Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #235

rayiner wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court has fewer deeply religious people than the country as a whole, because of the appointment process. The religious wing of the Democratic Party (conservative Hispanics and Black people) is excluded, while the religious wing of the Republican Party has to share appointments with economic libertarians (Kennedy, Roberts, etc). That's besides the point regardless. The "Establishment Clause" prohibits the…

So, none of that actually challenges my statement - that our politicians' morals are based extensively on those of their religion, thus avoiding any conflict of interest in their mind (i.e. Who doesn't view abortion as murder?), while still creating a "tyranny of the majority" for those who don't share their religion. Legal or not according to the intent of "separation of church and state", it's holding us back as a…

[deleted]

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

#252

Post by Grustaf » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

malfist wrote: post #245

Grustaf wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying your analogies are idiotic, since acorns don't correspond to foetuses - almost no acorns end up as trees.

> Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died.

It was your analogy, not mine. If potatoes are only harvested when dead, how could eating them possibly be murder?

Getting back to the actual question, I don't think a baby is more alive or more human because it has left the womb, or because you've cut the umbilical cord.

If someone stabs a pregnant woman in the belly so that her foetus dies, but she survives, would you agree that he has killed her baby, or has he only harmed her?

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

#253

Post by Qub3d » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

nullfield wrote: post #144

mikece wrote: post #10

I suspect this story will be Cambridge Analytica 2.0: making use of the tools sold by big tech to achieve an ideological end. (Isn't everyone doing this?)

Bluntly, "we" warned "them". We said, "hey, maybe you don't want to encourage mass surveillance of your life in exchange for 'free' stuff; it could go poorly." It's now going poorly and I don't know that it's even possible to undo the damage now...

https://xkcd.com/743/

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

#254

Post by diydsp » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

Grustaf wrote: post #242

falcolas wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unde…

> Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing.

Condoms are only 98% effective even when used correctly[1]. Women need access to abortion.

[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/

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

#255

Post by antiterra » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #233

antiterra wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 onl…

> Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong. The polls literally show Republicans with a plurality in the generic ballot. > Second, the 538 poll aggregation has massive margin for error. And in the last several cycles, polling error has undercounted conservatives. > How confident are you that a 5% swing from Democrats to Republicans over t…

> > Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong. > The polls literally show Republicans with a plurality in the generic ballot.

I missed that the first comment you responded to was the one that suggested the Republicans didn't have a plurality. Thought you brought up a question of who has less than a plurality when both Republicans and Democrats clearly have at least a plurality.

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

#256

Post by falcolas » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

Grustaf wrote: post #242

falcolas wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unde…

This isn't a partisan issue. Neither Democrats nor Republicans (the politicians, not necessarily the constituents) want safety nets. They have different reasons, but the end result is that neither side is willing to make it a reality.

> Condoms are extremely effective

Condoms have an 85% success rate† in the real world (98% if used perfectly, but humans are rarely perfect, especially when... emotionally compromised). That means a pregnancy a year is absolutely within reason.

> it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children

A case where research is easy, and worth doing. But here's what I found Google:

"Of the more than 440,000 children in foster care in the United States, there are over 123,000 kids available for adoption right now. According to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, children in foster care can expect to wait an average of three years to be adopted and the average age of a foster care child is 8.5 years old."

"... roughly 20,000 children “age out” of foster care each year. This means they are now legally adults without ever finding a family through adoption."

That "huge demand" is for families who will only take babies, not fostered children.

Historically, 2% of families in the US will adopt, meaning that even if every previously aborted fetus was carried to term and put up for adoption as a baby, there still wouldn't be enough families.

EDIT: The cost to give birth, without complications, is between $5 and $15k. That's just giving birth. And the parent doesn't receive the adoption fees; that cost is on them. For the adoptive parents, a private adoption (how you get a baby) is in the $25 to $50k range††.

† https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom...

†† https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/ad...

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

#257

Post by sofixa » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 6:26 PM UTC

esyir wrote: post #98

tablespoon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Why? To someone who thinks abortion is the murder of babies, what you advocate is priority inversion error. Your idea is a lot like saying the police in Uvalde shouldn't have gone in and (eventually) shot the school shooter, rather they should have "take[n] the hi…

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…

> Estimates of the Jewish death toll were ~6 million and was responded to by full fledged, hot war.

Unfortunately that's a very common misconception, but is completely false. Nobody went to war for the Jews. Nobody fought, or did anything of note really, to save them. Hell, countries, including the almighty USA, refused refugee ships with Jews, even after the war started and concentration (but not extermination) camps were well known.

Just read Szmul Zygielbojm's suicide letter on the matter.

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

#258

Post by falcolas » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 6:34 PM UTC

hellojesus wrote: post #151

lukas099 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 qua…

> We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed.

A clump of cells doesn't have enough coherence to have a preference. In fact, babies don't have the kind of brain development necessary to comprehend this question, let alone form a preference until years after being born.

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

#259

Post by falcolas » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

jonhohle wrote: post #125

Workaccount2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has ever been sad that they weren't born. "How would you feel if you weren't born?" is a nonsensical question.

You do realize you can feel before you are born, right? Verbal communication and feeling are not the same. It is well established that newborns remember the sounds they heard prior to birth.

Which has nothing to do with wanting to be born.

Feelings aren't understanding. Answering "did I want to be born" requires thought processes newborns aren't even capable of.

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

#260

Post by Grustaf » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 6:43 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #256

Grustaf wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unde…

This isn't a partisan issue. Neither Democrats nor Republicans (the politicians, not necessarily the constituents) want safety nets. They have different reasons, but the end result is that neither side is willing to make it a reality. > Condoms are extremely effective Condoms have an 85% success rate† in the real world (98% if used perfectly, but humans are rarely perfect, especially when... emotionally compromised).…

> This isn't a partisan issue

It was you that said "our current government". I would have thought the Democratic party was in favour of a working welfare system, at least for small children.

You adoption numbers are not relevant, we are not talking about children, we are talking about newborns. Since there are apparently 2 million American couples wanting to adopt right now, and only 18000 being adopted each year, I'd say the demand is very strong.

I'm not sure what cost has to do with it, surely you are not arguing that abortion should be a way to save money by not having to give birth?

And I'm sure a lot of adoptive parents would be more than happy to bear the cost of childbirth. In a civilised country essential healthcare is of course socialised, but we are talking about the US here.