Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#191

Post by kxyvr »

core-utility wrote: post #15

Is this anything more than just fear-mongering? I don't see how this is related to the Roe reversal at all. Not a single state has given any inkling of ruling/law aimed at prosecuting the receiver of the abortion, only doctors/person who performs them. Privacy is good and these issues should be evaluated, but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest.

Yes, I believe women have been prosecuted for self-inducing abortions using an abortifacient even prior to the current court ruling. For example:

https://newrepublic.com/article/111368/the-rise-diy-abortion...

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abortion-murder-2015061...

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/magazine/a-mother-in-jail...

There are more examples. The point is that those who received an abortion have been prosecuted even prior to Roe being overturned. It stands to reason that they will be prosecuted now.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#192

Post by arolihas »

ars wrote: post #177
arolihas wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is one of the examples of the mother being prosecuted mentioned in the article, thanks for emphasizing my point!

That did not emphasize your point. It refuted it. Or do you believe that pregnant women should be allowed to take any toxic substance they want regardless of the harm to their child? I've met some people who believe that, but it's very much a minority view, Even among pro-choice supporters.

The original comment said that prosecuting a mother for the death of a fetus was not a thing. I shared an article with multiple examples of that showing he was misinformed. That was my whole point. I don’t know what point you think I was making that was refuted, and I really don’t want to derail the conversation and get into the weeds of whether this particular case of stillbirth was a miscarriage or an abortion or manslaughter or murder. Have a nice day.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#193

Post by s1artibartfast »

swearwolf wrote: post #187
s1artibartfast wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope argument aside, do you in your heart think that throwing a live baby in the trash to suffocate should be legal (assuming the facts are correct)?

No

Well that's something to think on when advocating for these cases and people. It makes sense to be scared of potential consequences but people need to find common ground and understanding as well.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#194

Post by core-utility »

epakai wrote: post #125
core-utility wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So legally speaking, the person in a civil suit typically has to be the one harmed, or have some major interest in the harming of someone their connected to (if that person can't bring a suit themselves). Texas' working of this is that the baby/fetus/whatever you choose to call it was killed and can't bring suit itself, and they're explicitly allowing the society to bring suit on behalf of that.

The way you do that is via a state prosecutor. It is absurd to hand standing to every citizen without any limitation.

Prosecutors prosecute crimes, in criminal court cases. Citizens can only bring civil cases. The public can't have a prosecutor bring a civil case.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#195

Post by hahaitsfunny »

arolihas wrote: post #30
core-utility wrote: post #15

Is this anything more than just fear-mongering? I don't see how this is related to the Roe reversal at all. Not a single state has given any inkling of ruling/law aimed at prosecuting the receiver of the abortion, only doctors/person who performs them. Privacy is good and these issues should be evaluated, but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest.

Women have been prosecuted for miscarriages before, it's not baseless. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuti...

NPR is funded by the federal government. They rely on the same fact checking services (the IFCC, PolitiFact / Poynter) that are funded by Soros, the Gates, the Clintons, the Koch foundation, etc...

They're probably the most anti-American media outlet in existence and I wouldn't trust the words they print further than I can ball them up and throw them.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#196

Post by hahaitsfunny »

arolihas wrote: post #192
ars wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That did not emphasize your point. It refuted it. Or do you believe that pregnant women should be allowed to take any toxic substance they want regardless of the harm to their child? I've met some people who believe that, but it's very much a minority view, Even among pro-choice supporters.

The original comment said that prosecuting a mother for the death of a fetus was not a thing. I shared an article with multiple examples of that showing he was misinformed. That was my whole point. I don’t know what point you think I was making that was refuted, and I really don’t want to derail the conversation and get into the weeds of whether this particular case of stillbirth was a miscarriage or an abortion or m…

Yeah well, I believe the OP's comment was typed in reference to abortion, not mothers taking illicit substances and their pregnancies not being viable because of that.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#197

Post by hahaitsfunny »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #145
hahaitsfunny wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

can you cite some examples? generally it seems like people are exercising their first amendment rights against people they don't like, which has at times been misdirected, but to my knowledge hasn't destroyed anyone

[flagged]

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#199

Post by hahaitsfunny »

odessacubbage wrote: post #102
hahaitsfunny wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go even further and say that tech is fundamental in the destruction of the fabric of American society.

i mean, if that is the case then it happened in the 18th century when the industrial revolution caused the undoing of the jeffersonian ideal and the supremacy of the yeoman farmer. i tend to gather that most of this site's users are not planters, candlestick makers or slave owners. if anything destroyed the fabric of communities in post-new-deal-industrial-world-superpower-america, it was financialization and trade a…

We might as well go back to the social contract then. My comment written to open up some historical debate about when the downfall of America started, but to point out that big tech is a fundamental contributor to the destruction of the fabric of America. I never claimed there were no other contributors or that it started with the advent of big tech.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#200

Post by heartbeats »

cogman10 wrote: post #183
heartbeats wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists. > Were the US population evenly distributed then this wouldn't be as much as a problem. Is…

> No, that's not the case. I'd dare say >50% of the population wants to cut Wyoming down to 0.2 senators. But how do they accomplish that? The only viable route is a constitutional amendment. For that to pass, you need 2/3s of the senate to agree AND you need 3/4s of the states to ratify. By saying "oh, well the majority can just insist on the change" ignores the fact that the current system gives the minority power…

Grant this, but at some point, there's still a lack of majority support somewhere. >50% might support cutting Wyoming down to size, but <50% support removing the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendment.
Post reply on HN