It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by GArnold

ya know, (out of respect for the OP) instead of responding to your nonsense specifically, this comment of yours pretty much sums it up so ... since you already said it, it should make perfect sense to ya.

it is clear you do not understand the distinction between private confidential medical information and public records which are available for ANYONE to view. I literally cannot believe you are making these arguments. It is mind blowing to me.
oh yeah, and

here's a few places i could find all kinds of "private health information" ... maybe even yours too

[please, pay attention to the dates of the 'finds' ... this isn't OLD news

2 + fineSean Timmons said Dr. Ervin Batchelor, chief doctor at Carolina Center for Development and Rehabilitation, had counted approximately 900 records, some 100 pages thick.

These are some of the most sensitive, intimate personal medical records a person can have.

and those are from 4 separate states ...

this, is nothing new ... your/my/our, oh so private, PHI, is only "private" in your mind

(regardless what the 'law' says or you for that matter)

as for the rest of your nonsense, anyone foolish enough to believe it deserves what they get, it's that bad. (thanks for the chuckles

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

and since you said this, i'm really hoping you make the effort to learn WHY you're wrong.

What I was going to say was the absence of government is the only thing that will restrict government authority.
i sure hope you're not an American

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by Vidpci

I never owned a gun until i seen they came out with that list of gun owners. They forced me to buy a gun and this is how.

With this big list of public gun owners list. what do you think a thief is going to do with this? This is what instantly pictures in my head what this list could be used for: 1 if a thief wants to go shopping for guns he can basically pick out a house that has the gun that he wants and pick to rob it next Or 2: If the thief wants a easy rob he can make sure the house does not have any guns. when me and my wife seen this.We both agreed me and my wife that is that it is time to get a gun. i dont want my house to be on a easy target list to rob. I have never needed to own a gun but i believe in the rights to own one. and now they just made it a need to have one. me and the wife are going to be taking a class to make sure we stay safe.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:40 AM

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by tothetenthpower

the paper didn't even out gun owners, just permit holders.
what Coulter suggests isn't even comparable.

Actually, they did out gun owners. In the Peoples Republic of New York, you have to get a permit to purchase a firearm. a permit that will allow you have one and if you want to carry, you have to have yet another permit. If you live in NYC, well, then there are even more hoops to jump through

actually, they DIDN'T but you are free to think so.
not everyone who has a permit owns a gun, yet.

not everyone who appears on that list is still residing there.
(a lot of lives, post Sandy, have changed substantially)

not everyone on that list is an active gun owner at the time of printing so that makes the entire story FALSE, anyway ... and, if i were one who was erroneously outed, i'd be filing charges, yesterday ... simply because that 'mapping' substanially increases the RISK for anyone residing in a marked location. (including neighbors)

some criminals don't read very well and won't match name/location with map markings ... they will follow the dots, plain and simple ... then ANYONE [whether printed name/address or not] near the marked location is AT RISK.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:15 AM
I'm not seeing the connection between buying an item and having an abortion, but I guess it is Anne's job to stir the pot no matter how crazy the soup tastes.

Besides, I am sure there are PLENTY of conservative women in the Republican spotlight right now who would not want to be exposed, or have their husbands exposed for hypocrisy.

- Lee

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by St0mP121

Right. So what's wrong with buying a baseball bat and getting a dog as well? Burglars tend to be opportunists. If they hear a dog they'll go somewhere else.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by Vidpci


Because one is public record and the other is confidential medical information.

If you don't like ticked off at the government which considers such things public record...not the reporter who published the identical information that is already readily available to any US citizen who wants to look.

It's like being mad Time Warner because they provided the internet connection to search the database.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but a retaliatory argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.
edit on 4-1-2013 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)

and that is the point.

I don't think anyone really wants to dive into medical records on someone. But why are medical records any more secretive than records of what I own?

In San Antonio this last summer there was a group of folks who would look for people with NRA stickers on their vehicles. They would follow them home, mark where they lived, and then return when the house was empty to steal the guns. They are worth quite a bit on the resell market (read: black market). I don't put NRA stickers on my car because of this.

Publishing a list that includes what I have purchased, to me, makes me a target for crime.

