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

311–320 of 331 posts

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

#311

Post by bmacho »

welshwelsh wrote: post #74
luxuryballs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

> 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.

People happen to be in a bad situation. There are poor people, ill people, robbed people, raped people, etc.

Forcing people that happen to be raped to not to kill is ethical, and not by Christianity, but by virtually by every moral and ethics that exist.

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

#312

Post by bmacho »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #130
jonhohle wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fetus isn’t a person like a black person or Native American wasn’t a full person, like children weren’t full people, or like women weren’t given the same rights as men?

Does a black person require their every biological process be maintained by the body of another? If yes, then OK your comparison makes sense.

Does a black person have white skin color?

You can throw random things that differentiate one group from another, it doesn't mean that people are not people and you can kill them.

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

#313

Post by taylodl »

Grustaf wrote: post #305
taylodl wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Forcing children to live in Hell is demonic. Unwanted children live a Hellish existence. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The issue is that these children live “in hell”, not that they are alive at all. The solution to potential future suffering is not to kill people. And needless to say, you can’t project your experience on every one.

Nor can you project your naive thoughts of rainbows and unicorn farts on everyone living in Hell. It's extremely offensive. This is why nobody talks about it - tone deaf people like you trying to pooh pooh people's experiences and what they've watched their friends experience. Sorry. We're fighting back.

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

#314

Post by malfist »

Grustaf wrote: post #279
malfist wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that if more pregnancies ended in miscarriage abortion would be moral? What's the limit here? 40%? 60% 80%? Why does the number or miscarriages matter at all? If your curious ~60% of embryos do not make it to a live birth, and that's excluding abortions. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/

> So you're saying that if more pregnancies ended in miscarriage abortion would be moral? Not saying that at all. Just like last time, we are still just discussing how bad your analogies were. > If your curious ~60% of embryos do not make it to a live birth, I'm well aware of this, and although most of this is accounted for very early on, it's still pretty high. And of course in many cases the embryos were not viable…

A fetus is not a small child either.

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

#315

Post by Grustaf »

welshwelsh wrote: post #74
luxuryballs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

> 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.

How could it possibly be ethical to rape someone? Your line of reasoning is really out there.

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

#316

Post by triceratops »

cloutchaser wrote: post #310
triceratops wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? Certainly. The Pledge of Allegiance. [1] There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_...

> There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. Yes there is. You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society. Giving them tax benefits, beaurocratic benefits (so one person can represent an entire family for…

> You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society

And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too?

> for the purpose of procreating

If that were really the case, what about couples who can't have children due to age or infertility? Should their marriages be illegal too? Should hetero couples divorce the minute the woman hits menopause, if they don't already have kids? Are widows over 50 not allowed to remarry? Seems like a heartless society to me, and also contrary to "tradition" (whatever that means).

Maybe we can admit that marriage in today's society is also about love, companionship, and deep emotional bonds. Not just raising children.

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

#317

Post by Spoom »

hellojesus wrote: post #268
dragonwriter wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 la…

There are plenty of laws where intention does not matter. Why would this be any different?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

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

#318

Post by diydsp »

hellojesus wrote: post #264
diydsp wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy.

No, they're accepting the risk of having an abortion.

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

#319

Post by hellojesus »

triceratops wrote: post #316
cloutchaser wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. Yes there is. You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society. Giving them tax benefits, beaurocratic benefits (so one person can represent an entire family for…

> You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the fam…

> And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too?

There is raising children and there is the creation of children. The argument was that the government incentivized marriage because it led to both the creation of children as well as their raising in a stable home.

Non-traditional guardians (homos, grandparents, etc.) can obviously raise children, but they cannot make them.

That is likely how marriage ended up governed by the state. You are correct that it was rooted in religion, so thanks for the example.

Imo, marriage should not be regulated by the government. It is a derived of and should remain in religious institutions.

Instead, the government can come up with a private partnership, which would easily do everything marriage does without the underlying religious debate and exclusions.

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

#320

Post by cloutchaser »

triceratops wrote: post #316
cloutchaser wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. Yes there is. You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society. Giving them tax benefits, beaurocratic benefits (so one person can represent an entire family for…

> You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the fam…

> E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.

These can raise children obviously, and do it well. But it’s not called a marriage. Thanks for making my point for me.

Post reply on HN