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

261–270 of 331 posts

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

#261

Post by falcolas »

Grustaf wrote: post #260
falcolas wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Here I thought we were talking about protecting lives in the world as it is. Not just babies in an idealized world that doesn't reflect the US' current or projected state.

Anyways. Have a great day.

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

#262

Post by sofixa »

rayiner wrote: post #168
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…

> 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 conce…

> 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)

Is that the only threshold? You should look at what dog and elephant fetuses look like.

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

#263

Post by dragonwriter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #222
Hamuko wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Texas actually has a criminal trigger ban that has already automatically gone into effect because of Roe falling, but that doesn't repeal the private enforcement law.

Correction, it has a trigger ban that has not yet gone into effect for administrative reasons but will next month barring some intervention, but also has a pre-Roe (1920ish, IIRC) criminal law that went back into effect when Roe was struck down.

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

#264

Post by hellojesus »

diydsp wrote: post #254
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…

> 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/

There is risk with everything in life. If someone is having sex, regardless of condom use, birth control use, vasectomy, etc., they are accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy.

Why is it that we push for the killing of unborn persons instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions?

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

#265

Post by dragonwriter »

hellojesus wrote: post #247
dragonwriter wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel,

States can restrict interstate travel for...well, lots of reasons, and preventing what state law defines as murder is certainly one of them, but there are limits on the burdens they can impose on travel.

> 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.

States absolutely can punish for the combination of intent and action.

They can also punish under their laws a crime whose culmination happens outside of their borders when some part of it occurred within their borders.

If a state can define a fetus as a person who can be murdered, they can absolutely make it illegal for someone to transport that person to any place (inside or outside the state) for the purpose of killing them.

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

#266

Post by hellojesus »

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).…

> If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they’re 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.

Why don't we consider the combined probability of condoms + birth control (heck, even + vasectomy, etc.)? It would seem a lot more reasonable to me to take that as a more appropriate measure of real-world risk.

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

#267

Post by sofixa »

kodah wrote: post #199
xutopia wrote: post #48

Does anyone actually address how religion is a big factor at play here? It's skipped over every time but this is very much a religious war happening here. The Catholics in the Supreme Court are overturning human rights because it goes against the recent dogmas their faith prescribed them to believe.

A link to the decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf (Everything I'm writing about is under Held ) Morality plays in some way. Basically, Roe tried to rewrite and ignore some history, according to the court, in order to establish an implicit privacy principle in the constitution. Where the morality comes in is that the court clearly fears things like hooking and drug use (which they me…

> Thus, the court then reverts to history, which abortion has been historically highly illegal

Which history? Under English common law, abortion was allowed until 20 weeks, and that persisted in the US until the mid-to-end 19th century. Then a century of bans, then Roe v Wade, and now blanket bans. There is far more "abortion is allowed until X" history than anything else.

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

#268

Post by hellojesus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #265
hellojesus wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel, States can restrict interstate travel for...well, lots of reasons, and preventing what state law defines as murder is certainly one of them, but there are limits on the burdens they can impose on travel. > 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 aborti…

States would have to prove intention, which would be very difficult.

States cannot restrict interstate travel as mentioned in the Articles of Confederation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/...

> The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state.

Furthermore, of the abortion is performed in the destination state, the citizen would be covered by the privileges and immunities of that state, and the former would have no recourse.

Edit: it appears Kavanaugh already weighed in on this issue. While obviously not a legal decision, it at least provides one judge's perspective: https://reason.com/2022/06/24/states-cant-ban-out-of-state-t...

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

#269

Post by hellojesus »

falcolas wrote: post #258
hellojesus wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course, but obviously when left to nature, that newly created clump of cells, which is a new person in a primitive state, will eventually gain cognition and develop preferences.

Your argument seems to suggest that a comatose person would have the same entitlement to life and an unborn person.

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

hellojesus wrote: post #269
falcolas wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Of course, but obviously when left to nature, that newly created clump of cells, which is a new person in a primitive state, will eventually gain cognition and develop preferences. Your argument seems to suggest that a comatose person would have the same entitlement to life and an unborn person.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN