Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Wow I never realized how liberal ATS actually was.

TAKE THEIR GUNS! But don't touch our womanly right to murder our unborn child!

Such hypocrites.




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vidpci
Wow I never realized how liberal ATS actually was.

TAKE THEIR GUNS! But don't touch our womanly right to murder our unborn child!

Such hypocrites.


Clearly you do not understand public records and private confidential information. There is really no hope for you if you cannot make the clear distinction. The fact that gun lists have been printed before in papers around the Country seems lost on you. You do not make a single valid argument why private confidential information should be shared whereas information that is public record should not. They routinely post peoples births, deaths, property taxes, criminal records, court proceedings etc. Again the "gun list" was not the first time that this has happened and been printed in a paper in the US. The fact that this thread is 6 pages long and has only 5 flags really should tell you that your totally off base and almost no one agrees with your extreme views. Do not let actual facts and reality get in the way of your and Coulters insane and stupid arguments. Like saying I agree with Ann Coulter is a badge of honor. I would be embarrassed personally if I ever agreed with anything that whack job said. Most Americans think she is really almost insane and virtually no one takes her seriously.

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



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 


This. Bottom Line. Period.

But since I can't post one line, I'll try to elaborate. As a citizen of my local county, I can walk into the place where these registrations are kept on file and actually find out who owns a gun, just like the press can. I cannot, however, walk in there and find out who has gotten an abortion. That's where the difference lies.




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 


The argument is that an abortion is NOT a medical issue nor record. It's murder. If a coat hanger or drunk driver is used instead of a "doctor" (I use that term very lightly, more like Kevorkian), is it still a medical procedure? The hypocrisy was the point from the beginning. Take their guns, but protect our right to confidentially murder our unborn children on a daily basis.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


The argument is that an abortion is NOT a medical issue nor record. It's murder. If a coat hanger or drunk driver is used instead of a "doctor" (I use that term very lightly, more like Kevorkian), is it still a medical procedure? The hypocrisy was the point from the beginning. Take their guns, but protect our right to confidentially murder our unborn children on a daily basis.


Sorry you are totally wrong. It is clearly a medical issue. Just as mental health issues are medical issues. There is no one anywhere that thinks the medical records are not private confidential information. In case you have not noticed the law allows for abortions. The Law also provides for public records. Each state handles these things a little differently. To make the argument that somehow abortion is not a medical issue shows exactly how delusional about this topic you really are. Just sickening. You go to a doctor if you want an abortion or a clinic where qualified medical professionals will assist you. Doctors have a right not to do this if they feel that it goes against there religion or morality. It is a personal choice. The Law of the US which has been reaffirmed in decision after decision makes it clear that medical records and peoples privacy are of vital importance.

"The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[23] Douglas in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."[24]"

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 5-1-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


The argument is that an abortion is NOT a medical issue nor record. It's murder. If a coat hanger or drunk driver is used instead of a "doctor" (I use that term very lightly, more like Kevorkian), is it still a medical procedure? The hypocrisy was the point from the beginning. Take their guns, but protect our right to confidentially murder our unborn children on a daily basis.


That's not the argument at all! The argument is that under current law, Abortion (prior to a certain period of months) is legal, and considered to be a medical procedure. Thus, it's protected by privacy laws. Registering a gun, however, is not protected by privacy laws, therefore, it's legal for a citizen (or the press in this case) to find out who owns one, and do whatever they want with that information.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GArnold

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


The argument is that an abortion is NOT a medical issue nor record. It's murder. If a coat hanger or drunk driver is used instead of a "doctor" (I use that term very lightly, more like Kevorkian), is it still a medical procedure? The hypocrisy was the point from the beginning. Take their guns, but protect our right to confidentially murder our unborn children on a daily basis.


Sorry you are totally wrong. It is clearly a medical issue. Just as mental health issues are medical issues. There is no one anywhere that thinks the medical records are not private confidential information. In case you have not noticed the law allows for abortions. The Law also provides for public records. Each state handles these things a little differently. To make the argument that somehow abortion is not a medical issue shows exactly how delusional about this topic you really are. Just sickening.


Woman walks into a clinic, demands an abortion and it's not considered murder. Man kicks that same woman in the stomach the day before and kills that same child and man goes to jail for murder.

Which one was the medical procedure? That one that involved the doctor or the boot?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


Nobody is arguing that point. I'm simply arguing the hypocrisy of it all. Am I not able to have an opinion on the matter without being pointed at and shouted to about laws?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElijahWan

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


The argument is that an abortion is NOT a medical issue nor record. It's murder. If a coat hanger or drunk driver is used instead of a "doctor" (I use that term very lightly, more like Kevorkian), is it still a medical procedure? The hypocrisy was the point from the beginning. Take their guns, but protect our right to confidentially murder our unborn children on a daily basis.


That's not the argument at all! The argument is that under current law, Abortion (prior to a certain period of months) is legal, and considered to be a medical procedure. Thus, it's protected by privacy laws. Registering a gun, however, is not protected by privacy laws, therefore, it's legal for a citizen (or the press in this case) to find out who owns one, and do whatever they want with that information.


Therein lies the conflict.

The Fourth Amendment is the law that talks about privacy. It's what was applied to establish Roe v. Wade. It talks about things like unreasonable search and seizure of property, not medical records.

If personal privacy is ok for medical records, the same should be applied to gun ownership.

That was Coulter's whole point.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vidpci

Originally posted by GArnold

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


The argument is that an abortion is NOT a medical issue nor record. It's murder. If a coat hanger or drunk driver is used instead of a "doctor" (I use that term very lightly, more like Kevorkian), is it still a medical procedure? The hypocrisy was the point from the beginning. Take their guns, but protect our right to confidentially murder our unborn children on a daily basis.


Sorry you are totally wrong. It is clearly a medical issue. Just as mental health issues are medical issues. There is no one anywhere that thinks the medical records are not private confidential information. In case you have not noticed the law allows for abortions. The Law also provides for public records. Each state handles these things a little differently. To make the argument that somehow abortion is not a medical issue shows exactly how delusional about this topic you really are. Just sickening.


Woman walks into a clinic, demands an abortion and it's not considered murder. Man kicks that same woman in the stomach the day before and kills that same child and man goes to jail for murder.

Which one was the medical procedure? That one that involved the doctor or the boot?


You are just being silly now. There is no argument you can make that would allow for private confidential information to be allowed to be printed. It is that simple. Gun Permits like fishing permits or any other type of permit is a matter of public record. There is no point where someones medical record should be allowed to be public. None. Doctors cannot be forced into disclosing anything of that nature in a court of Law. Obviously you do not get it and I suppose never will. Really a sad state of affairs. If Gun permits were not a matter of public record and were considered confidential I would feel differently. They are not.. and until the law changes you can walk into a state building and find out this information for yourself. The fact you seem proud of your lack of knowledge on this subject is frankly embarrassing as I said.

You might want to refresh your memory on public vs private records. The Second amendment and Constitutional history as well as Roe V Wade. Yes I was a history major and political science minor (pre-law).

As I said.. the fact this thread is now almost 7 pages long and only has 5 flags should really tell you how totally off base you are.
edit on 5-1-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 


And where have I even attempted to argue the law? I don't see how I was being silly. It was a serious question. Which one was the medical procedure? If all that's required to make something a medical procedure is that a doctor be present, then we must make more things medical procedures... such as going to the grocery store, buying new shoes or watching a movie. The woman going to planned parenthood is having a medical procedure done, but the woman falling down the steps is having an accident?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by ElijahWan

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


The argument is that an abortion is NOT a medical issue nor record. It's murder. If a coat hanger or drunk driver is used instead of a "doctor" (I use that term very lightly, more like Kevorkian), is it still a medical procedure? The hypocrisy was the point from the beginning. Take their guns, but protect our right to confidentially murder our unborn children on a daily basis.


That's not the argument at all! The argument is that under current law, Abortion (prior to a certain period of months) is legal, and considered to be a medical procedure. Thus, it's protected by privacy laws. Registering a gun, however, is not protected by privacy laws, therefore, it's legal for a citizen (or the press in this case) to find out who owns one, and do whatever they want with that information.


Therein lies the conflict.

The Fourth Amendment is the law that talks about privacy. It's what was applied to establish Roe v. Wade. It talks about things like unreasonable search and seizure of property, not medical records.

If personal privacy is ok for medical records, the same should be applied to gun ownership.

That was Coulter's whole point.


The 4th Amendment only addresses privacy in regards to the privacy of your person against unreasonable search and seizure. The 14th Amendment is more often the one that's associated with Roe v. Wade



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


I don't see how I was being silly. It was a serious question. If all that's required to make something a medical procedure is that a doctor be present, then we must make more things medical procedures... such as going to the grocery store, buying new shoes or watching a movie. The woman going to planned parenthood is having a medical procedure done, but the woman falling down the steps is having an accident?


That's how you're being silly.

You do realize that a pregnancy can threaten a woman's life? And therefore, having an abortion to prevent that pregnancy, and thus, save that woman's life, is considered a medical procedure. If a woman falls down stairs and her baby dies in the womb, yes it's an accident, because that's what an accident is, something not intended to happen. Having an abortion however, is usually something a woman CHOOSES to do.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElijahWan

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


I don't see how I was being silly. It was a serious question. If all that's required to make something a medical procedure is that a doctor be present, then we must make more things medical procedures... such as going to the grocery store, buying new shoes or watching a movie. The woman going to planned parenthood is having a medical procedure done, but the woman falling down the steps is having an accident?


That's how you're being silly.

You do realize that a pregnancy can threaten a woman's life? And therefore, having an abortion to prevent that pregnancy, and thus, save that woman's life, is considered a medical procedure. If a woman falls down stairs and her baby dies in the womb, yes it's an accident, because that's what an accident is, something not intended to happen. Having an abortion however, is usually something a woman CHOOSES to do.


Falling down the stairs can threaten a woman's life also. And therefore, falling down the stairs should require a doctor to be present at all times including the tip, mid flight, and happy landings for both mother and child.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by GArnold
 


And where have I even attempted to argue the law? I don't see how I was being silly. It was a serious question. Which one was the medical procedure? If all that's required to make something a medical procedure is that a doctor be present, then we must make more things medical procedures... such as going to the grocery store, buying new shoes or watching a movie. The woman going to planned parenthood is having a medical procedure done, but the woman falling down the steps is having an accident?


I am not going to argue with you anymore it is clear you do not understand the distinction between private confidential medical information and public records which are available for ANYONE to view. Most Americans and even most republicans view Ann Coulter as a joke. I literally cannot believe you are making these arguments. It is mind blowing to me.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 


Actually, if you read the 3rd post in this thread, you can see where I made these comments a week prior to Coulter. Just because the planets lined up and she actually agreed with me this one time, doesn't mean I support every word that comes out of her mouth.

Again, nobody is arguing the law with you.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Anne Coulter makes me nauseous. Come to that so does Sean Hannity. Can't we ban them as being a health hazard?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Vidpci
 


Hannity and Coulter are not the gun advocates I'd ever care to listen to. They're both a travesty and a product of the mainstream media that do nothing, but distort and twist (most often) controversial topics for their personal agendas. Getting air time on national tv doesn't mean they actually have anything sbustantial nor anything that I'd consider enlightening. Common sense would favor that we maintain our 2nd amendment rights and that should also include protecting the privacy rights of gun owners. Simply because a certain agent of the press decides to unjustly publish the names and addresses of gun owners in a certain area does not give incentive to do the same to women who have had abortions. It's just a poor and crude tactic that would be expected by a network that thrives off sensationalism and absurdity.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
I have a better idea:

Let's publish all criminal records. Since they are public anyway. Right?

This way we can be sure that all of the people we know, who also have any sort of criminal history, do not have guns.

Why stop there? Perhaps we should demand that all psychological history also be made public, this way we can be sure that nobody with mental issues have guns.

While I do not support either of the above, they both make more sense than to demonize, or call attention to, legal gun owners.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Honor93
 



the Constitution restricts government authority and until you can understand that, you will never understand the rest.


Dude! I applaud you!!!!


That is all you needed to say, I only wished more Americans could understand that!!!


Yeah this stuck out to me too. What I was going to say was the absence of government is the only thing that will restrict government authority. The only way the constitution could be applicable is if the government didn't exist at all.

I swear, we wrote the constitution, a beautiful document, and then we have contradicted it and violated it with every law we ever passed. There's no such thing as regulating liberty. But that's what the government is trying to do. When he regulations and rules began, the constitution became null and void.

Power to the people.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join