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

191–200 of 331 posts

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

#191

Post by kelseyfrog »

jonhohle wrote: post #143
kelseyfrog wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There already are that group - recipients of organ donations. If you or I decide to sign up on a match list, are tested for compatibility, and are selected, we have no legal obligation to proceed with the donation. You or I could be in the operating room side by side with the recipient and object moments before being anesthesized. Again, no legal obligation. Even if it should mean the recipient dies. It doesn't mean…

In that situation medical professionals are doing everything they can to keep that person alive. If there is another option besides the one donor found it will be used. Fetuses aren’t granted the right to “pursue happiness”. Abortion doesn’t absolve a mother of obligations while giving the child a chance to part ways amicably. As the potential organ donor you cannot choose to actively terminate the life of the recipi…

Those have no bearing on the autonomy of the donor. The ethicalness of declining to donate isn't contingent on support of medical professionals nor the concept of active or passive action.

What does supervene on the ethicalness of the action is autonomy. Bodily autonomy gives a donor the right to back away at the last minute, not the concept of passive action or medical support. I'm not disagreeing that those exist, but they don't lay the foundation for the ethicalness of the action - bodily autonomy does. No one, not even the government, has more say over one's body than oneself.

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

#192

Post by tablespoon »

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…

>> Why? To someone who thinks abortion is the murder of babies, what you advocate is priority inversion error.

> 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.

So? That doesn't affect my point at all. They don't have to think abortion is "full fledged baby murder" for what was advocated up-thread to be a priority inversion error. They just have to think of it as being more wrong than whatever persuasion tactics the "counseling clinics" use. Given that all but the most extreme persuasion tactics themselves typically rate from "not wrong" to "mildly wrong/annoying," that's not a hard bar to pass.

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

#193

Post by falcolas »

noworriesnate wrote: post #176
inetknght wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born I have met many people who hated their lives for many reasons. What makes you think these children won't? Some of the reasons include: - parents didn't want the children - children grew up poor - children grew up with disabilities - children were put up for adoption - the world is becoming uninhabitable for the children's children I…

What if instead of presuming whether the children will hate their lives, we let them grow up to a certain age, say age 9, and then ask them if they hate their lives? If they say yes, kill them, if they say no, let them live. There is no moral difference between this solution and abortion if the fetus is a baby. If the fetus is not a baby then there is a moral difference though, so... I guess the real question is whet…

> If they say yes, kill them,

Instead, we let them kill themselves off in droves. 1.21 million attempted suicides per year in the US alone.

I understand the pro-life POV quite well, I just have no respect for them when they drop off all support (aside from the occasional church donation) for children once they're outside the womb. I have no respect for those who value the life of a fetus (alive or dead) over that of the woman (miscarriages don't always clear themselves).

And let's not count those who die from a lack of a blood donation, organ transplant, or postmortem organ donations - things a pro-life advocate could do themselves, but "that's totally different".

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

#194

Post by elforce002 »

mojzu wrote: post #150
snikeris wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Hard disagree that the abortion issue is primarily about consequence-free sex. You stated the issue in the first line: > A fetus isn't a person. Pro-life people vehemently disagree about this, and it's not coming from a place of prudishness. They are outraged because they feel like babies…

Often the same groups opposing abortion also oppose the most effective policies to reduce abortions (proper sex ed, free birth control and family planning services, etc.). So while I agree there is an impasse on where the human life line is drawn, I would say it's fair to argue that prudishness/puritanical beliefs are a large factor in the opposition to legal abortion

It's interesting. I'd bet money that if pro-life people accept all those things, pro-abortion people will go with: "what about rape, incest, etc...?" and if they allow specifically those scenarios, they still won't accept.

Bet money this is the scenario that will play out if such things were to be pushed.

Accountability is kryptonite for pro-abortion people.

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

#195

Post by ejb999 »

raverbashing wrote: post #113
parkingrift wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this completely ignores the moral issues of later term abortions. I am an atheist, and I am disturbed by the idea of a voluntary abortion after 20 weeks. Voluntary meaning no medical necessity. I think Republicans have latched onto this issue and Christianity in America has adopted it, but there is far more at play here than just Christian nationalism.

> ignores the moral issues of later term abortions If the SCOTUS decision was limited to that, the controvery would have been much, much smaller. Especially if it also considered medical exceptions. But why be sensible when you can just go full Spanish inquisition on them, right?

>>If the SCOTUS decision was limited to that,

If the SCOTUS did that, then they would be legislators, not judges; it is up to congress to decide where that cutoff should be, and then pass a law if they want - RvW didn't outlaw abortions, it just punted it back to the correct body to act if they wanted; I suspect they (congress) will be forced to pass a law, and it will likely set at a date that makes nobody happy - not the abortion at any time crowd, and not the 'zero exceptions' crowd. Most of Europe seems OK with a ~12 week cutoff. I suspect something around that, with narrow set of exceptions, would satisfy all but the most extremes on both sides.

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

#197

Post by ejb999 »

dwater wrote: post #90
cloutchaser wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. The reason it’s not an issue in Europe is because opposing sides all get a say in this and arrive at a compromise, namely abortion allowed up to 12 weeks which is fairly standard in most European countries. But because row v wade basi…

> Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. That's an oversimplification of a very nuanced and pragmatic view that is better explained here: "What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade", Washington Post https://archive.ph/jJENv It's not that she felt the rights gr…

>>she was worried that it would not be insulated from legal challenges.

and she was right.

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

#198

Post by cloutchaser »

dwater wrote: post #90
cloutchaser wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. The reason it’s not an issue in Europe is because opposing sides all get a say in this and arrive at a compromise, namely abortion allowed up to 12 weeks which is fairly standard in most European countries. But because row v wade basi…

> Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. That's an oversimplification of a very nuanced and pragmatic view that is better explained here: "What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade", Washington Post https://archive.ph/jJENv It's not that she felt the rights gr…

This is her:

“Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.” That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway-the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them by the mid-1980s. No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.”

This is exactly the point I made.

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

#199

Post by kodah »

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 mention explicitly in the ruling) and they tie this to Roe and Casey's arguments about privacy and autonomy while also demonstrating that Casey tried to eschew many of Roes arguments. They kept referring to this as "ordered liberty" which I took for morality.

Therein lies the rub though, as Alito said. Without a right to privacy - or explicitly stated "liberty" the court then has to review what the people want. Half the country is on a spectrum within a spectrum about morality, and the other half is on a different spectrum within a spectrum. He also called out a third group, which wants abortion under certain circumstances. Thus, the court then reverts to history, which abortion has been historically highly illegal.

So, some technical, some historical, some moral.

Would an actual privacy amendment really provide a pathway for abortion is my broader question.

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

#200

Post by antiterra »

Tozen wrote: post #141
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a divisive issue because it represents fundamentally different world views. As an asian, the idea that the government can’t regulate abortion, which is prevalent among a large minority of Democrats these days, is remarkable. Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality. It’s illustrative to compare to Japan or Germany, which have “lib…

> nothing precludes states from legislating morality You seem to be confused or at least "cloudy" about some things. The U.S. has the concept of separating religion from government ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state ). Government does and should regulate behavior. But, morality based on religious beliefs becomes a problem, when the beliefs of particular religious groups are imposed on othe…

> You seem to be confused or at least "cloudy" about some things. The U.S. has the concept of separating religion from government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state).

As someone who wishes this was codified in our constitution, I'm afraid the 'concept' is held relatively weakly.

Clarence Thomas has stated, regarding the Establishment Clause: 'The text and history of this Clause suggest that it should not be incorporated against the States.'

I wouldn't be surprised if there is concurrence among the conservative justices sans Roberts.

Post reply on HN