Forums | MacLife

I'd think any determined 'researcher' could find what (s)he wanted thur the traditional methods. I hear google can be useful. Find some online doc from AIG that has some info, and go to it.

I'm shocked at how many of just us folks pop to the top of the page with just name and hometown. Not sure about anything too much more high stakes, though.

Do 'The Hamptons' show on google earth street views?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Giving out that information really has only one purpose.

I agree that they shouldn't have given out that info, but that info is easily attainable to someone who wants it. Public county records very often provide it, it's not hard to get for someone who wants to get it.

resedit wrote:

Not really a huge difference - the motive is the same.

I know in my work, we routinely recognize a difference between the release of an individual's name to the public and the release of their address and other contact or family member information. 

Same reason Operation Rescue crossed the line - he wanted to shame the target.

What's the purpose of releasing the address?  Nothing to do with bringing the "protest" to the individual in person?

btw, what relatives of abortion doctors did Operation Rescue publish addresses for?
That's new to me.

Bedstuy posted a link earlier that stated the group sought out information on his employees and family members.  At the very least, publishing someone's home address puts their family at risk.

jerwin wrote:

daemon wrote:

I dunno about the background check (can't decode the snark) but...
I'll say both of the res prevarications/rationalizations are crap. Period.

Waiting Period versus instant background check for guns.

During that two week period, the embryo grows, complicating the abortion procedure.

Yeah, damn that little "life form" for developing normally.

Like I said, they all go out and snoopy dance.

I also said that the 'misogyny' label was being charitable.

I'll fill in 'loathsome' and use it for yours as well.

Tell you what, YOU get pregnant. (The more I read this crap, the more I agree with the folks who've been derided as shrill/exteme. They say if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement.)

Try running your own life. Stop trying to control the rest of us.
----
In a related note, Hamsher over FDL points out that 'liberal' MSNBC had a full stable of male guests/pundits for their talk shows yesterday on the Teller assassination. Zero women. Not even a token 'conservative'.

Last edited by daemon (2009-06-02 5:14 pm)

People need to dial it down a few notches.
Abortion touches deeply held beliefs, you're not going to change them this way.

...attempts to control our lives...

I'll take that as confirmation.

Thank you.

radarman wrote:

I wasn't suggesting it either, only that in the current legal environment, it is perfectly acceptable. THAT is what I find disquieting. If there was even a challenge made to women desiring an abortion, I would feel better - but as it stands, there are clinics that will abort with no questions asked; provided you have cash in hand.

Surprise, we have a for-profit health care system.  How could the results be any different?

A woman with a dedicated family doctor might receive some amount of "counseling" on the matter--some care, compassion, etc. etc.  Those without access to such services probably won't receive such treatment, on this matter or any other.

sturner wrote:

radarman wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Yes.

And yet, you still can't point out the falsehood in the statement. Interesting...

It demonstrates a callousness on the part of your statement, a callousness that isn't normally demonstrated in most women, in what we call normal circumstances.

By his reasoning, not only should all firearms be banned (because people can just go out and blow each other's brains out as easily as they get snacks from the fridge) ... hell, that sort of thinking goes all sorts of idiotic places.

radarman wrote:

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

And yet, you still can't point out the falsehood in the statement. Interesting...

I would suggest that such decisions probably aren't often made on a whim due to some amount of discomfort, such as from "morning sickness."

I wasn't suggesting it either, only that in the current legal environment, it is perfectly acceptable. THAT is what I find disquieting. If there was even a challenge made to women desiring an abortion, I would feel better - but as it stands, there are clinics that will abort with no questions asked; provided you have cash in hand.

Surprising, I know this from personal experience. (No, it wasn't my baby) A lady friend of mine decided to abort after she got pregnant by her then boyfriend, and I agreed to take her. Worst mistake of my life, and one I will never repeat for anyone. Some of the women there were barely beyond their girl years. Some were crying, others were laughing and yacking on their their cell phones. There was a sign in the window that required you pay before any "services" were rendered. I ended up leaving after about 15 minutes, and never went back in.

From a recent Slate article(emphasis added)

In a labor induction, the doctor administers a feticidal agent, and the patient delivers the fetus down the birth canal. This procedure is longer, more painful, and far more emotionally taxing than a normal delivery, and it gets worse as the pregnancy progresses. While most hospitals can perform the procedure, many referred their late-term patients to Tiller because of his experience in treating the emotional and physical strain. Tiller also pioneered an outpatient induction technique.

Pariah wrote:

Thinking about the blame game:
The anti-war movement in the sixties often erupted in violence. I supported that movement but believed that the violence was very bad and I also thought and continue to think the inflammatory rhetoric of the leaders of that movement are to blame to a great extent.

And if the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) had published the addresses of, say, the CEO of Dow Chemical, which made napalm and Agent Orange, not only his home but his church and all the rest, and the Weathermen track him down and shoot his ass, you would probably think SDS is heavily responsible for the murder.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Thinking about the blame game:
The anti-war movement in the sixties often erupted in violence. I supported that movement but believed that the violence was very bad and I also thought and continue to think the inflammatory rhetoric of the leaders of that movement are to blame to a great extent.

And if the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) had published the addresses of, say, the CEO of Dow Chemical, which made napalm and Agent Orange, not only his home but his church and all the rest, and the Weathermen track him down and shoot his ass, you would probably think SDS is heavily responsible for the murder.

Morally responsible, yes. Legally responsible is a more murky issue.