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

201–210 of 331 posts

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

#201

Post by jakelazaroff »

snikeris wrote: post #186
ako wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Let's just say that it is murder/abortion of 6 fertilized eggs. However, many people are fine with such murder, as they are with the murder of lettuce leaves. It seems the issue is always what is being murdered. The more human-like the thing being murdered is, the more outrageous it is. Plan B, not so outrageous because it's just a few cells. 20+ weeks, people are getting outraged. A dog? Pretty human-like, people do…

Plan B is not an abortifacient. It prevents fertilization from ever taking place. Anyone against Plan B is entirely making an argument about casual sex.

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

#202

Post by kderbyma »

ceejayoz wrote: post #16
kderbyma wrote: post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

These places are very careful to stay on the legal side. There’ll be little “not medical advice” disclaimers in all the right spots, and there’s not much privacy protection folks can expect in the US for this sort of thing outside California.

Hopefully they put the big This place causes cancer.....because it's in California

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

#203

Post by Grustaf »

malfist wrote: post #181
Grustaf wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. I don't think anyone is advocating killing children. Aborting a fetus, sure, but a fetus isn't a child any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

Ah you got me. If we call it a foetus then killing it clearly has no moral implications. Naming makes all the difference.

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

#204

Post by Grustaf »

orwin wrote: post #170
Grustaf wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

I'm saying "most people consider", I am not talking about legal rulings.

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

#205

Post by tablespoon »

spaced-out wrote: post #111
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right.

No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach".

>> Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right.

> No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions.

Eh, not so much. It's probably an overstatement that she thought it was a "trash decision," but she definitely believed it was a tactical mistake and that its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-ro...

> Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach".

I think there's room to be more nuanced and have views about abortion and legal reasoning that are separate and distinct.

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

#206

Post by mojzu »

elforce002 wrote: post #194
mojzu wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often the same groups opposing abortion also oppose the most effective policies to reduce abortions (proper sex ed, free birth control and family planning services, etc.). So while I agree there is an impasse on where the human life line is drawn, I would say it's fair to argue that prudishness/puritanical beliefs are a large factor in the opposition to legal abortion

It's interesting. I'd bet money that if pro-life people accept all those things, pro-abortion people will go with: "what about rape, incest, etc...?" and if they allow specifically those scenarios, they still won't accept. Bet money this is the scenario that will play out if such things were to be pushed. Accountability is kryptonite for pro-abortion people.

I'm a little confused, on the one hand you appear to be arguing that victims of rape and incest should be required to bear their abusers children but on the other arguing that pro-choice people aren't holding themselves accountable. In cases of rape or incest how is the victim in any way responsible for their situation?

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

#207

Post by Grustaf »

falcolas wrote: post #180
Grustaf wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But almost nobody regrets it. It's worth noting how taboo it is to admit that you hate your children, and thus how vastly under-reported this attitude ends up being. > I don't know anyone that wishes they hadn't let their children be born, no matter how harsh their circumstances. I, in contrast, know several children who wish they hadn't been forced to grow up in abject poverty with an absentee parent who has no ti…

> It's worth noting how taboo it is to admit that you hate your children, and thus how vastly under-reported this attitude ends up being.

Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information?

> wish they hadn't been forced to grow up in abject poverty

That's a different question altogether. We all wish we had been born in better circumstances, but that doesn't mean we resent being alive.

The solution to children growing up in abject poverty is not abortion, it's social safety nets. Nobody should have to live in abject poverty in a rich country.

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

#208

Post by antiterra »

rayiner wrote: post #156
kingaillas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

> 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/

Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong.

Second, the 538 poll aggregation has massive margin for error. Filter down to just the polls rated A+ and you only get an half point advantage for Republicans. Change the filter to the polls rated B+ and above and you get a full point advantage for Democrats. Also, consider the changes over time. How confident are you that a 5% swing from Democrats to Republicans over the past year represents an actual ideological change mapping directly to abortion ideology?

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

#209

Post by falcolas »

antiterra wrote: post #200
Tozen wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nothing precludes states from legislating morality You seem to be confused or at least "cloudy" about some things. The U.S. has the concept of separating religion from government ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state ). Government does and should regulate behavior. But, morality based on religious beliefs becomes a problem, when the beliefs of particular religious groups are imposed on othe…

> You seem to be confused or at least "cloudy" about some things. The U.S. has the concept of separating religion from government ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state ). As someone who wishes this was codified in our constitution, I'm afraid the 'concept' is held relatively weakly. Clarence Thomas has stated, regarding the Establishment Clause: 'The text and history of this Clause suggest th…

IMO, it's held "weakly" because there's a christian majority in the government at large (and the SC in particular). As such, the morality they advocate for just happens to also align with morality as defined by their faith.

If you hold a different morality (in particular the Jewish or Muslim views on abortion rights), you're just SOL because you're not a majority.

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

#210

Post by tablespoon »

Tozen wrote: post #141
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…

> nothing precludes states from legislating morality You seem to be confused or at least "cloudy" about some things. The U.S. has the concept of separating religion from government ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state ). Government does and should regulate behavior. But, morality based on religious beliefs becomes a problem, when the beliefs of particular religious groups are imposed on othe…

>> nothing precludes states from legislating morality

> You seem to be confused or at least "cloudy" about some things. The U.S. has the concept of separating religion from government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state).

No, you're confused. The US has the Establishment Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause) and the Free Exercise Clause, and they don't preclude religious people from using a religious basis to choose between secular policies. Abortion regulation is a secular policy area.

> The extremism involved in total or nonsensical abortion bans by various states, like even in cases of...

IIRC, most of those bans were passed when they had no hope of being enforced because of Roe v. Wade (e.g. they were for show). Now that case has been repealed, as things shake out, I expect many of those laws will be revised.

Post reply on HN