-f**king people into thinking something you want them to think. If you want them to look at the addresses of gun owners like they were addresses of pedophiles, then you're okay with this because you have limited vision. If one wants to publish the addresses of people that have had abortions like they were addresses of pedophiles, then it is the exact same thing.

In case you don't understand why I use the pedophile issue, it is because in our society, pedophiles are considered the worst of the worse, so we mark them for life by making them report their whereabouts and home addresses forever. You can look up your zip code online and find out within a particular range who the convicted pedophiles are.

Do you see, now, why publishing addresses of legal gun owners is a slap in the face and why publishing addresses of law-abiding abortion receivers would be akin?

Coulter: "That's a man, baby."

I don't think she's ever been laid. I can't explain it any other way.

Anyway, abortion is hardly the same as gun ownership, but I don't agree with publishing either list.

I love how people always conflate the pseudo term "late term abortion" with murder.

Imagine a beloved female in your life. Could be your wife or your daughter. She is pregnant. The baby dies in her womb. Normally, the woman's body will pass the dead fetus naturally within a few days. But sometimes, quite often in some cultures (where nutrition and other medical issues make pregnancy very dangerous for women) the fetus does NOT naturally pass from the woman's body. So she heads into septicemia. This is a lethal blood infection that WILL lead to the mother dying if the dead fetus is not either naturally aborted or surgically aborted from her womb.

The baby is already DEAD. No chance of it being viable outside the womb. It is already rotting and dead inside of her. The mother is about to DIE if she doesn't receive a life saving surgical abortion, because her body is not passing the fetus out of her.

So.....such surgery is, what, killing a baby? Nope. Sorry. Wrong. The fetus is already dead.

Such surgery is saving a woman's life. Again, picture a woman you know and love. Your wife, Your daughter.

Would you not, if faced with such a situation, be able to face facts? That the fetus is dead and ROTTING inside her body and that she, too, will die if she doesn't receive a surgical abortion?

Men and those on the right who refuse to look at medical facts really need to get to grips with this one. What's called a "late term" abortion by many is conflated with a second trimester abortion; they are, in fact, different things. A second trimester abortion occurs up to about 19 to 21 weeks after conception; up to the point that the fetus is no longer viable outside the womb. A "late term abortion" is only EVER done at the very end of the third trimester of pregnancy (or in the case of missed miscarriage earlier in a pregnancy) to save the mother's life because the fetus is already dead, the woman is suffering from life-endangering septicemia, and if someone doesn't abort the fetus surgically, the mother WILL die.

Let's get those two things clear, shall we? It would be refreshing, given the collective high intellect of members of this forum.

I would also refer readers to the case of young MItt Romney CHASING AFTER A WOMAN who had already been given approval by her Mormon bishop to receive a late term abortion, heart-breaking for her, of course, but her fetus was long DEAD and her body could not pass it in natural miscarriage, and it was ROTTING inside of her; and she was in septicemia and needed the surgical abortion to save her life. A young Mitt Romney chased after this woman at the hospital and told her she NEEDED TO DIE. Out of ignorance about what was happening to this woman medically. Let's move past that, shall we? Let's not all remain that ignorant. There are times when abortion is necessary on a medical level to save the mother's life because the FETUS IS DEAD and its dead tissue is KILLING THE MOTHER.

See the Mitt Romney case here:

The Curious Case of Mitt Romney, an Abortion, and Eliza Dushku's Mom

PS And if you think that such events are rare, consider this: one out of four pregnancies ends in miscarriage or fetal death (the infant dies shortly after birth.) So these events are common, and people need to understand them better. It's time to stop saying that a woman's life has no value, even if her fetus is ALREADY DEAD INSIDE OF HER. Which is what you're doing when you say that "late term abortion" is murder. You're confusing that with second trimester abortion, which isn't available many places, anyway, and which many people have moral issues with. They are two different things. And yes, sometimes a surgical abortion IS medically necessary to save a woman's life. Get that wrong, and you need to revoke your license to be human, 'cause it's clear you ain't got no functioning heart.

PPS: The reason why I am always point blank and graphic about this is because people don't seem to understand the extreme medical necessity for this type of abortion, which usually occurs quite late into a woman's pregnancy, and which is always heart-breaking for all involved. And the other reason is I KNOW women who have been through this; in Ireland, such women are left to die; God isn't allowed to mandate saving the woman's life even though her baby is long-dead inside of her; in Central and South America, forget about it, too; the woman's life has no value; until men and well-intentioned women who are ignorant about the medical facts GET A FUCCCKKKKING CLUE about medically necessary abortions, and stop this bizarre fantasy that "late term abortions" are for women who decide six months into a pregnancy that they want an abortion (which is illegal and doesn't happen) and understand that second term abortions are what they're really objecting to, these continual, nonsensical, non-dialogues keep going on....

AND YOU KNOW WHAT? In the meantime, real women die. I've known some of them. And it pisses me the FUCCCCK OFF.

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

You won't get through to these people. They want everyone disarmed and the ability to murder their unborn children anonymously. If you don't fully agree that a woman has a right to murder her unborn child even up to 10 minutes prior to giving birth, then you hate women or you're a racist. In my opinion, It mostly comes from the women who have had abortions and have to find a way to justify it.

It also comes from doctors who perform abortions for money, and men who want to escape the consequences of unprotected sex and from Socialists who want to redistribute wealth, and from Communists and Leftists who want to destroy culture with moral decay to promote their agenda of total domination by the State.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Don't forget irresponsible women that use abortion as birth control. And those women that have had abortions and will defend it simply to justify their own actions.

reply to post by LipstickMystic


Then you are talking about a baby who has already died. How can it die if it was not first alive? We do not want to see live babies die, nor live women die from complications.

In fact your argument sounds just like the one being used in Ireland to use the Indian woman's death as a means to stop the Pro Life movement there by distorting facts.
Please note that while you are screaming as loudly as you can about that woman in Ireland after the media and pro abortion people leaked the story to PUBLICIZE it, you think Ann Coulter is wrong about the fact that medical records are private and the gun control people want to publish the names and addresses of legal gun owners.

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Don't forget irresponsible women that use abortion as birth control. And those women that have had abortions and will defend it simply to justify their own actions.

edit on 5-1-2013 by Vidpci because: (no reason given)

Yes, of course. The abortion industry convinces many of these women, often young and naive and in social crisis, that it is just a bunch of cells lining the uterus. Thanks to Margaret Sanger, this is seen as a way to help the young woman out of poverty.

It's been said again and again on here already, but she made a bad comparison of the two. Perhaps her sarcasm might have gotten lost in the translation. That's unfortunately typical, if so.

Although I don't support printing either gun permits or medical information, there is a difference and that is publishing patient's medical records is illegal. Reading her in text sounds incredibly moronic.

reply to post by kthxbai


Sources say that more than 40 million abortions are performed worldwide each year. According to your use of semantics that is not wiping out an entire population. Why? Because it is not expressly in Darfur or Rowanda where people can use it for a political agenda? Or because it is not localized or according to race or ethnicity? How about Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project"? Is it now a genocide?

www.blackgenocide.org...

I'm not sure where I heard or saw it maybe hear on ATS. Went something like this; This map of gun owners gave the criminal element a list of homes to invade where they didn't have to fear being shot.

reply to post by kthxbai


try again...

Privacy Act of 1974

The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records, and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements.

it is not legal...

as for a lot of other arguments... The issue of abortion is also as much of a threat as guns... what if the baby was gonna cure cancer, aids, build FTL, end world hunger, but nope you ended it..

You can not speculate on what a situation a gun creates and not expect the same rules and argument to be added to Abortion... I give you all disagreeing an epic Fail so far...

The logic of the arguments presented make as much sense to build abridge to nowhere...

If the list of gun owners is not a privacy act violation neither is the abortions.. Publish both list or protect both list..

btw way the abortion list is compiled in most places receiving federal funds if the gun list are ok... well so is the names of those females who receive abortions

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by queenofswords

Do you NOT understand the underlying IDEA? It is not about whether the act of publishing that information is legal or not. It is about the meaning of the SUBSTANCE of the act of doing so and what it represents.

edit on 5-1-2013 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

Do you NOT understand that there is a very big difference in owning a gun and having an abortion??? If not, then you have so psychological issues that may need to be addressed.

Again...it is not about OWNING a gun, or, HAVING an abortion. It is about the idea that it is okay or not okay to publish information about someone that owns something or has done something perfectly LEGAL.

It is about DEMONIZING something that might be repulsive to one segment of society, although legal.

It is about mind-f**king people into thinking something you want them to think. If you want them to look at the addresses of gun owners like they were addresses of pedophiles, then you're okay with this because you have limited vision. If one wants to publish the addresses of people that have had abortions like they were addresses of pedophiles, then it is the exact same thing.

It's legal for them to publish the information. I agree it's distasteful and I don't like that they did it, but it IS legal. It's not legal to publish abortion names because of medical confidentiality.
I don't support publishing either one, but that doesn't change the legality of it.

Originally posted by queenofswords
In case you don't understand why I use the pedophile issue, it is because in our society, pedophiles are considered the worst of the worse, so we mark them for life by making them report their whereabouts and home addresses forever. You can look up your zip code online and find out within a particular range who the convicted pedophiles are.

Do you see, now, why publishing addresses of legal gun owners is a slap in the face and why publishing addresses of law-abiding abortion receivers would be akin?

edit on 5-1-2013 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

An abortion is a medical proceedure, owning a gun isn't. It's not akin at all.
While I don't support them publishing the list of gun owners, it was within the law for them to do so.
Instead of trying to attack the abortion debate, it would be much more constructive to get the gun ownership records sealed so they can't be published.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
reply to post by kthxbai

 

try again...

Privacy Act of 1974

The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records, and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements.

it is not legal...

as for a lot of other arguments... The issue of abortion is also as much of a threat as guns... what if the baby was gonna cure cancer, aids, build FTL, end world hunger, but nope you ended it..

You can not speculate on what a situation a gun creates and not expect the same rules and argument to be added to Abortion... I give you all disagreeing an epic Fail so far...

The logic of the arguments presented make as much sense to build abridge to nowhere...

If the list of gun owners is not a privacy act violation neither is the abortions.. Publish both list or protect both list..

btw way the abortion list is compiled in most places receiving federal funds if the gun list are ok... well so is the names of those females who receive abortions

If what the paper did violates that law, then the owner's whose names were published can file a suit against the paper. If that is the case, they will win and the paper SHOULD go under.
However, you are incorrect. The act you cited does not pertain to gun ownership. Those records are open records and can be published. Should they be published, I think no, but it wasn't my choice.

Let's go ahead and publish the names of all men with erectile disfunction. All men who have taken viagra, all men who have had any STD. That would be the same as your argument.

Thank goodness I live in Texas.

Information on individuals who are licensed to carry a concealed handgun is confidential and not subject to requests under the Public Information Act. However, the Department may release information about a concealed handgun licensee to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement purposes

Source

But then again, a map showing the location of registered gun owners might look like this...

Originally posted by stupid girl
reply to post by Philippines

 

see my reply to my fellow Texan, above.

Thanks for that reply, seems we are on the same page, and I was born and raised in TX too...

Fortunately I live in a place now where discussions and issues like this are non-existent. There is no local word for "abortion" because it is not natural and people never considered that. There is a word for miscarriage though.

If I have medical records anywhere, they are at least 8 years old

reply to post by Vidpci

Not too sure what the intellectual argument is here, we are all hypocrites, deal with it in the best possible way, and not best served in this outlandish ignorant, agenda borne thread.

reply to post by kthxbai


Wiki answers12 exceptions Privacy act


no how is it legal... not every person if any signed releases...

If it is ruled a violation of proprietary info, it will be covered by DMCA... which is a crime...


So it is ok to release the personal information of anyone you want for any reason...If you say it is ok then it is all fair game...

reply to post by kthxbai


YOU SOUND LIKE A SOUTHERN SLAVE OWNER, declaring the rights of slave owners over their legal property claiming they aren't human beings but animals not having the choice of life until they become white.

Uh, slavery used to be legal BECAUSE the law stated they had no rights as "us "humans. You seem to feel you aren't aware of the irony and hypocrisy of your volitile statements about the life of other people simply because you don't agree with them. It's because of the irrational people like yourself that makes it MANDATORY that the 2'nd amendment is never infringed as that coulter woman needs to defend herself from wackos that cannot control their emotions and can incite violence from others against her or from your own uncontrolled outbursts that lead to your actions that follow your unbridled toungue.


oooooooo the irony of it all.


And my mother had the sense and dignity to birth her children, all of them. So, to satisfy your arg I guess all we have to do is make it law and all medical records should be made public. That way we know who might have a disease that could threaten the children. We need to do this for the children.

Oh, and public safety.