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

321–330 of 331 posts

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

#321

Post by Grustaf »

malfist wrote: post #314
Grustaf wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

At 8 or 9 months it clearly is. It looks like a child, it dreams, it kicks, listens to voices. Its nature doesn't change when it leaves the womb.

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

#322

Post by Grustaf »

taylodl wrote: post #313
Grustaf wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I'm not doing that. I don't doubt that you had a rough childhood, your mother is clearly an unfit parent. I still maintain that preemptively killing children because they might end up in bad families is not the way to go. A working social safety net, adoption, financial support for those in need are the humane way to solve it.

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

#323

Post by taylodl »

Grustaf wrote: post #322
taylodl wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I'm not doing that. I don't doubt that you had a rough childhood, your mother is clearly an unfit parent. I still maintain that preemptively killing children because they might end up in bad families is not the way to go. A working social safety net, adoption, financial support for those in need are the humane way to solve it.

Here's the thing - women getting an abortion is a condemnation of our system. We had the opportunity to do all those things you suggest. We failed. We had all the motivation in the world to make it happen - save the children. Provide a viable alternative. We failed. How you think continuing to fail in solving these problems and then forcing women to have unwanted children is going to lead to anything good - actually it tells me you're most likely to be evil and simply aren't aware of it since you're accustomed to thinking of yourself as a good guy. Lucky for you I think Hanlon's Razor applies.

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

#324

Post by Grustaf »

taylodl wrote: post #323
Grustaf wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm not doing that. I don't doubt that you had a rough childhood, your mother is clearly an unfit parent. I still maintain that preemptively killing children because they might end up in bad families is not the way to go. A working social safety net, adoption, financial support for those in need are the humane way to solve it.

Here's the thing - women getting an abortion is a condemnation of our system. We had the opportunity to do all those things you suggest. We failed. We had all the motivation in the world to make it happen - save the children. Provide a viable alternative. We failed. How you think continuing to fail in solving these problems and then forcing women to have unwanted children is going to lead to anything good - actually…

I'm evil because I don't want children to be killed? That's a new one.

What do you mean "we failed"? Clearly it's not impossible to have a working welfare system. Almost all developed nations manage it, many of which are poorer than the US. Just try again.

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

#325

Post by jonhohle »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #185
jonhohle wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Babies survive outside the womb prior to 20 weeks. That will continue to go down as technology progresses. What does cost have to do with whether someone is a person?

Sorry, I misread “given the technology” as today’s technology. But then I do not see how the concept of viability is legal fiction. Medical science can keep fetuses born after x weeks alive with y probability, and that y is near 0 or 0 before x weeks. Cost had to do with practicality. It does not seem reasonable to expect a society to invest $10M into raising a 1 week old fetus that will need 24/7 support to live. Po…

It’s legal fiction in that the concept was created in a court to justify why a person at a certain developmental stage wasn’t really a person. It’s not a scientific definition, a “law” of nature, or previous cultural definition. The idea was created to advance a legal argument. It’s fiction in that the value chosen was arbitrary then, is not a discrete event or time period, and by the same standard, is earlier than when defined and will continue to be earlier as technology advances.

The practicality of saving a life is certainly different than the legal justification to end a life. The point of technology being able to support development outside of a womb is evidence, imo, of the organism being independent from the mother. If that organism is individual and human, (s)he should have the full rights of all persons.

To me that means finding options that don’t involve terminating lives when the mother decides they are not prepared to parent. Right now the options outside abortion place significant strain on mothers, but as a society, 50 years have been spent not investigating alternatives and going all in on abortion. It’s already possible to transfer embryos fertilized in a lab successfully into an unrelated host.

Ultimately it is a philosophical argument. I can’t find any argument that has convinced me that a human is a human regardless of the stage of development or capabilities of the person. I’ve argued that “viability” will continue to be earlier for the past 20 years and haven’t been wrong about that yet. It’s currently limited by technology, but that shouldn’t impact the rights of individuals (in this case the unborn).

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

#326

Post by [deleted] »

Grustaf wrote: post #324
taylodl wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing - women getting an abortion is a condemnation of our system. We had the opportunity to do all those things you suggest. We failed. We had all the motivation in the world to make it happen - save the children. Provide a viable alternative. We failed. How you think continuing to fail in solving these problems and then forcing women to have unwanted children is going to lead to anything good - actually…

I'm evil because I don't want children to be killed? That's a new one. What do you mean "we failed"? Clearly it's not impossible to have a working welfare system. Almost all developed nations manage it, many of which are poorer than the US. Just try again.

[deleted]

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

#327

Post by taylodl »

Grustaf wrote: post #324
taylodl wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing - women getting an abortion is a condemnation of our system. We had the opportunity to do all those things you suggest. We failed. We had all the motivation in the world to make it happen - save the children. Provide a viable alternative. We failed. How you think continuing to fail in solving these problems and then forcing women to have unwanted children is going to lead to anything good - actually…

I'm evil because I don't want children to be killed? That's a new one. What do you mean "we failed"? Clearly it's not impossible to have a working welfare system. Almost all developed nations manage it, many of which are poorer than the US. Just try again.

I don't believe you're arguing in good faith any longer. I was giving you the benefit of being ignorant, but you persisted. Now I'm going with evil. You are tone deaf beyond the pale.

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

#328

Post by triceratops »

cloutchaser wrote: post #320
triceratops wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Thanks for making my point for me.

Your point was a "marriage" is a requirement for raising children well. And a "marriage" is solely for procreation. I proved that both are false by providing countercases. You didn't even attempt to engage with the second point. And in fact you seem to be agreeing with me on my first point.

I don't think you understand how a debate works. This ain't YouTube, there's no partisan audience that will clap when you say "So then you agree with me" for something completely illogical. I can't help you any further and I wish you luck.

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

#329

Post by triceratops »

hellojesus wrote: post #319
triceratops wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 argu…

> the government incentivized marriage because it led to both the creation of children

Except this part is false. Because, as I mentioned previously, not every hetero marriage could lead to creating children. There have never been any strong religious restrictions on old people, or people with known infertility getting married in Western society.

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

So...marriage? In US law at least, there aren't any religious components to marriage. No religious body needs to be involved to have a marriage be legally valid. You go down to city hall, get a marriage license, and you're done. There's no legal requirement that a religious institution that objects to a marriage, for any reason, has to perform that marriage. Can divorced Catholics remarry in a Catholic church now, without getting a dispensation?

Now if your objection is to the use of the word "marriage" to refer to partnerships that certain religions don't agree with...I don't really know what to say. That's everyday language at work. You can't stop people from using words the way they want. And it's not a real problem that the government should be involved in.

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

#330

Post by luxuryballs »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #54
luxuryballs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

No one has ever been sad that they weren't born. "How would you feel if you weren't born?" is a nonsensical question.

Yeah but you can be glad that you’re alive and find your life to be an experience you’re glad you’re having.
Post reply on HN