We are totally on the same page brother, I have absolutely no argument with you and have expressly forbidden my own husband to display anything of the sort on his own vehicle for the exact same reason. I just think it's retarded to use medical records, abortion records no less, as the retaliatory argument against the colossal idiocy of publishing gun ownership records.
People having abortions are not going to be targeted by criminals. This is a stupid rebuttal.

FFS, why not publish the personal data of pedophiles, rapists, people who have warrants, PEOPLE WHO HAVE WRITTEN BAD CHECKS, people who have had a misdemeanor, people busted for dope, people who mail-order pornography, license plates of people who go to titty bars, people who made over $500 thousand dollars last year, people who don't pay child support, people who play violent video games, people who are autistic, people who own ski masks, people who buy cigarettes, people who buy large quantities of fertilizer, people who subscribe to Penthouse.

IMO the abortion angle is a non sequitur argument.

Medical records can be used to steal your identity, rape your insurance benefits and even keep you from acquiring medical insurance coverage for yourself, your spouse or your children.
Confidential medical records also help doctors have more detailed access to diagnosing medical conditions because patients are much more likely to be frank and honest with their physician when they are comfortable knowing that anything discussed must be kept private. Especially psychiatric records, drug & alcohol rehabilitation, HIV, genetic screening and prescription medications, all of which can be used against someone in a variety of situations, including employment. They also contain details of your personal lifestyle, such as smoking, alcohol or drug use and even sports activity.

Medical records also contain personal extended family information and familial histories such as, maiden names, places of birth, adoption information, etc., thus even enlarging the already broad scope of personal damage that can be reached by having access to medical records which contain far more than someone's current address.

Having said that, gun owners still have just as much right to privacy as those with medical records. Period.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by Philippines

see my reply to my fellow Texan, above.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:48 AM
There is nothing wrong with abortion firstly & secondly it is about time certain Americans grew up, running about like little babies "i have a right to a gun" because a bunch of men (John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, George Wythe & others) wrote down over two hundred years ago that i can, missing the fact that none of these people had any idea or concept of what this would lead to, i would think that if they knew what it would lead to that they would not of written it, i would also think that they would of thought Americans would have grew up as well.

Back in 1787-8 American was a very different place, it was like the wild west which was 1775 on-wards, so this "right to bear arms" is from a time since past.

If people want to run about with guns harking back to the laws of the wild west then they should live as such as well, they should all have to walk about like Clint Eastwood & eat nothing but beans etc.

The world has moved on since 1775 & it is about time Americans grew up, then again most Americans do not believe in the concept of evolution so maybe they are incapable of growing up, if only you could look at yourselves & see just how the rest of the world views how silly you look.

People will no doubt say they do not care what other people think, yet all this view does just enforces your irrelevance.
edit on 5/1/13 by DanaKatherineScully because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but a retaliatory argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.
edit on 4-1-2013 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)

I believe the whole point was to point out the idiocy of exposing gunowners in that way, the argument being its just as wrong as exposing women whom get abortion. For the same reason we dont expose women whom get abortions we shouldnt do the same with gun owners, not the other way around, publish a list of women whom got abortions because we did the same with gun owners.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:22 PM

World's most premature baby, born at 21 weeks and five days


Approximately 88% of abortions are preformed within in the first trimester (3 months) of a pregnancy. Roughly 59% take place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, 19% in weeks 9 to 10, and 10% in weeks 11 to 12. About 10% of abortions occur during the second trimester (6% in weeks 13-15 and 4% by week 20). After 24 weeks or pregnancy, abortions are only provided due to serious health reasons (and account for less than 1% of total abortions). Earlier abortions are easier, safer, and tend to be less expensive than abortions taking place later in a pregnancy.

So, I think if we drop the "After 24 weeks" part to "After 20 weeks" we should all be okay here. If a newborn can feasibly survive at 21 weeks and five days(obviously can), I think it's fair to say that abortion after this point is unacceptable, assuming it isn't a medical emergency. If anybody disagrees with this rationale, feel free to say so.

