4 ms·

How well do you think that's going to go if you are charged with murder? It doesn't matter a damn what /you/ (or me, or anyone) think about the ethics of the si

by harry8 4y ago

How well do you think that's going to go if you are charged with murder? It doesn't matter a damn what /you/ (or me, or anyone) think about the ethics of the situation. Plausible deniability is going to be a very weak crutch to be relying on when charged with something with an equivalent consequences to a charge murder. Defence of google policy on that basis is really a non-starter, imho. I imagine google won't actually do that themselves they'll just remain silent with PR drafted press releases talking about just how important something or other is to them with the usual total lack of substance. Are google's socially progressive positions purely marketing and they'll drop and and all of them like a hot brick if it might cost them some money or market share? Are we the baddies?

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Are we the baddies? Always have been.
olalonde 4y ago
I don't organize my life around the unlikely event that I might one day be falsely accused of murder. I don't estimate that it is worth the cost and I suspect most people share that view, as evidenced by Google's massive user base. I understand that some people do and I respect their decision. > Plausible deniability is going to be a very weak crutch to be relying on when charged with something with an equivalent consequences to a charge murder I wasn't aware that abortion was prosecuted so harshly. If that's the case, then you should indeed not rely on plausible deniability and instead, use Tor and/or DuckDuckGo. I am still defending Google's policy though. Google shouldn't cater to a minority of users (e.g. users that plan to commit murder-level crimes) to the detriment of the majority.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > I don't organize my life around the unlikely event that I might one day be falsely accused of murder. Do you routinely provide or receive a procedure that's considered by fundamentalist Christian politicians to be tantamount to murdering infants? If so, you should probably consider the possibility that one of those politicians will come for you and claim you've committed murder. They have the power to do so, and now the law is finally on their side. It's no longer an unlikely prospect.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    Do you mean that anyone who had an abortion while it was legal could now be prosecuted for "murder"? That seems insane.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      No, what I'm saying is that it's easy to pretend this isn't a problem that affects you if you aren't regularly engaging in the kind of routine activity that is now being labeled "murder". What was routine lifesaving medical care for you yesterday is now being described by political religious fanatics as infanticide. This was background noise in the past because their point of view was not supported by the law. Now it is and I fully expect them to use their newfound power to oppress women seeking lifesaving medical care. Maybe you think that is insane, but a lot of people thought a 10 year old living in a state that would force her to give birth was so insane it must be fake news. Or that it's insane a doctor would be investigated for helping a 10 year old receive lifesaving medical care she required. But here we are. Your threat assessment is outmoded by recent events. I can think of no group more dangerous than religious fanatics bent on protecting "innocents" in the name of God.
      - _gabe_ 4y ago
        > Now it is and I fully expect them to use their newfound power to oppress women seeking lifesaving medical care. I fail to see how an abortion is lifesaving medical care, can you explain what you mean by that? If you're referring to ectopic pregnancies, it looks like the majority of abortions are not due to an ectopic pregnancy. The only source I could find that actually reported the number of abortions due to ectopic pregnancies only covered 1981-1991[0]. It looks like the number of ectopic pregnancies was consistently around 80-100k whereas there were around 800k-1million abortions per year. In addition to this, I don't know of any laws that have been passed in any state banning abortions that save the life of the mother. I would love to read up on some laws that prohibit this, not an article from NYT, or Washington Post, or some other political news agency. If you know of any, please let me know because I would like to be well informed and change my mind if that's the case. > I can think of no group more dangerous than religious fanatics bent on protecting "innocents" in the name of God. And I can think of nothing more dangerous than a political group oppressing and killing people unable to defend themselves in the name of "reproductive rights". I would seriously like to see actual laws that are passed or trying to be passed to ban abortions that save the life of the mother. If you can show me evidence of that I would be willing to reconsider the consequences of overturning roe v wade. But right now, it looks like the only thing happening is states have the power again instead of the federal government. Edit: I reread your comment and it looks like you're referring to rape. Rape and incest laws also haven't been discussed yet. I don't see any Republicans targeting victims of rape and incest, and I'm sure if you talk to most of then they are OK with exceptions in these cases. Unfortunately, once again, the vast majority of abortions are not due to rape and incest. There were around 140k abortions due to rape in 2019.[1] If every single rape resulted in a pregnancy, and every single victim aborted that pregnancy, that would only account for 22% of abortions (around 640k abortions in 2019[2]). It's highly unlikely that this is the case, which means the vast majority of abortions are not due to rape and incest. It doesn't matter anyways, because even if Republicans pass laws allowing victims of rape and incest, and ectopic pregnancies to abort, I have a feeling you still won't be happy. [0]: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/149/11/1025/187423/149-11-1025.pdf https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/149/11/1025/187423/... [1]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/rape#:~:text=Overview,higher%20than%20the%202015%20estimate https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-.... [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

by harry8 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Are we the baddies? Always have been.

olalonde 4y ago

I don't organize my life around the unlikely event that I might one day be falsely accused of murder. I don't estimate that it is worth the cost and I suspect most people share that view, as evidenced by Google's massive user base. I understand that some people do and I respect their decision. > Plausible deniability is going to be a very weak crutch to be relying on when charged with something with an equivalent consequences to a charge murder I wasn't aware that abortion was prosecuted so harshly. If that's the case, then you should indeed not rely on plausible deniability and instead, use Tor and/or DuckDuckGo. I am still defending Google's policy though. Google shouldn't cater to a minority of users (e.g. users that plan to commit murder-level crimes) to the detriment of the majority.

ModernMech 4y ago
> I don't organize my life around the unlikely event that I might one day be falsely accused of murder. Do you routinely provide or receive a procedure that's considered by fundamentalist Christian politicians to be tantamount to murdering infants? If so, you should probably consider the possibility that one of those politicians will come for you and claim you've committed murder. They have the power to do so, and now the law is finally on their side. It's no longer an unlikely prospect.
- olalonde 4y ago
  Do you mean that anyone who had an abortion while it was legal could now be prosecuted for "murder"? That seems insane.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    No, what I'm saying is that it's easy to pretend this isn't a problem that affects you if you aren't regularly engaging in the kind of routine activity that is now being labeled "murder". What was routine lifesaving medical care for you yesterday is now being described by political religious fanatics as infanticide. This was background noise in the past because their point of view was not supported by the law. Now it is and I fully expect them to use their newfound power to oppress women seeking lifesaving medical care. Maybe you think that is insane, but a lot of people thought a 10 year old living in a state that would force her to give birth was so insane it must be fake news. Or that it's insane a doctor would be investigated for helping a 10 year old receive lifesaving medical care she required. But here we are. Your threat assessment is outmoded by recent events. I can think of no group more dangerous than religious fanatics bent on protecting "innocents" in the name of God.
    - _gabe_ 4y ago
      > Now it is and I fully expect them to use their newfound power to oppress women seeking lifesaving medical care. I fail to see how an abortion is lifesaving medical care, can you explain what you mean by that? If you're referring to ectopic pregnancies, it looks like the majority of abortions are not due to an ectopic pregnancy. The only source I could find that actually reported the number of abortions due to ectopic pregnancies only covered 1981-1991[0]. It looks like the number of ectopic pregnancies was consistently around 80-100k whereas there were around 800k-1million abortions per year. In addition to this, I don't know of any laws that have been passed in any state banning abortions that save the life of the mother. I would love to read up on some laws that prohibit this, not an article from NYT, or Washington Post, or some other political news agency. If you know of any, please let me know because I would like to be well informed and change my mind if that's the case. > I can think of no group more dangerous than religious fanatics bent on protecting "innocents" in the name of God. And I can think of nothing more dangerous than a political group oppressing and killing people unable to defend themselves in the name of "reproductive rights". I would seriously like to see actual laws that are passed or trying to be passed to ban abortions that save the life of the mother. If you can show me evidence of that I would be willing to reconsider the consequences of overturning roe v wade. But right now, it looks like the only thing happening is states have the power again instead of the federal government. Edit: I reread your comment and it looks like you're referring to rape. Rape and incest laws also haven't been discussed yet. I don't see any Republicans targeting victims of rape and incest, and I'm sure if you talk to most of then they are OK with exceptions in these cases. Unfortunately, once again, the vast majority of abortions are not due to rape and incest. There were around 140k abortions due to rape in 2019.[1] If every single rape resulted in a pregnancy, and every single victim aborted that pregnancy, that would only account for 22% of abortions (around 640k abortions in 2019[2]). It's highly unlikely that this is the case, which means the vast majority of abortions are not due to rape and incest. It doesn't matter anyways, because even if Republicans pass laws allowing victims of rape and incest, and ectopic pregnancies to abort, I have a feeling you still won't be happy. [0]: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/149/11/1025/187423/149-11-1025.pdf https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/149/11/1025/187423/... [1]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/rape#:~:text=Overview,higher%20than%20the%202015%20estimate https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-.... [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm