Happy Atheist Forum

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143189/outrageous_oklahoma_law_will_post_details_of_women's_abortions_online_

Oklahoma has passed a new law stating anyone who gets an abortion has to fill out a questionnaire that will be posted online.  This includes the Mother's Age, Date of the Abortion, What county the abortion was performed in, Marital status, Race, Highest level of education, State they live in (or Country), and the total number of previous pregnancies.

Isn't this an invasion of privacy?  Is this considered unconstitutional?  I bet you people who want abortions will now be leaving the state to get them.  What is the point of such legislation?  Ugh this pisses me off.

A friend was telling me about this last night.  I think it is an invasion of privacy and crosses the line of what a state can and cannot make people do.

I've heard rumblings of a DDoS against this site when it launches. While I'd never promote the idea of breaking the law, such an attack would be a very interesting method of righteous civil disobedience.

Quote from: "Will"I've heard rumblings of a DDoS against this site when it launches. While I'd never promote the idea of breaking the law, such an attack would be a very interesting method of righteous civil disobedience.

:upset:  

QuoteLone Materia wrote:   I hope the people in Oklahoma are fighting this.

Damn, something else to put on the agenda.  I'm getting exhausted.

I've been here for about three years and sometimes I want to declare the whole state a wash. I know this isn't fair, really there are quite a few of us here fighting the good fight to keep things free, but my personal experience with Oklahoma is that it has a suspicious air of corruption and is just harsh in general.  And a portion of the population just can't seem pick up their own trash.

I'll refrain from going into more detail since this is the Happy Atheist Forum, but suffice it to say that this public abortion listing is just one of many problems a freethinker might encounter here.  To be fair, though I should note that I the two towns I've lived in were fairly small.  I'm just lucky I guess.  

Hopefully it isn't as bad as Utah .  I just couldn't believe it when I saw it >.< I wanted to punch someone.

QuoteLoneMateria wrote:

Hopefully it isn't as bad as Utah .

We (me and the mate) know some new transplants who lived in Utah.  And they said our area of Oklahoma is more religious than Utah.

That Ten Commandments monument?  It's kinda like a radiation symbol.

I can't find anymore links to the Oklahoma Abortion Law mentioned on Huffington Post except for one blog.  Sometimes data is made available on the net for research purposes, so if this information doesn't have names attached in any way, it's just information that can be used to debate either side of the abortion issue.  Since I can't find more facts on it, I'm not going to get pissed just yet.

If the info is anonymous I don't see an issue. It'd be interesting to see the ethnicity, age, etc. of the woman receiving an abortion.

Agreed, if the info is anonymous it isn't really an issue.

Just because they don't have names now doesn't mean they wont amend it later.  I can see this as a get your foot in the door sorta thing then change it from there.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Just because they don't have names now doesn't mean they wont amend it later.  I can see this as a get your foot in the door sorta thing then change it from there.

True, when it comes down to it i'm sure this isn't being done for research but instead making a shit list for all the godless heathens who would dare kill a baby. I hope this gets shot done if it hasn't been passed already.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Just because they don't have names now doesn't mean they wont amend it later.  I can see this as a get your foot in the door sorta thing then change it from there.

Meh, maybe it'll make people more responsible sexually in that case. Not that I'm in favor of it but this doesn't really affect me too much. It just gives Texan more reason to look down on Oklahoma aside from  OSU vs UT and other such things. Why is it that Oklahoma has thicker southern accents? What the hell is up with that?!?

I doubt it will make anyone more sexually responsible.  Look at abstinence only education (especially the religiously inspired type).  Its not effective at stopping teens from humping even if they make God hat them.  This is just a public way to try and embarrass  women to their families/friends.  Gossip will come from this and nothing more.  Imagine a woman who goes to the doctor and finds out she had a miscarriage.  Her family doesn't trust her for whatever reason and go to that site and find out someone had an abortion the last time she went to the doctor.  Shit can easily fly out of control whether or not she had an abortion.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I doubt it will make anyone more sexually responsible.  Look at abstinence only education (especially the religiously inspired type).  Its not effective at stopping teens from humping even if they make God hat them.  This is just a public way to try and embarrass  women to their families/friends.  Gossip will come from this and nothing more.  Imagine a woman who goes to the doctor and finds out she had a miscarriage.  Her family doesn't trust her for whatever reason and go to that site and find out someone had an abortion the last time she went to the doctor.  Shit can easily fly out of control whether or not she had an abortion.

Shame, pain, and humiliation can be powerful motivators to not do something. I'm not advocating this dirty laundry airing but it could help reduce the unwanted baby/abortion/STD problem.

Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

The only problem is you can't tell how many DID NOT due to the embarrassment of going to an abortion clinic knowing you will be exposed.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

The only problem is you can't tell how many DID NOT due to the embarrassment of going to an abortion clinic knowing you will be exposed.

The problem is there are religious nuts who might physically harm women for POSSIBLY having an abortion.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

The only problem is you can't tell how many DID NOT due to the embarrassment of going to an abortion clinic knowing you will be exposed.

The problem is there are religious nuts who might physically harm women for POSSIBLY having an abortion.

Yep, that sounds about right.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

The only problem is you can't tell how many DID NOT due to the embarrassment of going to an abortion clinic knowing you will be exposed.

The problem is there are religious nuts who might physically harm women for POSSIBLY having an abortion.

Blowback from that operation. Sad but true. I'm not condoning this shit, just trying to have the best face to it.

Can I be the first to say I would laugh my face off if a Religious nut job serial killer starts going about killing people on the list and sending love letters to the doctors of the clinics, saying they "love the law" and mailing photos of their victims, posting how they screamed online and in said letters.

I'd want go to hell just to make sure the sick fucks who made that law know they'd have condemned so many women. A perfect case of "be careful what you'd wish for.", indeed.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I doubt it will make anyone more sexually responsible.  Look at abstinence only education (especially the religiously inspired type).  Its not effective at stopping teens from humping even if they make God hat them.  This is just a public way to try and embarrass  women to their families/friends.  Gossip will come from this and nothing more.  Imagine a woman who goes to the doctor and finds out she had a miscarriage.  Her family doesn't trust her for whatever reason and go to that site and find out someone had an abortion the last time she went to the doctor.  Shit can easily fly out of control whether or not she had an abortion.

I was undecided before reading that, this is a definite problem with the law (other than it not accomplishing anything useful at all). Though it is a sad day when we have to think about the actions of these morons when making laws. "What if some idiot gets the wrong end of the stick and kills someone?" is not a great basis to have to make laws on.

Quote from: "SSY"Though it is a sad day when we have to think about the actions of these morons when making laws. "What if some idiot gets the wrong end of the stick and kills someone?" is not a great basis to have to make laws on.

Isn't it bad we have to factor in idiots?  The thing is I haven't heard of anyone killing an abortion doctor( or someone who had an abortion) who was not a religious extremist.  That by itself should throw up some red flags.  It might be a stretch to say (and I have no evidence to back this up) but i think this could be seen as a law that violates separation of church and state.  Other then being a useless law it only serves as muscle to religious groups who want to force their views on everyone.  I'd have to find evidence that this law was religiously motivated or passed for religious reasons but it would not surprise me the least if it were to come out.

The fact it is published online is what gives it the sinister element, if the data was of use to academic researchers, then fine, collect it, at the patients discretion, and then give it to the academics, publishing online serves no end whatsoever, other than to whip up the self righteous into a foaming, frothy frenzy.

Quote from: "SSY"The fact it is published online is what gives it the sinister element, if the data was of use to academic researchers, then fine, collect it, at the patients discretion, and then give it to the academics, publishing online serves no end whatsoever, other than to whip up the self righteous into a foaming, frothy frenzy.

Remember the book 1984? The Junior Anti-Sex League? The Party publicly condone their actions but privately let them vent their frustrations in order to keep them blind. What's to say that the powers that be aren't using this to do so?

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "SSY"The fact it is published online is what gives it the sinister element, if the data was of use to academic researchers, then fine, collect it, at the patients discretion, and then give it to the academics, publishing online serves no end whatsoever, other than to whip up the self righteous into a foaming, frothy frenzy.

Remember the book 1984? The Junior Anti-Sex League? The Party publicly condone their actions but privately let them vent their frustrations in order to keep them blind. What's to say that the powers that be aren't using this to do so?

1. I haven't read the book and 2. how does this apply to our current situation?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "SSY"The fact it is published online is what gives it the sinister element, if the data was of use to academic researchers, then fine, collect it, at the patients discretion, and then give it to the academics, publishing online serves no end whatsoever, other than to whip up the self righteous into a foaming, frothy frenzy.

Remember the book 1984? The Junior Anti-Sex League? The Party publicly condone their actions but privately let them vent their frustrations in order to keep them blind. What's to say that the powers that be aren't using this to do so?

