A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.
[deleted]
Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
51–60 of 331 posts
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#52A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.
Quoted post unavailable.
> because it seems impossible to understand the “the other side”
As nicely exemplified by your post where you assume everybody should agree with your opinions on the matter
> at least understand even if I disagree
Oh we understand. It's because you can't tolerate other views as yourself (even within Christianism)
The Taliban shares the same tolerance you display against different religious views
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earlier times did not have lightning fast communications and global online tracking tools. The conservative crusade against abortion is also a recent phenomenon, historically speaking. Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book in the 1700s [1]. And the ancient Romans used a plant called silphium for birth control, to a point where the plant went extinct. [2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18…
Alternatively, you could say we are progressing to understand that outdated concepts like viability have no scientific basis and human rights should be extended to all humans, even those in early developmental phases. The idea that some humans can be killed because they are “less” is a very primitive and prejudicial idea.
Then why draw the line at abortion?
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#54A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.
Quoted post unavailable.
No one has ever been sad that they weren't born. "How would you feel if you weren't born?" is a nonsensical question.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#55A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.
Quoted post unavailable.
Because tons of children will be born to parents that do not want them. They are not guaranteed to be adopted, and could be tossed into a foster system that is rife with physical and sexual abuse. There are many paths here that can lead to destitution, homelessness, lack of education, lack of compassion, lack of guidance, and exploitation.
Once the baby is born, the people who forced that baby to be born no longer care about them. They are no longer a political pawn. In fact, they will continue to attack the social safety nets and programs that they could end up relying on to survive. Safe sex education so that this child doesn't have a baby? NO! That goes against the Bible.
This is advantageous sometimes to the Christian nationalist cause, as they may be adopted by large fundamentalist families or lured towards religious charities that ARE subsidized through the state. Sounds crazy, but you should hear how some of these extremists talk. It's borderline child trafficking.
It's funny you mention cutting up your insides. That's propaganda. Most abortions are done with pills, up to more than 12 months. What happens? It comes out as a heavy flow. That's it. Most people don't wait until they have an noticeable baby-bump to have an abortion. Most propaganda about the operation is dishonest, exaggerated, and straight up propaganda.
Another fun fact is that these abortion laws are extremely draconian. Some have no exceptions for rape and/or incest. Meaning that rapists will and have been given parental visitation rights. Children victims can even be forced into this situation, disgusting.
Had a miscarriage? That can now be investigated as a crime. Police can now get your messages, location data, search history, hard drives, and search your house.
This is theocratic insanity, in America. Feels like Iran.
Christians don't always behave this badly in other countries, but in America we've *really* sipped on the GOP/Christian propaganda Koolaid and we look like absolute clowns.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#56Does anyone actually address how religion is a big factor at play here? It's skipped over every time but this is very much a religious war happening here. The Catholics in the Supreme Court are overturning human rights because it goes against the recent dogmas their faith prescribed them to believe.
That introduces another variable that shouldn't matter.
It also assumes that every catholic is anti-abortion. People and their beliefs are more complex than that.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#57I find this whole thing so puzzling. In the UK, not so different from the USA, this is not really a thing at all. Even amongst Christians I have never heard it brought up. Is it a political thing, and if so how did it become so?
Opposition to abortion in the USA was originally largely driven by Catholics. Which, incidentally, meant that most American Protestants didn’t especially object to it, including the majority of the Justices who issued the Roe decision. Eventually, for a number of reasons, many other Christian denominations, especially the poorer extra-urban ones, came to agree with the Catholics that maybe killing unborn babies really is murdering an innocent human life.
Meanwhile, my understanding is that Catholics haven’t been a major political power in the UK since the Jesuits were expelled.
As for why it’s a “political thing” in the USA? Ironically, that’s largely because of Roe. Roe removed the abortion debate from the elected branches so that instead of working something out in a healthy democratic fashion, we got a naked exercise of judicial fiat.
This next bit is personal. I hope people will read it as a desire to satisfy curiosity rather than an attempt to debate a subject that, frankly, has adequate firebrands. For Catholics and those others who agree with our moral reasoning[1], abortion, the killing of smaller helpless innocent human beings, is an intolerable enormity. It’s completely impossible for us to knowingly condone it without falling from a state of grace. And doing nothing is condoning.
[1]. Premise 1: killing innocent human persons is wrong. Premise 2: pre-born babies are innocent human beings. Conclusion: killing pre-born babies is wrong.
The argument is simple enough to follow. Note that, due to the structure of the argument, adding additional premises like “the father is a rapist” doesn’t change the moral calculus unless we add an additional premise like “at least some offspring of rapists are not innocent merely due to their paternity.” Since the argument is structurally sound, we must challenge the premises. Challenging 1) is possible, but permitting killing innocent human beings opens a big door to all manner of atrocities. Challenging 2) is the more seemingly reasonable approach. Catholics believe that the human person comes into existence at fertilization, when the diploid human organism begins. One can reasonably use some other event like heartbeat, or some more vague concept like viability, and claim the human person doesn’t begin until then. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument though. I personally lean toward the fertilization point, because when getting the call wrong means murdering an innocent person I prefer to err on the side of caution.
The most popular arguments against protecting an innocent and dependent human person though are completely unprincipled and not properly even arguments at all. Rather, they they reduce to some kind of hedonic assertion on the level of “I’ll do what I want!”
Edit: Please don't reply trying to goad me into some low-brow argument. I am not interested in poorly thought out analogies or any other simulated ratiocination. For the purposes of this discussion I am only interested in the ethics. So by all means please provide clear moral reasoning about why it's OK to kill innocent human persons sometimes but not others. Please explain why it's OK to make it a legal requirement to care for some vitally dependent human persons but not others. And please fully think it through and discuss the potentially unintentional consequences of adopting that ethical system.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO because the christian nationalist wing of the Republican Party needs talking points.
I think this completely ignores the moral issues of later term abortions. I am an atheist, and I am disturbed by the idea of a voluntary abortion after 20 weeks. Voluntary meaning no medical necessity. I think Republicans have latched onto this issue and Christianity in America has adopted it, but there is far more at play here than just Christian nationalism.
Late term abortions are almost all wanted babies where something has gone horribly wrong for the baby, the mother, or both. There are also vanishingly few of them.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
There certainly is logic to guaranteeing women healthcare (abortion choice) during their pregnancy.
Quoted post unavailable.
Maybe if the state enforced birth crowd adopted some post-birth childcare policies that weren't pure social darwinism and rugged individualism, less people would want to abort...
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#60Does anyone actually address how religion is a big factor at play here? It's skipped over every time but this is very much a religious war happening here. The Catholics in the Supreme Court are overturning human rights because it goes against the recent dogmas their faith prescribed them to believe.
This isn't really true.
Justice Roberts is "Catholic" but has voted against his religion every time on this issue, and would have spared Roe in his opinion if possible.
Justice Sotomayor is also "Catholic" but has also voted against her religion every time on this issue.
Justice Barrett is "Catholic" but is a member of "People of Praise," a group which many Catholics find suspicious on both sides, both for not being progressive but also being very charismatic and untraditional in its liturgical style.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh are all Catholic, but aren't really voting the way a full-on Catholic-everywhere would. Alito and Kavanaugh have said they aren't interested in revisiting the constitutionality of birth control and same sex marriage at this point, and Kavanaugh voted 6-3 with the rest of SCOTUS that gender orientation was protected by the Civil Rights Act which upset many more devout Catholics.