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

241–250 of 331 posts

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

#241

Post by finfinfin »

antiterra wrote: post #237
finfinfin wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am arguing that using more emotionally charged language like “baby” and “mother” in place of a “fetus” and “pregnant woman” is manipulative.

I don't think that's where the front of any sort of meaningful battle lies, both are often a term of convenience or familiarity and not necessarily from an underlying agenda around abortion rights. Further, attempt to stick to those words when consoling someone who lost their wanted pregnancy would come across as needlessly callous. . "I'm so sorry you lost that fetus, that's really tough experience for many formerly…

Context matters. It is a non-trivial issue when used in the context of terminating early pregnancy. Manipulating a teenager by telling her that she is a mother and she shouldn’t kill her baby is far more insidious than treating abortion as a women’s health issue, which it is.

The choice of words has a tremendous effect both on an individual and on the society. Ignoring this fact only leads to more misunderstandings.

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

#242

Post by Grustaf »

falcolas wrote: post #221
Grustaf wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information? Google for "I hate my children". > [social safety nets] One solution to children growing up in poverty is a safety net - a solution that is strongly advocated against as being "socialist" by our current government. i.e. It ain't happening in our lifetime. Since that solution is not currently feasible, not having children if you can't aff…

So the Democratic party are strongly advocating against safety nets to prevent children from growing up in abject poverty? Because that would be "socialist"?

Regardless of abortion laws, this would seem like a basic requirement for any civilised society.

I'm not sure why you would say that reliable contraception doesn't exist. Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing.

When it comes to adoption, it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children, outstripping supply by an order of magnitude. Are you saying this is not the case?

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

#243

Post by Grustaf »

malfist wrote: post #240
Grustaf wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Riddle me this, is making flour from acorns murdering oak trees? Are you murdering potato plants when you eat french fries? Does munching on peanuts make you peanut hitler? If I have caviar, am I responsible for the murder of thousands of fish?

Almost no acorns would have turned into trees, so the comparison falls down. If we look at saplings, we'd be closer, and obviously killing a sapling is more or less equivalent to killing an oak tree. We don't tend to talk about "murder" when it comes to plants.

Peanuts and caviar are the same, or even more silly. Only with potatoes does the question make sense, and clearly the answer is yes, potato plants die when you harvest them. But almost nobody thinks that is an issue, since they are not even sentient.

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

#244

Post by tablespoon »

kodah wrote: post #236
tablespoon wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They kept referring to this as "ordered liberty" which I took for morality. I don't think that's what that meant. I think the meaning was more along the lines of "liberty, but not everything-goes liberty." It's defined in the dictionary as "freedom limited by the need for order in society" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/ordered%20liberty ), and appears to be legal/political science jargon with some history…

I understood that, but wouldn't the limits also involve moral interpretations?

> I understood that, but wouldn't the limits also involve moral interpretations?

Perhaps, but you seemed to be saying you took is as synonymous with morality, which doesn't seem like a correct reading. Morality doesn't seem to be very key to the concept, if it's even there at all.

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/liberty/

> Ordered liberty is the desirable condition in which both public order and personal liberty are maintained. But how can liberty and authority, freedom and power, be combined and balanced so that one does not predominate over the other? This was the basic problem of constitutional government that concerned the founders of the United States, and it has continued to challenge Americans as democracy has evolved and expanded throughout the history of their country. Early on, James Madison noted the challenges of ordered liberty in a 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson: ‘‘It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government has too much or too little power; and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.’’

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

#245

Post by malfist »

Grustaf wrote: post #243
malfist wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Riddle me this, is making flour from acorns murdering oak trees? Are you murdering potato plants when you eat french fries? Does munching on peanuts make you peanut hitler? If I have caviar, am I responsible for the murder of thousands of fish?

Almost no acorns would have turned into trees, so the comparison falls down. If we look at saplings, we'd be closer, and obviously killing a sapling is more or less equivalent to killing an oak tree. We don't tend to talk about "murder" when it comes to plants. Peanuts and caviar are the same, or even more silly. Only with potatoes does the question make sense, and clearly the answer is yes, potato plants die when yo…

So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them?

