5 ms·

This thread is disgusting. All these men making excuses for why the state should investigate a 17 year old for a miscarriage. It's not your fucking business. I

This thread is disgusting. All these men making excuses for why the state should investigate a 17 year old for a miscarriage. It's not your fucking business. It's a private health matter. Period. You don't get to go on a fishing expedition "to get to the bottom" of anything after the fact with zero evidence of any wrong doing.

branon 4y ago
Agreed on your points but less sexism please. The really important part is: when you decide to break an unjust law, don't talk about it on surveilled platforms, they're complicit and will hand your ass in. Don't bring your smartphone with you either. Edit: yes I understand the laws themselves are sexist, but HN users didn't write the laws, and the "all you men" fingerpointing isn't really productive. Why the men here? You have much easier and more significant targets than male HN users. I just want to say for the record that this comment briefly had a positive score before I got dogpiled.
- bognition 4y ago
  Sure, keeping sensitive conversations off of un-surveilled systems is easy for an informed person to say but most people have no clue how much surveillance actually happens. The battle to get people to chose to use the correct tools has been lost. The only course of action here to to fight and push for privacy rights.
- munk-a 4y ago
  Sexism is unfortunately a key component of this discussion. Anti-abortion laws are focused on controlling a woman's body. I do agree that it's more productive when the conversation is civil and polite - but sexism is firmly in the middle of this particular topic.
  - 202206241203 4y ago
    - staticassertion 4y ago
      - 202206241203 4y ago
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Child support isn't hypocritical and calling that a "cancellation" makes you look like an even bigger fool. And insulting your argument is the opposite of ad hominem.
        staticassertion 4y ago
  - cr3ditcard 4y ago
    How is this about controlling a woman's body? It is the question of what life is and when is it okay to end it. I think abortions should be legal, however, whether you are a male or a female does not make your opinion more valid. Unless you think there is a difference between a baby inside of a woman and a baby outside of her.
- PedroCandeias 4y ago
  Parent is calling it out, not doing it themselves. The topic itself is deeply rooted in sexism. These kinds of transgressions against women often get drowned in debates about technicalities, which end up dominating the conversation and shifting attention away from the real problem - in this case bodily autonomy. So I for one actually applaud parent for calling it out.
- blueline 4y ago
  not sure it's realistic to expect children to have the opsec of a tech worker
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
DubiousPusher 4y ago
Making excuses for the state or making excuses for Facebook? Because I will apologize for Facebook in this case all day long. Not because I think their motives are pure. But because they are behaving exactly as the system incentivizes them. And to me, this is the most clear example of why Roe was a good precedent. Because a big part of laws is how they are enforced and there was a for some time a pro-democracy court which believed this was relevant. And now there is a legal absolutist court which believes that the letter of law is imporant and how a law is enforced can be regarded free of context at another time. But the tools of the state are blunt and this can be reason as much as justice for choosing what is and is not a crime. And to blame Facebook in this case rather than to accept that the consequence of laws is state violence is a way of deceiving oneself.
- enduser 4y ago
  Facebook lied about privacy.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    Corporations are amoral constructs. The expectation that they will behave morally and that they therefore deserve moral reciprocity is the greatest mass deception of our time. You have one legal mechanism for enforcing good behavior upon capital, democracy.
    - staticassertion 4y ago
      > Corporations are amoral constructs. Such nonsense. Corporations are a legal entity, they exist on paper. Facebook is people. People make decisions. People are not amoral.
      - DubiousPusher 4y ago
        There are countless examples of individuals placing the welfare of the corporation above their own personal morality. The same happens within the armed forces, the police, governments, religious institutions, etc. If you think there is sufficient historical precedent to believe that shaming corporations into good behavior is an effective long term way to protect individuals then we simply disagree. I think you're wrong and believe that law is the only mechanism to ensure their behavior is pro-social. To me, complaining about the bad behavior of capital is like being angry at the sun for burning you. IMO, you're only real option is to protect yourself.
wnevets 4y ago
> All these men making excuses for why the state should investigate a 17 year old for a miscarriage. I'm very curious to know what the percentage of those people self-identify as libertarians and have "don't tread on me" decals on their vehicles.