1. I haven't read the book and 2. how does this apply to our current situation?

Really?!? Read it, great book. The Junior Anti-Sex League used the frustration the the people felt subconciously against the Party to focus on an easy and universal scapegoat: Sex. Every healthy human feels the need to have it (okay asexuals do not, but that's not really the criteria here) so the Party used it to help create another rift with normal sexual relations. Sex that was merely for pleasure and not procreation was looked upon as Sexcrime (a lot of political terms used today were created by Orwell for the book). My point is that this shame process is used in a way to keep people in line politically by making sex a taboo and shameful subject so as to keep the sheep baaing at the party's great wisdom. Like I've said before, it really doesn't matter which party is in power, they both pull this kind of shit one way or another.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Really?!? Read it, great book. The Junior Anti-Sex League used the frustration the the people felt subconciously against the Party to focus on an easy and universal scapegoat: Sex. Every healthy human feels the need to have it (okay asexuals do not, but that's not really the criteria here) so the Party used it to help create another rift with normal sexual relations. Sex that was merely for pleasure and not procreation was looked upon as Sexcrime (a lot of political terms used today were created by Orwell for the book). My point is that this shame process is used in a way to keep people in line politically by making sex a taboo and shameful subject so as to keep the sheep baaing at the party's great wisdom. Like I've said before, it really doesn't matter which party is in power, they both pull this kind of shit one way or another.

I'm still not sure how the situations are identical.  So are you saying because they shamed these people that they didn't focus on the situation at hand?  And are you saying that this is a good thing?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Big Mac"Really?!? Read it, great book. The Junior Anti-Sex League used the frustration the the people felt subconciously against the Party to focus on an easy and universal scapegoat: Sex. Every healthy human feels the need to have it (okay asexuals do not, but that's not really the criteria here) so the Party used it to help create another rift with normal sexual relations. Sex that was merely for pleasure and not procreation was looked upon as Sexcrime (a lot of political terms used today were created by Orwell for the book). My point is that this shame process is used in a way to keep people in line politically by making sex a taboo and shameful subject so as to keep the sheep baaing at the party's great wisdom. Like I've said before, it really doesn't matter which party is in power, they both pull this kind of shit one way or another.

I'm still not sure how the situations are identical.  So are you saying because they shamed these people that they didn't focus on the situation at hand?  And are you saying that this is a good thing?

No, I'm saying maybe these people aren't so bent on exposing these women so much for religious reasons as political. It works in many ways. By focusing the debate on this we can be distracted to how they spend billions of our tax dollars on shit. By giving people a distraction for and against this it prevents us from organizing and ousting them for someone better.

I'm just saying a consideration for why this is implemented. It may not be the reason you think!

Quote from: "Big Mac"No, I'm saying maybe these people aren't so bent on exposing these women so much for religious reasons as political. It works in many ways. By focusing the debate on this we can be distracted to how they spend billions of our tax dollars on shit. By giving people a distraction for and against this it prevents us from organizing and ousting them for someone better.

I'm just saying a consideration for why this is implemented. It may not be the reason you think!

If it's politically motivated then chances are its meant to appease the religious right.  It still will have negative impact on families which are more religious.  This has the possibility of being a distraction but so does any other "high profile" decision made.  I take the skeptical approach here and don't assume that there might be a distraction until there is more evidence for it.  From my perspective this is religiously motivated in one way or another.  Either the person who passed it is passing it because of his religious views on the subject or he is doing it to cater to the religious right (a sort of compromise instead of outlawing it).

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Big Mac"No, I'm saying maybe these people aren't so bent on exposing these women so much for religious reasons as political. It works in many ways. By focusing the debate on this we can be distracted to how they spend billions of our tax dollars on shit. By giving people a distraction for and against this it prevents us from organizing and ousting them for someone better.

I'm just saying a consideration for why this is implemented. It may not be the reason you think!

If it's politically motivated then chances are its meant to appease the religious right.  It still will have negative impact on families which are more religious.  This has the possibility of being a distraction but so does any other "high profile" decision made.  I take the skeptical approach here and don't assume that there might be a distraction until there is more evidence for it.  From my perspective this is religiously motivated in one way or another.  Either the person who passed it is passing it because of his religious views on the subject or he is doing it to cater to the religious right (a sort of compromise instead of outlawing it).

That's rather myopic in my opinion. Think about it. By keeping a tally of certain women who have had to make the difficult choice of terminating life. They now have plenty of ammo to silence an intelligent, opposing viewpoint with a rabble-rousing document of abortion.

Please don't take things like this on face value, there is probably a more ominous reason behind them.

By the way, HOOK 'EM HORNS!!! TAKE THAT OU, UT WINS!!!

Quote from: "Big Mac"That's rather myopic in my opinion. Think about it. By keeping a tally of certain women who have had to make the difficult choice of terminating life. They now have plenty of ammo to silence an intelligent, opposing viewpoint with a rabble-rousing document of abortion.

What's myopic my view or goal I speculated was set forth by politicians?   I never disagreed that keeping a tally of women having an abortion couldn't be used as ammo.  Don't get me wrong I'm fairly confident that such data will be used in the future.  But saying thats the motivation behind this isn't taking it back far enough.  Once you think they are doing this then you need to ask yourself why?  Is this a scare tactic used to help motivate women into keeping their unborn children?  Is this a way to make the religious right happy and help assure reelection in the future?  If I understand you right then you need to keep asking questions until you find the root of this.  Even the root of this in your reasoning will eventually come back to religion.  The staggering majority of pro-life/anti-abortion supporters are religiously motivated.  It is what it is.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Please don't take things like this on face value, there is probably a more ominous reason behind them.

I agree and I said it, its religion.

Please allow me to elaborate.

Let's say 20 year old Sally Simpatica decides to terminated her pregnancy because she is not ready for kids and does not want to carry to term because she knows it would be almost impossible to give up the child for adoption. After much thought she heads down to the clinic. The usual protesting crowds on both sides are doing their usual dance while women make a difficult decision.

The procedure was routine for the doctor and he must now log the information into the database. She is young, unsure of where life will take her, and is a college student. The most responsible decision was for her to perform this. However, state law requires her info to become public knowledge. After the shock from certain folks finding out (ie her folks) it quickly is put aside for the other things in a person's life (school, family, romance, etc.) and she never imagines it will ever be brought up again.

Fast-forward roughly 15 years down the road. Sally is now an educated woman with a husband and family. She has decided to enter the political arena because one of the current senators for her state is an overtly corrupt son of a bitch. Mr. Sleaze (well I guess this could apply to almost all politicians) fights dirty and has his staff look up some dirt on Sally. For the most part there is nothing interesting. The biggest problem she had with the law was a speeding ticket that was dismissed. Oh but wait, says she had an abortion. It's one thing to be pro-choice but to actually go through with the procedure is kicking the debate up a notch.

Now the "honorable" senator is glad he helped pass that bill those years ago. Nevermind he had abortions for his mistresses to be off the books after the law was enacted but the nobility of this country can't be bothered with silly things like equal application of the law.

So what I'm saying it doesn't seem so much religious as a political tool. Religion is invoked so the ignorant masses can rally behind it like the bleating sheep they seem to be.

Why is it a political tool?  Because she loses votes from the religious right.  Its power comes from the religious right and yes could possibly be used as a political tool but it still stems from religion.  If the religious people were as adamant about, for example, planting flowers.  Say for the sake of argument that raising flowers and owning flowers is the equivalent to having an abortion.  If someone takes a picture inside Sally's home and sees a flower and some jackass senator wants to use it against her does this "crime" stem from politics or religion?  Does this law have any benefit to society as a whole?  Is it correct to force women to give away certain information that can lead to violence against them and ruin their lives and their families?

Lets modify the example you used.  Say Sally Simpatica decides to terminate her pregnancy because the child is defective and will be born without a head.  She is put into the database and 15 years down the road she has a family and a career but some jackass senator wants something to use against her.  Oh she had an abortion according to this database.  Although her family and friends understood that the abortion was necessary the religious nuts are not so understanding.  Her and her family is harassed, threatened, and have had several religious asshats shoot at them.  Because of this she resigns and the jackass senator gets someone more sympathetic to his cause which is the criminalization of all non-christian religions in the U.S.  The U.S. eventually becomes the Christian Nation the religious right has been striving for and in 40 years has caused WW3 and got nuked out of existence.

This potential for this law to become a "tool" for politicians is really just a tool of convenience for them.  Its power and its roots comes from religion.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Why is it a political tool?  Because she loses votes from the religious right.  Its power comes from the religious right and yes could possibly be used as a political tool but it still stems from religion.  If the religious people were as adamant about, for example, planting flowers.  Say for the sake of argument that raising flowers and owning flowers is the equivalent to having an abortion.  If someone takes a picture inside Sally's home and sees a flower and some jackass senator wants to use it against her does this "crime" stem from politics or religion?  Does this law have any benefit to society as a whole?  Is it correct to force women to give away certain information that can lead to violence against them and ruin their lives and their families?

Lets modify the example you used.  Say Sally Simpatica decides to terminate her pregnancy because the child is defective and will be born without a head.  She is put into the database and 15 years down the road she has a family and a career but some jackass senator wants something to use against her.  Oh she had an abortion according to this database.  Although her family and friends understood that the abortion was necessary the religious nuts are not so understanding.  Her and her family is harassed, threatened, and have had several religious asshats shoot at them.  Because of this she resigns and the jackass senator gets someone more sympathetic to his cause which is the criminalization of all non-christian religions in the U.S.  The U.S. eventually becomes the Christian Nation the religious right has been striving for and in 40 years has caused WW3 and got nuked out of existence.

This potential for this law to become a "tool" for politicians is really just a tool of convenience for them.  Its power and its roots comes from religion.

But Peter Pendejo comes in with some blackmail. True the religious nature of the stigma helps but really this is more of a political weapon than a religious one. Religion is merely the cover in which it's being implemented. These are from the same people who don't really read the bible and only believe in da jesus because it's convenient. It's hard to debate them because they don't even know their own bible. Hell one guy at work never heard of the passage Jesus states to go in your closet and pray in private not in public. Not the first time. I think the use of religious rationale for anti-abortion views tend to be superficial and more about control.

Quote from: "Big Mac"But Peter Pendejo comes in with some blackmail. True the religious nature of the stigma helps but really this is more of a political weapon than a religious one. Religion is merely the cover in which it's being implemented. These are from the same people who don't really read the bible and only believe in da jesus because it's convenient. It's hard to debate them because they don't even know their own bible. Hell one guy at work never heard of the passage Jesus states to go in your closet and pray in private not in public. Not the first time. I think the use of religious rationale for anti-abortion views tend to be superficial and more about control.

How is an abortion law a religious cover?  Again i'm not saying that there can't be a political benefit from this.  I'm saying that this stems from religion, is probably made to appease the religious so they feel something is being done instead of nothing, and this law is a disaster waiting to happen.  

I don't know if its quite true that the people who want this don't know their bible.  Considering that a majority of the religious right is evangelical and fundamentalist those tend to be the groups of people who actually know what is said in their bible but found some way to cope with it.  Next time your buddy at work tells you about how wonderful and kind God is remind him of 2Kings 2

Anyway this law is going to cause problems for people ... period.  I think thats what it was designed to do.  There might be some interesting statical trends from people who get abortions (and part of me is very interested in looking at the numbers) but if this law is religiously motivated (which it probably is) then its a violation of Church State Separation and it needs to be addressed.  Like I said before I think this is their way of getting their foot in the door and then going from there.  However there will undoubtedly be some incidents where women suspected of getting abortions will be targeted by members of their community and quite possibly with violence (because we've all seen it).  This is a very gray area here and it definitely merits further investigation.  The weird thing is I thought laws were supposed to be passed to protect people ... this doesn't seem to do it and shouldn't be a law in the first place.

Why do you hate America, sir?

oh wow, please tell me you aren't trolling again, well actually that would be better than you actually asking such a retarded question. If you can't refute an argument any longer than that's when you concede buddy, if this is a troll I think and hope everyone will just accept it as you conceding.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"oh wow, please tell me you aren't trolling again, well actually that would be better than you actually asking such a retarded question. If you can't refute an argument any longer than that's when you concede buddy, if this is a troll I think and hope everyone will just accept it as you conceding.

That was a joke, actually. I'm not really disagreeing with the whole religious aspect but my point is that I believe the people who enact these prudish laws tend to be more than Joe-Blow bible thump. They have an even more nefarious agenda besides making baby jesus happy. There's no way to really concede in a debate about hypothetical and speculative things. Since there's no tangible evidence for either side, this is more of an exercise.

My question to you is why so serious?!

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"oh wow, please tell me you aren't trolling again, well actually that would be better than you actually asking such a retarded question. If you can't refute an argument any longer than that's when you concede buddy, if this is a troll I think and hope everyone will just accept it as you conceding.

That was a joke, actually. I'm not really disagreeing with the whole religious aspect but my point is that I believe the people who enact these prudish laws tend to be more than Joe-Blow bible thump. They have an even more nefarious agenda besides making baby jesus happy. There's no way to really concede in a debate about hypothetical and speculative things. Since there's no tangible evidence for either side, this is more of an exercise.

My question to you is why so serious?!

A. I'm a serious dude when it comes to serious things

B. Sarcasm and humor is very hard to detect with nothing but text .


Also, good point.

It does sound like the main purpose is to intimidate women, although I could understand it having some legitimate statistical value as well.

Quote from: "seasonsofmadness"It does sound like the main purpose is to intimidate women, although I could understand it having some legitimate statistical value as well.

I don't disagree with that. It seems like it has religious undertones but I think the higher up the christian hierarchy you go, the less you'll find ardent believers in that shit. It seems like people who have figured out how to control a large group of people fairly effectively. It sounds like another thing that starts with a c.....cu...cu.....cul....

As long as the information is anonymous, I am fine with answering a dumb survey after blending my child.

Quote from: "Ellainix"As long as the information is anonymous, I am fine with answering a dumb survey after blending my child.

That's a little callous. Abortion is not a light matter. It is terminating potential life. I agree with the bible-thumper morons. By aborting a fetus, you could prolong/prevent the person who cures AIDS/Cancer/World Hunger/etc. with their action. It is still their right but I wish people took other alternatives such as contraceptives or possibly putting them up for adoption.

This information has potential for studies. As people of science and reason, do we not dare explore something we may find controversial? Science is not affected by what is wrong. We complain about bible thumpers who wish to remove Evolution and such from their classrooms but if this is maintained on a strict anonymous basis, it could help enlighten us on the socio-economic-ethinic group that gets abortions the most frequently. We are bound by the unbiased rule of science to allow the uncovering of the world around us even if the truth hurts.

Perhaps this information can help us reduce the number of abortions by preventing the need for them. You can't attack the source of an illness if you only focus on its symptoms.

Quote from: "seasonsofmadness"It does sound like the main purpose is to intimidate women, although I could understand it having some legitimate statistical value as well.

Even if it has statistical value it doesn't need to be a law.  It needs to be a volunteer survey after the fact, maybe by completing it you pay them $50 to help with the cost of the abortion itself.  Again this law doesn't serve to protect anyone from anything its just a law that gives the state the power to harass women.

Quote from: "Big Mac"By aborting a fetus, you could prolong/prevent the person who cures AIDS/Cancer/World Hunger/etc. with their action. It is still their right but I wish people took other alternatives such as contraceptives or possibly putting them up for adoption.

Would you still agree to this if the potential child had a defect that would kill it and possibly the mother?  Or how about for women who take fertility treatments and get pregnant with 5 kids or so?  More then 2 children is considered very high risk for everyone involved.  I saw a story that was posted on reddit where a lady was taking fertility treatments and got pregnant with 6 kids, against the wishes of the doctors decided to keep them all (after talking with their church of course).  With that many kids there is a near 100% chance that each kid will suffer some major problems.  Well surprise surprise since she didn't get the reduction (abortions for the excess kids) she gave birth 14 weeks early and the doctors wouldn't have bothered trying to save the kids lives if the parents didn't special request it.  3 died shortly after birth one died a week later and the other 2 are still in the Intensive Neonatal Care Unit.  Those 2 remaining kids will suffer from a myriad of conditions and probably will never live normal lives.  If she got the reduction chances are the 2 kids that were left would be fine and healthy.  

This issue is not black and white Big Mac.  The "potential lives" cannot be measured to current lives.  That specific child is more likely to be a serial killer then the one who discovers the cure to aids (statically).  Remember women are almost always able to have more kids (I know of an exception because she was retarded and had like 8 abortions and now can't have children ... but she is the exception not the rule).

Quote from: "Big Mac"That's a little callous. Abortion is not a light matter. It is terminating potential life.

Men masturbating and women ovulating would be termination of potential life. At what point does the potential life earn the right to be protected? I know science can't (yet) answer the question "when does life begin?", neither can philosophy, therefore it falls to the law. In the US, Roe v. Wade says that a woman has a legal right to determine if she can terminate the pregnancy. Until some new information comes alongâ€"and as always, I'm totally open to new informationâ€"I'm sticking with the law on the issue.

Abortion isn't murder, and posting the private information of women that have abortions online is a sick way for religious nutbags to get revenge on innocent women that happen to do something their ancient books of myths don't even mention.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Ellainix"As long as the information is anonymous, I am fine with answering a dumb survey after blending my child.

That's a little callous. Abortion is not a light matter. It is terminating potential life. I agree with the bible-thumper morons. By aborting a fetus, you could prolong/prevent the person who cures AIDS/Cancer/World Hunger/etc.

Yes, but by not aborting a fetus, I am just as likely to give birth to someone who will prevent someone else from curing AIDS/Cancer/World Hunger/Theism/etc..

My stance on abortion is to prevent the need of it, not the act itself.

My stance is, in a nutshell:

Stop. Abortion. [strike:7po4sxw9]Now.[/strike:7po4sxw9]  Sometime in the far future when it's much more practical and less costly and women have equal rights and pay and adequate healthcare and both men and women have biologically engineered switches to prevent any accidental fertilization events.

But that's just in a nutshell.

Quote from: "LARA"My stance is, in a nutshell:

Stop. Abortion. [strike:3ukiegqk]Now.[/strike:3ukiegqk]  Sometime in the far future when it's much more practical and less costly and women have equal rights and pay and adequate healthcare and both men and women have biologically engineered switches to prevent any accidental fertilization events.

But that's just in a nutshell.

Lol the thing is the same people who are so pissed about abortions are pissed about birth control.  They think every time we hump something should pop out 9 months later.  We will be working on more effective birth control for years to come, but if people don't take them they will still have kids.  The thing is in our society intelligence is slowly being phased out (thank you evolution) because the less intelligent amongst us are the ones having more kids and it needs to stop.  If it doesn't we will end up with more people like Pat Robertson (a.k.a. the load his mom should have swallowed).

So the world will end up like idiocracy?!?!?! NO! NO NO NO! We have to do something about this! By any means necessary, we can't let the human race turn into a bunch of idiotic morons who pray to their sun god! We have so much potential and idiots want to ruin it? That is pretty frustrating. I really, really do hope kurzweil is right about the singularity and all of that jazz.

Quote from: "Will"I've heard rumblings of a DDoS against this site when it launches. While I'd never promote the idea of breaking the law, such an attack would be a very interesting method of righteous civil disobedience.

I agree. How do these stupid laws get passed?

Quote from: "nikkmichalski"

Quote from: "Will"I've heard rumblings of a DDoS against this site when it launches. While I'd never promote the idea of breaking the law, such an attack would be a very interesting method of righteous civil disobedience.

I agree. How do these stupid laws get passed?

Some psycho religious nut attaches something stupid to an important bill and when the bill gets passed the stupid law gets passed as well.  Thats how online poker got fucked.  296 to 3 (I think the number was that or close to it) It got attached to a safe port bill that was supposed to help fight terrorism.

*scritches head*

I'm pretty sure that most medical facilities keep records of the operations and services they provide, patient profiles, and the medical history of their patients already.  So as far as statistics go, they info is already logged and available for use by researchers.  I'm not seeing a "scientific" reason for having the information online, as its probably already there.

I'm also not a huge fan of using children or the potential for pregnancy as a form of punishment, especially when it takes to horny, differentially gendered folks to start the whole baby making process.  It seems grossly unfair that a woman, regardless of the reasons behind the decision to end her pregnancy is deemed the only "guilty" party.

Now, there are lots of other reasons why women go in for an abortion.  Its not just a service sought out by women who make no effort to practice safer sex practices (what about the guy?).  Condoms break, hormonal birth control can fail, ectopic pregnancies still happen, and women and girls are raped (denying them any choice at all) just to name a few.  

Its fine to say that you don't feel comfortable with the concept of "abortions" but I find it a bit odd that we should accept policies that immediately render guilt and punishment 1) in a way that is not justified and 2) in a fashion that can never be lived down.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"If it doesn't we will end up with more people like Pat Robertson (a.k.a. the load his mom should have swallowed).

That. Was. Awesome!

I find it ironic that those who are Pro-Life tend to be Pro-War as well. Those who are Pro-Choice (I prefer to call it Pro-Abortion) also tend to be vegans or whatever and claim slaughtering cows is wrong.

I am amused at the dualities. It's okay to abort a fetus because you don't think life begins then but at the same time a cow (which to me is just a walking bag of meat) is precious. Not knocking anyone in here. Just the irony of it all.

Then you got Pro-Lifers. Now I tend to agree with them that abortion is a horrible practice. I stop short of saying we should ban it. I think we need to reduce the need for it. But these folks tend to go "Yeah, kill all dem ayrabs!!! Blah blah blah!!! AMERIKA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!" Where many children will be killed in the crossfire.

We humans have some bizarre dualities.

Quote from: "Big Mac"I find it ironic that those who are Pro-Life tend to be Pro-War as well. Those who are Pro-Choice (I prefer to call it Pro-Abortion) also tend to be vegans or whatever and claim slaughtering cows is wrong.

I am amused at the dualities. It's okay to abort a fetus because you don't think life begins then but at the same time a cow (which to me is just a walking bag of meat) is precious. Not knocking anyone in here. Just the irony of it all.

Then you got Pro-Lifers. Now I tend to agree with them that abortion is a horrible practice. I stop short of saying we should ban it. I think we need to reduce the need for it. But these folks tend to go "Yeah, kill all dem ayrabs!!! Blah blah blah!!! AMERIKA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!" Where many children will be killed in the crossfire.

We humans have some bizarre dualities.

I can honestly say I hold neither of those specific dualities.

Quote from: "Ellainix"

Quote from: "Big Mac"I find it ironic that those who are Pro-Life tend to be Pro-War as well. Those who are Pro-Choice (I prefer to call it Pro-Abortion) also tend to be vegans or whatever and claim slaughtering cows is wrong.

I am amused at the dualities. It's okay to abort a fetus because you don't think life begins then but at the same time a cow (which to me is just a walking bag of meat) is precious. Not knocking anyone in here. Just the irony of it all.

Then you got Pro-Lifers. Now I tend to agree with them that abortion is a horrible practice. I stop short of saying we should ban it. I think we need to reduce the need for it. But these folks tend to go "Yeah, kill all dem ayrabs!!! Blah blah blah!!! AMERIKA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!" Where many children will be killed in the crossfire.

We humans have some bizarre dualities.

I can honestly say I hold neither of those specific dualities.

Maybe not to that extreme level but think about it. Even people who claim to be pacifists can be pushed to violence. Humans, like any other animal, can thrive on an almost barbaric way of life at times. I don't like abortion but I feel no qualm about killing in self-defense or service in the military. You break into my home, I will simply shoot you until one of us is dead. Then after the police take my statement and they haul your body off, I will get a great night's sleep. I also support the death penalty. I know, I know. I've also hunted hogs with my father. Death permeates our lives. How we engage it is our personal business. We all die, and we all kill some form of life. From the microbes on your skin/counter/sink/toilet to the cow you ate, to the bug you smashed into bits because it was a pest (to you).

I don't really oppose abortion so badly that I think abortion clinics need bombings or what not, but I think we should move to prevent it more. It's sad when we view life as a burden. I don't think people who are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life are inherently bad people, they just seem to take extreme positions.

Quote from: "Big Mac"I don't really oppose abortion so badly that I think abortion clinics need bombings or what not, but I think we should move to prevent it more. It's sad when we view life as a burden. I don't think people who are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life are inherently bad people, they just seem to take extreme positions.

Life ... children can be a burden.  Most people who have abortions don't have them because they don't want kids (its human instinct to reproduce) ... they just don't want them right now.  They are either financially struggling or got knocked up by someone they didn't want to knock them up.  Would you rather bring a child up when you are struggling to put food on the table  or (in this economy) when you and your partner have just lost your jobs and are about to lose your home , or would you rather bring them up when you have money and have more time to devote to them?

Which would be a better environment for the child?  I agree that we should be working on ways to reduce abortions and that can only be achieved by safer sex practices.  That is something that lots of religions are fighting.  Catholicism, Mormonism, Fundamentalists, and Evangelists are fighting safe sex practices because they have this notion every time you hump you should have a baby.    Once everyone starts practicing safe sex then abortions will be in low demand.

Doesn’t this break the doctor patient confidentiality thing? This doesn’t sound legal in any possible way.

Quote from: "Ellainix"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Ellainix"As long as the information is anonymous, I am fine with answering a dumb survey after blending my child.

That's a little callous. Abortion is not a light matter. It is terminating potential life. I agree with the bible-thumper morons. By aborting a fetus, you could prolong/prevent the person who cures AIDS/Cancer/World Hunger/etc.

Yes, but by not aborting a fetus, I am just as likely to give birth to someone who will prevent someone else from curing AIDS/Cancer/World Hunger/Theism/etc..

My stance on abortion is to prevent the need of it, not the act itself.

"Blending me child." You made me laugh very hard, and gave me a daily smile! Thanks.

I've read alot about this bill, and happy to say that it is being taken to the Supreme court as unconstitutional.  A little more information is needed.  I cannot quite find the site that I want but I will get back with that later.  The essentials are is that the survey is over 30 personal questions, down to education level, profession, income bracket, race, religious affiliation, existing children, if you are married/engaged/divorced/widow/"slut" (otherwise known as single) and the such.

Ever live in a small community?  I have.  Let me tell you that simply with the above information I could pinpoint who in that community had the abortion, let alone bringing in the other 30 or so questions about your personal life.

Now I would find it acceptable if that survey was to be kept private, that data collected in pieces, every month from said clinic or hospital for that months abortions, and posted much like Guttmacher does, with the percentage/numbers of race, marital status, education etc.  Instead it is talking about taking one particular woman's information, minus her name, and posting it online so that they see that it was specifically a black woman, with three children, who has a highschool education, who makes only $30,000 a year, who is divorced, is a practicing Catholic, living in this area, whose condom broke, that only two of her three kids have the same father etc.  Too invasive.  Instead if they were truly honest (that will never happen) about their intentions the only this they would post was that in the month of Jan 09, 37 women got abortions - 43% black, 35% white, 12% hispanic; the age bracket was....

Simple, straight forward, logical, without stigma, factual, easy to follow and gather data, without compromising patient/doctor privilege.