In that case, you shouldn't have an issue with a fetus being aborted.

Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. At least for potatoes used for french fries.

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

#246

Post by mcphage »

rcoveson wrote: post #172
snikeris wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Hard disagree that the abortion issue is primarily about consequence-free sex. You stated the issue in the first line: > A fetus isn't a person. Pro-life people vehemently disagree about this, and it's not coming from a place of prudishness. They are outraged because they feel like babies…

I'm outraged because nobody in this thread is as interested in drawing a line somewhere between "postcoital contraception" and "aborting a nearly-viable fetus" as they are in holding the line on either side of "fertilized embryo" and "infant". I guess I'll add to the chorus of people who "just don't understand the other side" in saying that I don't understand either side. Arguing for fertilized embryo rights makes no…

> But arguing in favor of abortion and not even mentioning where the line is drawn makes just as little sense.

Because it's not really relevant—the laws making it illegal are making it illegal across the board, no matter how early. The only reason for the heartbeat style laws was to make abortions as a whole as difficult as they could be under Roe. But now that's no longer a concern, the bans are across the board.

> The obvious, strong argument for abortion only applies to abortions before the fetus is morally person-like

Late term abortions are rare, and both expensive and unpleasant enough that you don't go through it unless there's a strong medical need.

So it's not discussed much because it's not a big part of what happens.

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

#247

Post by hellojesus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #219
hellojesus wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, Texas cannot hold you liable for an abortion that you get performed in another state. So Texas can try all they want, but they have no jurisdiction over what happens in California, so they will never be able to write legislation that makes it illegal to travel to another state for an abortion.

> Regardless, Texas cannot hold you liable for an abortion that you get performed in another state. Texas can do whatever the US Supreme Court allows them to do, and if you think well-established Constitutional precedent is a firm guide on that...how do you think they have the ability to ban abortion in Texas in the first place? But even under established precedent, I don't think it's at all clear that they cannot pu…

Your last paragraph is true, but the former are not. States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel, and they must uniformly apply the law. And they cannot punish you for a thought-crime, meaning they cannot arrest you under the supposition that your travel is arranged with intent to get an abortion outside their jurisdiction.

> Texas can do whatever the US Supreme Court allows them to do, and if you think well-established Constitutional precedent is a firm guide on that...how do you think they have the ability to ban abortion in Texas in the first place?

The Constitution is exactly what gives Texas the power to regulate abortion. It does so by not explicitly enumerating that power the the federal government.

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

#248

Post by hellojesus »

triceratops wrote: post #227
hellojesus wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to govern alcohol. That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment. Though the federal government did coerce every state into moving their drinking age from 18 to 21 under threat of withholding federal highway funding to states that had drinking ages set lower than 21. That case went to the Supreme Court and is also in dire need of overruling…

> That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment Not alcohol specifically, but any law that appears to promote a state religion. Like I said, alcohol sale restrictions are hard to prove as being motivated solely by religion. There are crime reduction, public health and safety, labor safety considerations too. I imagine the bar/restaurant lobby is also influential.

Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data?

The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences.

With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are not necessarily motivated by religion. Many people believe life begins at conception, regardless of religion.

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

#249

Post by tablespoon »

spaced-out wrote: post #228
tablespoon wrote: post #205

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. Eh, not so much. It's probably an overstatement that she thought it was a "trash decision," but she definitely…

>its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion.

> As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion.

Or its dominated by legal conservatives who have different ideas about constitutional interpretation than the Warren Court, put there by politicians whose constituents oppose abortion.

To me at least Roe v. Wade seems to have, in effect, been a constitutional amendment via means that bypassed the normal political process for such things. Unless you're a very "ends justify the means" kind of person, that raises concerns that would introduce a vulnerability into anything accomplished that way.

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

#250

Post by hellojesus »

triceratops wrote: post #226
hellojesus wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd wager than many are talked to abortion, specifically that late in the cycle, out of a desire for organ harvesting from newborns and not out of necessity.

> organ harvesting from newborns wat

Page 501 documents the research request and contact for human fetal tissue.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-hhs-humanized-m...

Also some famous undercover videos: https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-f...

Post reply on HN