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

#301

Post by triceratops » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 4:23 AM UTC

hellojesus wrote: post #248

triceratops wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data? The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences. With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are…

> 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_...

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

#302

Post by cute_boi » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 5:17 AM UTC

vardump wrote: post #46

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'm pro-choice. That said, after 20 weeks one really needs to consider that the fetus can feel pain .

Regarding your second statement, I don't think anyone would consider aborting babie(s) after carrying for 20 weeks. These cases are outliers & it is mostly due to medical conditions.

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

#303

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 5:27 AM UTC

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…

> States would have to prove intention, which would be very difficult.

Its not all that difficult, there are plenty of specific intent crimes and states prove intention all the time.

> States cannot restrict interstate travel as mentioned in the Articles of Confederation.

Your link supports the existence of the right to travel, but that’s not in dispute; the right to travel is not an absolute; like other fundamental rights, the test applied in the strict scrutiny test, such that state actions impinging on it must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.

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

#304

Post by kodah » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 5:46 AM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #267

kodah wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 me…

> Thus, the court then reverts to history, which abortion has been historically highly illegal Which history? Under English common law, abortion was allowed until 20 weeks, and that persisted in the US until the mid-to-end 19th century. Then a century of bans, then Roe v Wade, and now blanket bans. There is far more "abortion is allowed until X" history than anything else.

I believe they're referencing the first ~150 some years of US history. Again, I'm just pulling from the ruling. They accused Roe of rewriting history, and Casey eschewing it as a result.

Also, this is not a "blanket ban", that would be a misinterpretation of the ruling. Instead, states now choose (aka "the people"). Not that I support it, but words matter.

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

#305

Post by Grustaf » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 6:30 AM UTC

taylodl wrote: post #296

Grustaf wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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

#306

Post by raxxorraxor » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 9:25 AM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #87

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.

Religion isn't enough to be the primary driver here and it's becoming less important with time. We've raised a 2-3 generation on popular dogma in which human life is the most sacred thing imaginable and now we have a society full of people do not generally posses the requisite mental faculties to have adult discussion about subjects that involve harm to people (or apparently fetuses). We're reaping what we sowed. You…

True that religion isn't the primary driver anymore. There is a huge indisputable overlap but to say it is religious dogma doesn't adequately identify the "problem". I believe current polarization is much more relevant that this has become a topic again.

Every culture does inflate the value of human life and a society is well served by doing exactly that. Technically this is ideology or religion too, but so is everything you put on a pedestal instead. But that isn't at all a detriment for the argument for abortion even from a purely utilitarian point of view that acknowledges reality that abortions will happen if they are legal or illegal. I do think some societal and cultural problems do increase the number of abortions significantly and there are significantly less arguments against those that want to reduce abortions.

> can't nut up and cause a little quantifiable harm to get to the better solution

This is impotent reasoning. What is sub-optimal? From which perspective and for whom? Acknowledging reality does also mean that there aren't that many people that wish they were aborted. It is a gray decision but "nutting up" is no solution.

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

#307

Post by pseudalopex » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 10:16 AM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #77

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it interesting how it’s not even a popular Catholic point of view? [1] It seems that the path of money is from laity to church to dark money group(?) to political campaigns for judges or buying support for judge’s confirmations. However it happens, people should know their tithes are being used against them. [1] https://www.ncronline.org/news/68-us-catholics-say-roe-shoul...

National Catholic Reporter was actually denounced and ordered by bishops almost 50 years ago to stop using "Catholic" in its name for its heterodox views and viewpoint. They refused because Catholic is not a trademark and the bishops could not enforce it, but one should not view them as a source of faithful Catholic news of any kind. It is not uncommon for priests to refer to them as the National Schismatic Reporter.

Is that supposed to refute an Associated Press article about an Associated Press poll?

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

#308

Post by pseudalopex » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 10:32 AM UTC

jonhohle wrote: post #66

lotsofpulp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What issue? What are the numbers on non medical necessity abortions post 20 weeks? Why 20 weeks? Are the voting populace or politicians knowledgeable enough about pregnancy to be able to legislate these things without exposing doctors and women to unnecessary legal risk? And again, back to the numbers, does the is even need legislating? Are women or doctors haphazardly running around killing perfectly viable fetuses…

There are over a million abortions performed every year in the US. If your belief is that these are humans with all the rights of any other human, that’s a staggering human rights issue. The concept of viability is legal fiction. Given the technology, there’s no reason a fetus couldn’t live at any stage of development and likewise, until about age 3 or so, no child will live without external support. Culturally, we c…

> There are over a million abortions performed every year in the US.

More embryos don't implant.

> The concept of viability is legal fiction. Given the technology, there’s no reason a fetus couldn’t live at any stage of development

We could live forever given the technology. Is mortality legal fiction?

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

#309

Post by pseudalopex » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 10:50 AM UTC

kodah wrote: post #304

sofixa wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thus, the court then reverts to history, which abortion has been historically highly illegal Which history? Under English common law, abortion was allowed until 20 weeks, and that persisted in the US until the mid-to-end 19th century. Then a century of bans, then Roe v Wade, and now blanket bans. There is far more "abortion is allowed until X" history than anything else.

I believe they're referencing the first ~150 some years of US history. Again, I'm just pulling from the ruling. They accused Roe of rewriting history, and Casey eschewing it as a result. Also, this is not a "blanket ban", that would be a misinterpretation of the ruling. Instead, states now choose (aka "the people"). Not that I support it, but words matter.

Their point was Alito rewrote history in this ruling. And they didn't say the bans before Roe or after Dobbs were from the Supreme Court. States passed blanket bans.

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

#310

Post by cloutchaser » Wed, Jun 29, 2022, 11:16 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #301

hellojesus wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data? The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences. With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are…

> 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 example). Because whatever the fashion in 2022, societies need children to survive and want to incentivise it.

Now there might be edge cases in terms of children + gay couples in 2022, historically you can easily make a non religious case for marriage being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating.