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

161–170 of 331 posts

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

#161

Post by jonhohle »

orwin wrote: post #155
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?

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 awa…

Animals aren’t full people. That is correct.

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

#162

Post by comrh »

tablespoon wrote: post #127
comrh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2̵0̵1̵8̵ election of Trump led to these judges as he appointed three of them.

> The 2018 election of Trump led to these judges as he appointed three of them. Trump was elected in 2016.

Ooof, no HN comments before coffee. Thanks.

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

#163

Post by jansen555 »

welshwelsh wrote: post #74
luxuryballs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

Depends at what stage. Current abortion friendly states do allow killing unborn babies at 7-9mths pregnacies. They follow your definition of fetus isnt people even though these "fetus" can survive even back 100 years ago without modern healthcare interventions. With modern healthcare, the number can dip as low as 4-5mths. Essentially you are ok with exterminating babies (the moment this fetus pull out of the world they are babies and can survive and actually some do cry but executed in abortion clinics). Not every pregnacies are at the first few weeks of pregnacies. Those if you choose to consider as non people fetus, a lot will agree. Unfortunately majority of pregnancies are terminated in the range of 4-9mths. I suggest you do a bit of research a dark market exist of those fetus organic materials that these clinics are engaged in. Think for a second, these clinics are not free to operate. The people coming in for the service isnt paying exorbitant fees like those in typical hospitals charging patients or insurance. Something else must befunding these...if you say tax, then isnt it weird, people getting forced to pay for others misadventure? The ruling is exactly that. Some states that are pro can go on as usual. Some states that are not pro, can stop funding it. At the end of day each states behavior dictate by the people votes. Why a small minority groups insist everyone else to food their bills?

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

#164

Post by Grustaf »

kraf wrote: post #137
Grustaf wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not likely... There's a good chance she's alone with the kids and has to take on multiple jobs. Don't you think she will have sacrificed a lot of her own life for unwanted kids? Do you know somebody who's happy with a situation like this? I'm sure they exist but if you'll ask me for odds in a tough country like the USA I'll tell you they're bad.

I don't know the answer, it's an honest question.

Obviously having children changes your life completely, it is a huge burden and you have to "sacrifice" a lot. But almost nobody regrets it. Probably because we are hardwired to have children. The joy outweighs any sacrifices.

I don't know anyone that wishes they hadn't let their children be born, no matter how harsh their circumstances.

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

#165

Post by ejb999 »

welshwelsh wrote: post #74
luxuryballs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

>>She has the right to control her own body and her own life

You know, the sad thing is the party whose mantra has been 'my body my choice' for the past 40+ years, completely lost that moral high ground when they started demanding that people get vaccinated against their will - and yes, there were plenty of people talking about forcibly injecting people, even though it never happened, and yes abortion vs vaccines are not the same thing - but its either 'my body my choice' or it's not - the message and meaning was crystal clear, up until 2 years ago.

The were no shortage of pro-forced vaccine people who were saying 'yes, the government can force you to do things to your body against your will' - and now in light of the abortion debate trying to make the 'my body my choice' argument again just rings a bit hollower.

I said it to my spouse the first few days when you had mainstream politicians and talking heads on TV calling for forced covid injections, I said 'this is going to blow up in their face', and, imo, it did, the absoluteness of 'my body my choice' argument, is no longer as clear.

Did this directly cause the SC to revoke RvW, certainly not, but imo, the 'my body my choice' argument has been tainted.

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

#166

Post by ako »

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?

My assumption is that it caused by the fact that democracy is broken in the US. They have only two parties, whereas most countries in Europe have many. With only two parties the differences get exxagerated and causes polarisation. With only 2 parties is often a question of "them or us".

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

#167

Post by Retric »

jonhohle wrote: post #105
Retric wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They don’t need the capacity to become human they are human. How else would you describe these unfertilized eggs except as living organisms, species human? Unless you want to suggest your ancestors are egg, human, egg, human, egg, human …

If you want to give all humans the same rights then they should clearly qualify. Of course giving an egg, fetus, or baby the right to vote in an election is going to run into some practical problems.

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

#168

Post by rayiner »

welshwelsh wrote: post #74
luxuryballs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

> It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person.

At 13 weeks, a fetus looks a heck of a lot like a baby: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultr... (3D ultrasound image). And Roe guarantees elective abortions for another 9-10 weeks after that.

> A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and dreams.

Neither does my infant!

> Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex.

Lots of people are uncomfortable with ending human to eliminate the predictable consequences of sex.

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

#169

Post by hellojesus »

inetknght wrote: post #129
luxuryballs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born I have met many people who hated their lives for many reasons. What makes you think these children won't? Some of the reasons include: - parents didn't want the children - children grew up poor - children grew up with disabilities - children were put up for adoption - the world is becoming uninhabitable for the children's children I…

The overturning of R v W left substantive due process in tact, so there is still room for abortions when the unborn child threatens the life or serious health (blindness, etc.) of the mother.

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

#170

Post by orwin »

Grustaf wrote: post #128
esyir wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder. They believe it's bad, but clearly, from their response, it's not anywhere near as bad as that. If your government/heathcare/someOtherOrg was grinding up babies post birth at scale, or any equivalent, I'd expect the response to be more riots and bombs, and less "Let's campaign for fifty odd years to get the capability to ba…

> Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder Why would you think that? Clearly almost everyone that is against abortion believes that, that's the whole point. Even most people who are in favour of abortion would consider it at least close to murder if say an abusive husband beats his pregnant wife, killing the baby. The only difference there is that the mother wanted…

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-17-mn-58803-...

It's not as clear as you seem to think.

I would agree with the second court here. Prior to 25weeks this shouldn't be a murder. But if the action have an effect on the woman ability to bear children in the future, this should be considered as aggravating circumstances.

And there is no case of abusing husbands causing miscarriage in the US. Even though i found study citing that 27% of miscarriage are caused by wife beaters in india, i couldn't find the statistics or any case in the US.

Post reply on HN