A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.
No post body was provided.
Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
291–300 of 331 posts
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#292Earlier 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…
No post body was provided.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 amendmen…
>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.
Exactly, those judges were determined to stop abortions, it didn't matter how strong or weak the legal arguments of RvW were, or whether or not the legislature codified it in law or not. They would have jumped through any number of legal hoops to stop people from getting abortions.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
I'm not conceding any other part of whatever argument you're making, but saying that unfertilized eggs are individual humans is completely ludicrous. They aren't separate organisms. They might eventually be used to create one, but it's not likely. This is like arguing that every skin cell is an individual human just because you could theoretically extract DNA from it and make a clone.
Eggs are happy to sit frozen for decades outside a human body after the donors death then be implanted in someone else. That’s a living organism though less hardy than a HeLa cell line. Sure they aren’t viable on their own, but apparently we can’t apply that standard to a fetus.
Clearly someone should not be considered alive because theirs frozen eggs still alive. That’s independent.
Eggs that are sitting around like that presumably have vastly higher odds of being implanted than one of your random skin cells. Something like 15 orders of magnitude or more.
Despite what is sometimes said, the moment of fertilization isn’t suddenly creating life both cells where alive before that point.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not conceding any other part of whatever argument you're making, but saying that unfertilized eggs are individual humans is completely ludicrous. They aren't separate organisms. They might eventually be used to create one, but it's not likely. This is like arguing that every skin cell is an individual human just because you could theoretically extract DNA from it and make a clone.
Eggs are happy to sit frozen for decades outside a human body after the donors death then be implanted in someone else. That’s a living organism though less hardy than a HeLa cell line. Sure they aren’t viable on their own, but apparently we can’t apply that standard to a fetus. Clearly someone should not be considered alive because theirs frozen eggs still alive. That’s independent. Eggs that are sitting around like…
> but apparently we can’t apply that standard to a fetus
For what it's worth I'm totally fine applying that standard to a fetus.
Being able to be kept frozen outside a body doesn't make something an organism, at least not by any definition of the term I've ever heard.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me make it clear - she regretted having me. Those are the cold hard facts. If she could have aborted me and had another child later when she was prepared to have that child then she may have loved that child. As it is, there's a very dark downside to forcing unwanted children into this world that isn't being discussed.
> forcing unwanted children into this world This turn of phrase, which I've seen used often, is bizarre and demonic. It implies that the default for children is to be killed.
No. Forcing children to live in Hell is demonic. Unwanted children live a Hellish existence. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you asking, "aren't left-wing groups saving the information of right-wingers to the later deploy state power against them after changing relevant laws", or "doesn't every ideological group occasionally dox it's opponents"? I think those are different questions.
Doxing wasn't my question; I was just presuming aloud that everyone made use of the tools that Big Tech was selling. I don't see just one side being aware of the possibilities of buying data (nor do I think there are only two sides... it's a spectrum with many fronts).
Makes sense, thank you for clarifying. For what it's worth, I don't think there's really room for a comparable strategy on the left; most of the work being done in social policy on the left is oriented _against_ proscriptive laws, so it wouldn't make sense to similarly collect the information of people doing things now that might be in violation of laws passed later. That is to say, part of the definition of left-wing social policy is that it tends to increase the space of things society allows, rather than reduce it, and so gathering lists of undesirables is not really going to help. I'm sure the Marxist-Leninists would love to try, though.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you asking, "aren't left-wing groups saving the information of right-wingers to the later deploy state power against them after changing relevant laws", or "doesn't every ideological group occasionally dox it's opponents"? I think those are different questions.
Ever heard of hate-speech laws? To be fair, your question would need reordering: Aren't left-wing groups changing relevant laws, then saving the information of right-wingers, then deploying state power against them?
> Ever heard of hate-speech laws?
Yes. Enforcing hate speech laws doesn't involve mass surveillance of an entire class of people, because by definition most hate speech laws only apply to public speech. Enforcing anti-abortion laws, on the other hand, does, or at least these anti-abortion groups think it should and are taking that into their own hands.
> Aren't left-wing groups changing relevant laws, then saving the information of right-wingers, then deploying state power against them?
This does not describe an analogous behavior to that discussed in the OP.
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eggs are happy to sit frozen for decades outside a human body after the donors death then be implanted in someone else. That’s a living organism though less hardy than a HeLa cell line. Sure they aren’t viable on their own, but apparently we can’t apply that standard to a fetus. Clearly someone should not be considered alive because theirs frozen eggs still alive. That’s independent. Eggs that are sitting around like…
> but apparently we can’t apply that standard to a fetus For what it's worth I'm totally fine applying that standard to a fetus. Being able to be kept frozen outside a body doesn't make something an organism, at least not by any definition of the term I've ever heard.
(Though to be clear I think a person should be able to do whatever they want with whatever is inside them until the moment it’s not)
Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the context? What is the research of? Is consent required / has it been received? Is this a common practice? Is it common to sell non-fetal tissue for research purposes? Etc etc Linking to a cryptic 575 page long PDF file is too conspiratorial to take seriously.
> I'd wager that the vast majority of abortions post 20 weeks are performed with extreme reluctance and sadness, and only out of great necessity. My point was specifically aimed at this parent comment. It is easy to make baseless wagers about motivation. I find it an equally compelling narrative that, given research and financial incentives, there is great motivation for abortion clinics to persuade individuals to ab…
> Both statements are conjectures.
Not really, no. You're spouting random conspiracy theories. You provided unverified primary sources. Any rando can make a website and post a PDF on it for $10.
Only 1.3% of all abortions happen after 20 weeks.