We want Texans to know their rights • Hacker News Board

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#81

Post by estearum » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 1:12 PM UTC

jkahrs595 wrote: post #4

pton_xd wrote: post #2

"Last May, EFF reported that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion." These people really have nothing better to do?

They literally think they are doing the work of some divine creator. They have plenty of time to ruin the lives of other people because they think it saves their own.

Really insightful comment. Couldn't agree more.

And many of these people really do need their Good Works on the force to do the saving, because God knows what they do to their wives and kids back home.

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#82

Post by Joker_vD » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 2:25 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #79

Joker_vD wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not realize that this argument applies equally well both against pro-choice and against pro-lifers? It does, therefore it is entirely invalid and irrelevant. Yes, those people with "false beliefs". Ah, if only we could force everyone to have true beliefs. And it's not against freedom of thought and consciousness, oh no! We're only against actually false beliefs. That, you know, have been proven wrong. Or at le…

He said nothing about forcing. Suppose the false belief he was talking about was Creationism. Does his comment read as authoritarian?

Yes, it does.

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#83

Post by gershy » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

TripolitianFish wrote: post #67

gershy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some would argue there are too many harms that occur if antiabortion measures aren't taken :(

Either argue the point or stop talking. This is a very hard position to take seriously, twee frowny face and all, if you’re willing to sell down the river the privacy of a largely vulnerable population because some sanctimonious humanism. :(

I am not an antiabortion crusader. I'm offering what I understand to be the antiabortion position here. By ":(" I wanted to imply "Unfortunately there are seemingly lots of people who seem to hold this view genuinely and very strongly", which was not my greatest moment of clear communication.

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#84

Post by nailer » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

adrian_b wrote: post #77

andsoitis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> getting an abortion is a minute not spent tracking down a murderer but see, there are people who believe abortion is murder, and perhaps one of the worst forms of murder because of its victim’s extreme innocence since it has not caused any harm in this world.

[flagged]

> I would accept that such people are entitled to their beliefs only if they would equally believe in the extreme innocence of a chicken who has not caused any harm in this world and they would seek to punish the murderer of the chicken.

Why is equating human and chicken life necessary for you to accept that people are entitled to their beliefs?

> A finger is not able to live independently, but the same is true for an embryo.

The finger is the person's DNA. The child is not their DNA.

In a 2025 University of Iowa single-center study (published in JAMA Network Open), out of 22 infants born alive at 21 weeks gestation, resuscitation was attempted in 17. 6 survived to NICU discharge (about 35%), and 1 remained hospitalized.

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#85

Post by stackghost » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

impish9208 wrote: post #78

stackghost wrote: post #61

If rights can be capriciously and arbitrarily curtailed by armed agents of the state while effete judges yeet sternly-worded letters into the void, then those "rights" are worth about as much as the USA's signature on an international treaty. Which is to say, nothing.

> …while effete judges yeet sternly-worded letters into the void… You, sir, have a way with words.

In going to choose to take this as a compliment :)

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#86

Post by cmxch » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 7:00 PM UTC

jmclnx wrote: post #5

Trasmatta wrote: post #3

It's no longer safe to even use a period tracking app in many US states now. The women I know are all cautioning each other to go back to pen and paper, and ditch anything app based.

Most of us here knows ways around this, but many people are not educated. One method is get off your smart phone and boot tails and do the searches there. Maybe that is something EFF can make known. Like list trusted onion sites that have information where women can go and get help.

[dead]

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#87

Post by silexia » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 8:43 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#88

Post by JoshTriplett » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 9:00 PM UTC

Joker_vD wrote: post #82

lern_too_spel wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said nothing about forcing. Suppose the false belief he was talking about was Creationism. Does his comment read as authoritarian?

Yes, it does.

It's fascinating that you are attempting to portray a comment as authoritarian that is arguing people should not enforce their false beliefs on others and should not restrict their bodily autonomy. It's literally an argument against being authoritarian.

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#89

Post by bit-anarchist » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

none2585 wrote: post #65

ecshafer wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You cum into a paper towel again and throw it away - is that murder?

Given what OP said, probably not:

> There is no clear discrete point, other than insemination where it is not murder vs murder.

Will you actually address this point?

Re: We want Texans to know their rights

#90

Post by bit-anarchist » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #88

Joker_vD wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does.

It's fascinating that you are attempting to portray a comment as authoritarian that is arguing people should not enforce their false beliefs on others and should not restrict their bodily autonomy. It's literally an argument against being authoritarian .

What I understood their point to be is that the only reason they are "false beliefs" is your own biases. If they aren't actual "false beliefs", then the restrictions on bodily autonomy are as justified as when dealing with killings, and your argument degenerates into pro-authoritarism.