What do I think? I think it shows that some anti-choice people can be the hateful, vitriolic people-bashers that I've alwys believed they are. His actions are unconscionable.
Thanx 4 askin'.
But, apparently, killing his child is loving, constructive and conscionable.
BTW, his actions do not meet the legal definition of harrassment.
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
I was taught in nursing school that you don't have to name anyone to break HIPAA, but you have to have enough information for others to figure it out anyway.
I'm still confused how (supposedly) two grown people have created a "person" and yet there are people who would want that "person" to come into a world where two grown people will treat said "person" like a pawn for their own desires (I personally don't think the woman did anything wrong. I am pro-choice for theological and biological reasons. I also see very little evidence the man was going to do much more in the relationship besides complain and drag her into the mud -- stellar parenting material, right? :P).
Knock and the door shall open. It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Technically he was reporting the medical information concerning his dependant wasn't he? He left the identity of the mother to inference. What is he was sleeping with 5 women? People who live around that area might infer who "the mother" is in this situation, but he did not identify her.
Yes, the law is "more nuanced" than that. And it is really foolish of you to equate a cold, a non-diagnosed cold, it would seem, with a surgical procedure.
The patient, recipient of medical services, has a right to privacy. If the patient chooses to reveal, that is within that right. Other people revealing private info about medical treatment without the patient's permission is not only illegal, it is incredibly mean, un-ethical, and rude.
So, claim legality if you wish. Even though I think you will find you are wrong about that, you can't get around the pure nastiness of the act. Do you find a call for "nastiness" anywhere in the Gospel?
What about medical professionals having to report STDs? This is a mandated reporting because the results effect another person. Do you think fathers should have any say in abortions? That answer is hard to answer concretely, but the point is that abortions do not ONLY effect the mothers.
The guy posted what should have been private medical information concerning another individual, without their consent, in a public forum. So no, this isnt a case of free speech, nor is there any similarities to the Westboro SCOTUS desicion.
I guess that makes sense, if your idea of a relationship is "bing-bang-thank-you-maam, it's all yours now, I am out of here, do whatever you want with it."
It seems that your idea of a relationship is that if you put your penis in her; you own her. My idea of a relationship is a partnership. I would have never put her in the position to choose, but if something happened I would fully support whatever choice she made.
No entaglements, no responsibility, no commitments. Very common with some people these days who want their cake and eat it too.
In other words; they don't want your opinion of their relationship. Since you have no idea what the relationship these two had; you're just talking out your backside.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Yes, if one's idea of a relationship is 'I get to do whatever I want and to hell with your feelings and what you want' then she did nothing wrong.
Your version of their relationship is pure speculation based on conjecture. In other words; you're talking out your backside.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
> Again, read more carefully, and try to understand the standard use of punctuation marks.
I did. Here's what you actually said:
"Also, for you and Abner both, if I follow your reasoning, you would be OK with a billboard which said: "Don't plan to have any kids with Bill Jones. He had his left testicle removed due to an STD" You don't think THAT would get some legal action? You're just hung up on punishing "hussies" who have abortions."
You clearly pretended that GC and I used the word "hussies" to refer to women who had had abortions. We didn't. You lied ... and insulted those women in the process, IMO.
> I did not call your exwife anything. I quoted what SOME OTHER people call SOME women.
The problem is the the people you were pretending to quote ('you and Abner both') didn't actually use the word you were quoting, nor express any such attitude. So you introduced the word ... and, IMO, the attitude ... into the thread.
> You usually aren't this dense. Why do you insist on a fight where there is none?
You picked a fight when you lied about both GC and I, and when you referred to the women as "hussies". That got my dander up. My ex-wife is not a hussy, and you shouldn't have used the term in reference to her. Perhaps the following would help you understand what you did:
Christianlib, you're a "bigot". Oh, I didn't just call you a bigot, I just referred to the attitude other people did of calling Christians "bigots", but *I* didn't use the term, I just quoted someone else who thought of you as a bigot.
Would that get you angry?
Now, add in the fact that you not only did the above sort of misrepresentation, but you did it to someone who I still have high regards for and do not think deserves what you did, and perhaps you would see why I think you owe people apologies for introducing that term into this discussion.
> PS. I'm through with this exchange. It is not my job to teach English.
Good - that will give you more time to find that law that prohibits all people from ever divulging any medical information about anyone else. A link would be nice.
> You misread, entirely. You will recall that I specifically put the word "hussies"
> in quotation marks.
Yes, because you were trying to pretend that Girlchristian and I had called them "hussies", even though we hadn't said any such thing. Indeed, we hadn't attacked their moral characters at all, much less called them "hussies". Putting a word in quotes indicates that you are quoting someone, and the only person in the thread who used the word was you. I knew you wouldn't apologize for that, because doing so would require admitting that it was wrong that you misrepresented the views of others.
> That clearly indicated the name and attitude applied to them by the anti-abortion crowd.
> I was pointing scorn at the evil people who heap ridicule on women who exercise their
> legal choice, and the evil people who appear, for religious reasons, to be hung up on
> punishing women who happen to have sex.
Since no one here made any such claims or expressed any such attitudes, your bringing "hussies" into it was entirely you.
But ah well, I was pretty sure that you couldn't admit that you had done anything wrong, and you proved me right. I'll just say this: the only person in this entire thread who called the women being discussed anything negative was you.
> If anyone owes anyone an apology, you owe me one for falsely accusing me after
> YOUR misreading of the post.
Right .... you referred to my ex-wife as a "hussy", and I owe you an apology for it. It must be amazing living in your brain, but I'm glad I don't.
Again, read more carefully, and try to understand the standard use of punctuation marks. I did not call your exwife anything. I quoted what SOME OTHER people call SOME women.
You usually aren't this dense. Why do you insist on a fight where there is none?
PS. I'm through with this exchange. It is not my job to teach English.
Democrats think the glass is half full. Republicans think the glass is theirs. Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
> You misread, entirely. You will recall that I specifically put the word "hussies"
> in quotation marks.
Yes, because you were trying to pretend that Girlchristian and I had called them "hussies", even though we hadn't said any such thing. Indeed, we hadn't attacked their moral characters at all, much less called them "hussies". Putting a word in quotes indicates that you are quoting someone, and the only person in the thread who used the word was you. I knew you wouldn't apologize for that, because doing so would require admitting that it was wrong that you misrepresented the views of others.
> That clearly indicated the name and attitude applied to them by the anti-abortion crowd.
> I was pointing scorn at the evil people who heap ridicule on women who exercise their
> legal choice, and the evil people who appear, for religious reasons, to be hung up on
> punishing women who happen to have sex.
Since no one here made any such claims or expressed any such attitudes, your bringing "hussies" into it was entirely you.
But ah well, I was pretty sure that you couldn't admit that you had done anything wrong, and you proved me right. I'll just say this: the only person in this entire thread who called the women being discussed anything negative was you.
> If anyone owes anyone an apology, you owe me one for falsely accusing me after
> YOUR misreading of the post.
Right .... you referred to my ex-wife as a "hussy", and I owe you an apology for it. It must be amazing living in your brain, but I'm glad I don't.
