Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by falcolas » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:27 PM UTC

Grustaf wrote: post #207

falcolas wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information? > wish they hadn't been forced to grow up in abject poverty That's a different question altogether. We all wish we had been born in better circumstances, but that doesn't mean we resent being alive. The…

> Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information?

Google for "I hate my children".

> [social safety nets]

One solution to children growing up in poverty is a safety net - a solution that is strongly advocated against as being "socialist" by our current government. i.e. It ain't happening in our lifetime.

Since that solution is not currently feasible, not having children if you can't afford them (i.e. it will put you into poverty, either from normal costs or advanced costs if the child is known to have a birth defect) is the next best solution. There are four well known methods for this, abstinence, contraception, abortion, and adoption.

Abstinence is not a realistic solution, this has been shown to be the case through the centuries.

Reliable contraception does not exist (or is effectively unavailable: see the crap women have to go through to get their tubes tied). It's also next up on some of the SC justices' hitlist.

That leaves abortion and adoption. The first is much more affordable and less likely to kill the woman than the second. And that doesn't count the already overloaded foster care system and adoption rosters we're subjecting the children to.

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

#222

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:28 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #153

Spoom wrote: post #61

I bet these places will start to threaten folks now that their state likely lets them. "Well, now that we have your data, we'll track you since births are public knowledge. If we don't see a birth, we'll turn it over to the police, and make your identity public (no private medical data needed, just that we have reason to believe you had an abortion) so that anyone in a state with a Texas-style law can sue you for $10…

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.

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

#223

Post by parkingrift » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:29 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #58

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.

Late term abortions are almost all wanted babies where something has gone horribly wrong for the baby, the mother, or both. There are also vanishingly few of them.

I would not consider that voluntary.

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

#224

Post by parkingrift » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

antifa wrote: post #65

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.

> I am disturbed by the idea of a voluntary abortion after 20 weeks I am also disturbed by strawman hypothetical edgecases.

>strawman hypothetical edgecases.

Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

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

#225

Post by shagie » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

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…

> The U.S. has the concept of separating religion from government

Realizing that this is getting more deeply into politics...

GOP Rep. Boebert: ‘I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk’ - https://wapo.st/3u7AkGL

> Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming only from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

> Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

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

#226

Post by triceratops » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

hellojesus wrote: post #212

triceratops wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many abortions happen after 20 weeks? How many of them are due to medical reasons vs "don't want this baby anymore"? 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.

I'd wager than many are talked to abortion, specifically that late in the cycle, out of a desire for organ harvesting from newborns and not out of necessity.

> organ harvesting from newborns

wat

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

#227

Post by triceratops » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:37 PM UTC

hellojesus wrote: post #214

triceratops wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice. My guess is these don't inconvenience people enough to make it to the Supreme Court. And there's also the fig leaf of "crime reduction". > as is the state philosophy on criminal justice Can you give some examples? I'm not familiar with this. > religion created a culture which we have inher…

The Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to govern alcohol. That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment. Though the federal government did coerce every state into moving their drinking age from 18 to 21 under threat of withholding federal highway funding to states that had drinking ages set lower than 21. That case went to the Supreme Court and is also in dire need of overruling…

> That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment

Not alcohol specifically, but any law that appears to promote a state religion. Like I said, alcohol sale restrictions are hard to prove as being motivated solely by religion. There are crime reduction, public health and safety, labor safety considerations too. I imagine the bar/restaurant lobby is also influential.

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

#228

Post by spaced-out » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #205

spaced-out wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach".

>> Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right. > No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Eh, not so much. It's probably an overstatement that she thought it was a "trash decision," but she definitely…

>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.

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

#229

Post by elforce002 » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

mojzu wrote: post #206

elforce002 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm a little confused, on the one hand you appear to be arguing that victims of rape and incest should be required to bear their abusers children but on the other arguing that pro-choice people aren't holding themselves accountable. In cases of rape or incest how is the victim in any way responsible for their situation?

I can't imagine the physical and psychological damage women that were raped have to deal on a daily basis. We should castrate those men and let them in prison for the rest of their lives but the baby is not responsible of this heinous act.

You know that less than 1% of abortion cases are because cof these evil acts. Even if there's an intent on having a discussion (you could do a quick search on yt) on the premise of allowing abortions for those cases, pro-abortion people use rape and incest cases to justify the 99% which are not because of that.

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

#230

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #209

antiterra wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

IMO, it's held "weakly" because there's a christian majority in the government at large (and the SC in particular). As such, the morality they advocate for just happens to also align with morality as defined by their faith. If you hold a different morality (in particular the Jewish or Muslim views on abortion rights), you're just SOL because you're not a majority.

The Supreme Court has fewer deeply religious people than the country as a whole, because of the appointment process. The religious wing of the Democratic Party (conservative Hispanics and Black people) is excluded, while the religious wing of the Republican Party has to share appointments with economic libertarians (Kennedy, Roberts, etc).

That's besides the point regardless. The "Establishment Clause" prohibits the creation of a national church: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte.... That's what "Establishment of Religion" means--creating an official, established Church. Several states had an established church around the time of the founding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state.... For example, Massachusetts had "disestablished" its official church less than 10 years before the Constitution, and continued public funding of it until 40 years after the Constitution. The "Establishment Clause" prohibited the federal government from creating such an official religion.

The Establishment Clause does not prohibit people from voting for laws based on their religion. That is to say, it does not put a thumb on the scale in favor of beliefs based on secular philosophy versus religious philosophy. Voters (at the state level) can close stores on Sunday based on Christianity, no different than doing so based on secular beliefs about workers needing a day off.