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

151–160 of 331 posts

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

#151

Post by hellojesus »

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.

There is a difference between a conceived person and an unconceived one.

We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. An unconceived person doesn't exist at all, so there is no moral/ethical issue in not conceiving them.

The exception maybe is biology, but there is still an upper limit to personal resources which one wouldn't want to exhaust due to the impact on their other (if any) children 's quality of life.

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

#152

Post by heretogetout »

francisofascii wrote: post #89
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.

Right. It seems to me that both sides would be better off at advancing their so called goals if they could compromise and offer concessions, but that never happens.

That's what makes it a wedge issue: there isn't much room for compromise. If one side believes abortion is literally murder, they're not going to say "well, a little bit of murder is OK if we get ".

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

#153

Post by Hamuko »

Spoom wrote: post #61

I bet these places will start to threaten folks now that their state likely lets them. "Well, now that we have your data, we'll track you since births are public knowledge. If we don't see a birth, we'll turn it over to the police, and make your identity public (no private medical data needed, just that we have reason to believe you had an abortion) so that anyone in a state with a Texas-style law can sue you for $10…

I was under the impression that the Texas-style 10k lawsuit law was mostly meant as a way to circumvent the protections protected by Roe v. Wade, and that Texas might enact something more direct now.

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

#154

Post by ako »

ralfd wrote: post #121
welshwelsh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. > I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and d…

Do you find killing a new born baby reprehensible? If no this is a _very_ minority view you have. If yes what is the difference between the new born to a 9 month old fetus in the womb? Then what about an 8 month old? Most would protect it too against abortion. And so on. A compromising time limit solution for which elective abortions before is permitted and after is forbidden is the only pragmatic solution.

We have 6 fertilised eggs somewhere in a freezer (IVF), if we throw them in the garbage bin, is that murder/abortion?

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

#155

Post by orwin »

jonhohle wrote: post #118
welshwelsh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. > I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and d…

A fetus isn’t a person like a black person or Native American wasn’t a full person, like children weren’t full people, or like women weren’t given the same rights as men?

As animals aren't full persons?

I mean, i do know a odd full-vegan (no harm to even insects, whereas most vegan i know draw the line to living being with fully formed nociceptors) pro-life, and i respect it, at least he isn't hypocritical. He is also very religious, ardently non-violent, and his life choice are based on his faith (that i won't name here).

Mammals are more conscious of themselves than embryos, are aware of and can recognize themselve in a mirror (baby do not recognize themselves until 14 to 24 months btw). They do have fully formed nociceptors, and even when those aren't triggered, are aware of being mutilated, of their brethren being mutilated or killed.

I cannot take seriously a "pro-life" who eat mammal meat. I don't really care what you eat, but at least your diet should follow your "convictions".

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

#156

Post by rayiner »

kingaillas wrote: post #103
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…

>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/wik…

> makes it quite fair to imply it is the Republicans that represent less than a plurality of voters.

Clearly that's not true, since Republicans are currently two points ahead of Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/

The House popular vote more accurately reflects nationwide sentiment because both parties have an incentive to campaign in every state. Indeed, the leaders of both parties in the House are from California.

But both parties lack an incentive to try and win statewide "winner take all" contests in opposite-color states. Cross-referencing those results against polling suggests that this effect hurts the GOP, with their geographically more spread out base, slightly more than it hurts Democrats.

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

#157

Post by triceratops »

ravel-bar-foo wrote: post #145
triceratops wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And why not have stricter laws in more Christian states? The 1st and 14th Amendments of the constitution, for starters.

Yet we see religiously-inspired laws everywhere. Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice. These are not 1st amendment violations. Going deeper, religion created a culture which we have inherited: marriages, government holidays, even the official work week being seven days long. These do not violate the 1st Amendment.

> Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice.

My guess is these don't inconvenience people enough to make it to the Supreme Court. And there's also the fig leaf of "crime reduction".

> as is the state philosophy on criminal justice

Can you give some examples? I'm not familiar with this.

> religion created a culture which we have inherited

Which of these restrict individual freedoms by law?

> even the official work week being seven days long.

You'll be surprised to learn that pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures have also had 7-day weeks, likely because they divide a lunar month so well.[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History

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

#158

Post by jakelazaroff »

antifa wrote: post #17
jakelazaroff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not. That’s the fucked up thing.

I would like to think laws on stalking or protecting minors would have something to say...

I would, too, but they don’t.

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

#159

Post by jonhohle »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #130
jonhohle wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fetus isn’t a person like a black person or Native American wasn’t a full person, like children weren’t full people, or like women weren’t given the same rights as men?

Does a black person require their every biological process be maintained by the body of another? If yes, then OK your comparison makes sense.

There are plenty of birthed people that are in that state. Mostly infants, but many with developmental disabilities or other conditions. Eugenics had the same idea. Do you want To be the arbiter of the minimal set of bodily functions required to be human? What if you end up in a state with one less than the value chosen, should someone else be able to decide whether you live or die?

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

Grustaf wrote: post #91
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.

So, does she regret having the twins or do they happen to be the best thing that ever happened to her?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN