Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 331 posts

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#101

Post by Grustaf »

lukas099 wrote: post #36
luxuryballs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born By the same token, wouldn't it be unethical to not have as many kids as possible all the time? After all, those kids will be glad that they were born.

Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception.

That said, there are plenty of people that would agree with the idea that we should have as many babies as we can. Utilitarians for example, and many traditional Christians.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#102

Post by rguiliani »

luxuryballs wrote: post #30
bbarn wrote: post #4

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#103

Post by kingaillas »

rayiner wrote: post #40
heretogetout wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a wedge issue where neither side will give any ground, which makes it exploitable. If you figure out a way to tie a wedge issue to the rest of your political platform you're virtually guaranteed support from one side or another. IMO one side has been much, much better at exploiting this fact and has has achieved great power despite representing less than a plurality of voters.

It’s a divisive issue because it represents fundamentally different world views. As an asian, the idea that the government can’t regulate abortion, which is prevalent among a large minority of Democrats these days, is remarkable. Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality. It’s illustrative to compare to Japan or Germany, which have “lib…

>And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?” Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016. They got a million and a half more votes than Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They’re on pace to do it again this year.

You left out the Senate, the other house of Congress, which Democrats won by 10 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_Senate_elec... using your comparison metric.

This coupled with Presidential votes, even though technically only the electoral college counts, makes it quite fair to imply it is the Republicans that represent less than a plurality of voters.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#104

Post by somehnguy »

triceratops wrote: post #82
esyir wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their perspective, it's more analogous to murder. Not exactly something you just live and let be.

Then why didn't they ever try for a federal abortion ban when they had control of Congress and the presidency? "Murder" isn't suddenly ok just because it happens in another state, right?

Yup. We all know it’s just a cover to push their religious beliefs on people.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#105

Post by jonhohle »

Retric wrote: post #45
ghufran_syed wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

So might unfertilized eggs. Except anthropomorphism results in meaningless arguments, extremely simple creatures don’t have such complex wants.

Unfertilized eggs are not human and have no capacity to become human. Should “lesser” humans have fewer rights than “full” humans? I think we’ve already been through that a few times in history and it has always turned out to be the wrong choice.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#106

Post by rajup »

comrh wrote: post #76
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a divisive issue because it represents fundamentally different world views. As an asian, the idea that the government can’t regulate abortion, which is prevalent among a large minority of Democrats these days, is remarkable. Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality. It’s illustrative to compare to Japan or Germany, which have “lib…

> Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016 And then lost the popular vote in 2018 and 2020. Not sure why 2016 would be particularly relevant

Not that I support this ruling in any way or form, but the 2016 election led to the current slate of justices who came up with this ruling. It is probably good and by design that we don’t change justices with the popular vote.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#107

Post by kelseyfrog »

jonhohle wrote: post #85
somehnguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like nonsense. Can you explain how it was ‘imposing a regime’, when nobody was forced to do anything? If you didn’t want an abortion you just…didn’t have one. Kinda sounds like religious people are the ones actually trying to impose a regime to me. Because I couldn’t possibly care less what anyones preferred god thinks, yet religious beliefs are being used to drive political changes that affect everyone.

Imagine you are in a people group that the court decided are free to be killed at someone else’s discretion and you have no legal recourse or advocate. Would you accept that for minority groups, groups of any other association? If you are not the one killing or being killed does that mean it affects no one?

There already are that group - recipients of organ donations. If you or I decide to sign up on a match list, are tested for compatibility, and are selected, we have no legal obligation to proceed with the donation. You or I could be in the operating room side by side with the recipient and object moments before being anesthesized. Again, no legal obligation. Even if it should mean the recipient dies. It doesn't mean you are an asshole, or that it violates your ethical code, but still no legal obligation. So yes, we already have the concept, it's simply not evenly distributed.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#108

Post by esyir »

dwater wrote: post #90
cloutchaser wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. The reason it’s not an issue in Europe is because opposing sides all get a say in this and arrive at a compromise, namely abortion allowed up to 12 weeks which is fairly standard in most European countries. But because row v wade basi…

> Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. That's an oversimplification of a very nuanced and pragmatic view that is better explained here: "What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade", Washington Post https://archive.ph/jJENv It's not that she felt the rights gr…

Essentially, the pro-choice group scored a tactical victory, that turned out to be a strategically vulnerable position. And in turn, the can got kicked down to our era.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#109

Post by whitexn--g28h »

User23 wrote: post #57
beardyw wrote: post #12

I 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 reall…

An accident occurs and I need 5 litres of blood and a new kidney. You are in the hospital in a coma, should the state be able to require doctors to take your kidney and blood and put it my body without your consent?

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#110

Post by euroclydon »

beardyw wrote: post #12

I 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?

People are forgetting we're a union of fairly sovereign states. In 1969, as you have today, some states allowed abortions, and other prohibited or restricted them. Thus it was decided democratically, as it is in most of the rest of the world. But when the federal government can come in and preempt state law, because the USA as a whole has a different idea, or in the case of Roe v. Wade, the unelected judges had a different idea, that is going to cause friction.

Also, the power of the federal government to impost laws on all states is highly controversial, and its history full of other supreme court cases carving out the definition.

You see the same friction with EU freedom of movement laws and immigration.

Post reply on HN