Now, as for Coulter, she's an idiot. However, you really shouldn't be able to publish any sort of information that hasn't been made public already. If I write on a message board "I'm a gun owner" by all means, you can publish my name. But if I've never said a word about my gun ownership status and you managed to get the information through some government list or some other means, without any consent by me, I don't think that is right. I think private information should stay private until it is made public at the subjects own volition. That's not just a matter of guns, but really any subject matter.
edit on 5-1-2013 by grimreaper797 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2013 by grimreaper797 because: any sort*

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Honor93

I am not sure what exactly your point is besides from the fact these people broke the law by dumping private confidential medical records. There are bad people in all walks of life. Drs are no exception. There is a cop in Indianapolis facing 17 charges as of yesterday from beating his wife to intimidation with a gun. There is a lawyer who was a partner with the cities DA who is facing wire fraud charges as of yesterday as well. Just because it happened does not make it legal or right. I am sure if you dig hard enough you can find any information your looking for on anyone.. again it does not make it right or legal. To compare a public record Freedom of Information Request which the paper used and is perfectly legal to printing the medical information of individuals is just stupid.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but a retaliatory argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.
edit on 4-1-2013 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)

so am i...but, using ann coulter to make this particular arguement does not help...she clearly goes wwaayy beyond why this is bad. she is so use to making inflamatory, and/or untrue statements, that the point of the discussion is lost

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Yes getting an abortion is just a danger to the child that you're about to murder.

You can't have an abortion after a child is born. Before it is born, it's a fetus, not a child. There's also a limit on how far along you can be when having an abortion.

In coulter's case, we should extend that limit to ...however old she is, 60 maybe? She certainly looks it.

You are just playing word games here. Any person with a brain could blast through your argument in a minute.

The point here that Coulter has made is that the abortion rights movement has made medical records sanctified, while the gun control lobby wants to publish the property ownership of citizens. This is how evil people use our laws against us. In the HITECH Act, which was passed as part of the Stimulus, they have made corporations liable up to 1,000,000 for even accidental exposure of medical records publicly, and now gun control advocates want to make reverse type legislation to publish records of private property ownership(guns in this case).

It's just whatever liberals want they use or make laws to do it.
edit on 5-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: typo

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:45 PM
abortion is to murder
what masturbation is to genocide.

No brain function, no person.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by DanaKatherineScully

There is nothing wrong with abortion firstly & secondly it is about time certain Americans grew up, running about like little babies "i have a right to a gun"

Just switch the terms around.... There is nothing wrong with gun men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams risked their lives and fortunes for the right to fight against tyranny.... and people running about like babies saying they have a right to abort their pre-born children.... you get what I mean right?

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:52 PM
Why is it about abortion? The whole point was if we dont expose women whom got abortions we shouldnt expose gunowners and not if we expose gunowners we must expose women whom had abortions too.

Also I would be curious to know how many men changed their view on abortions when it was them on the hook?
edit on 5-1-2013 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by kthxbai

She might be a bit mental but there is denying she looks good for 51.

I'd never heard of this woman before so I've drawn my opinions purely from this thread, her wiki page and google images.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by Honor93

I remember a few years back, Admiral Poindexter(yes, he served under Reagan) wanted to build a giant supercomputer database linking all data on private citizens from all traffic, medical, credit card and anything else we can think of, for government to peruse at any given time. It was called Total Information Awareness, or TIA for short, and we can find the logo D A R P A used on it's website right here on ATS, with the Illuminati eye logo overlooking the entire planet earth. That is what they have in mind for us. So while the Obama admin passed the so called HITECH Act passing severe penalties for private breach of personal medical data, that law also gave funds to private industry like doctor's clinics and hospitals to "upgrade" their IT departments to allow for digital versions of all their medical records, and in that way, govt would have easier digital access to any medical record it would want to review, and this came just before passing the Affordable Health Care Act. Is anyone following this?
So while the HITECH Act basically fined anyone breaching medical records, it also gave govt a cut of the process, and even gives auditors a cut of the fines when they find and report breaches. The whole process made Network Administrators responsible for not securing the network enough, and gave auditors an incentive for reporting on people in a biased(self-serving) way. In addition, it paves the way for govt access to private medical data, because the govt does not follow the rules they set for everyone else, and the Affordable Health Care Act will make it so that govt MUST have access to data.

Did we all follow that?

The NWO plan will be to create a govt database filled with all who own gun permits and all who purchase guns, and link it to the healthcare database and the traffic records database, and credit card database...

and have
on all citizens.
Sounds Orwellian to me.
edit on 5-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in