- prepend 4y ago
  I would expect 0% as those folks are pretty hard core libertarians who wouldn’t want the state interfering with medical issues.
  - wnevets 4y ago
    > I would expect 0% as those folks are pretty hard core libertarians Which folks are pretty hard core libertarians?
- yew 4y ago
  Exactly. Demanding that Facebook upend the law for personal benefit has never been a real political position. It's just animals making a mess all over the democratic system.
Jensson 4y ago
To me this is no more disgusting than whatever happens in China or the Islamist world. Very few here lives in a place where abortion is banned (abortion is legal in most of USA as well) so not sure why it is such a huge deal compared to all other shit that happens in the world. If you want this to change then vote for it to change, don't pressure Facebook to change it, encouraging companies to break laws isn't a good thing.
- necrotic_comp 4y ago
  That's a really low bar.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    No, it is a reasonable bar. People say that different states in the US are like different countries, if that was the case why are people so outraged that this happened to a girl in a different country? It isn't like I am outraged that abortion is illegal in Poland, but I would be outraged if they banned abortion in my country.
    - necrotic_comp 4y ago
      Different states are not different countries, and, if I may be so bold, the U.S. should be held to a higher standard than theocratic states or dictatorships.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  There are legal means for resisting a search warrant which a company responsible for so much personal information would hopefully pursue based on the merits and contents of a search warrant. Plenty of silicon valley companies resist laws with much larger consequences freely and mostly with impunity. Some of the same people will be saying uber was a hero for breaking taxi laws around the world (more before it became fashionable to hate uber)
  - Jensson 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colechristensen 4y ago
The state should not. Facebook should have fought the search warrant if it, say, wanted to hold on to its most valuable demographic. But the amount that you can be outraged at Facebook for complying with a court order is limited, rule of law (and not just rule of your opinion on what the law should be) is important. You definitely don't want people who have opposite opinions to be making up what they think the law should be.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  I don't think I'm anywhere near my limit with regards to outrage towards Facebook. Facebook should have protected that data better, Facebook should have fought the warrant, and yeah I'm fine with Facebook refusing to hand over the data and going to court over it. I believe that companies should be zealous advocates for their users, just as lawyers are for their clients. Facebook was not any kind of advocate here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 4y ago
> It's a private health matter. Period. Up to what point? Are you saying that someone should be allowed to abort their baby one day before it would be born on its own? That would actually be a pretty extreme opinion, and would put you in a fairly small minority. Most people recognize that somewhere along the line a fetus becomes a child with a set of basic human rights just like the rest of us. The definition of that point is the entire reason we argue incessantly about it.
- hparadiz 4y ago
  And yet this happens naturally all the time and we don't investigate every single case because it's..... A private health matter. No matter how many times I say this someone always jumps in with "what about". Let me stop you right there. It's not your business. It's a private health matter. Period. There's a reason we don't count unborn fetuses until they are actually born as people. Mainly the fact that so much can go wrong between those two points in time.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    What does whether it is investigated or not have to do with whether it is morally or legally right? A lot of rapes don't get investigated, I guess that is just a private matter too. > Let me stop you right there. It's not your business. It's a private health matter. Period That's literally the heart of the discussion. A lot of people don't view it to be a private health manner if you kill a fetus that would be perfectly fine on the outside world, but just hasn't made that transition yet. You're just saying "Stop talking. I'm right". Good for you in having confidence in your convictions I guess, but don't expect to convince anyone. > There's a reason we don't count unborn fetuses until they are actually born as people. Mainly the fact that so much can go wrong between those two points in time. Yes, and already born humans can die from natural or unnatural causes. The system is fairly good at detecting if someone died from natural or unnatural causes though, and then looking into the unnatural causes a bit deeper if it seems appropriate. How would you be able to tell if this woman (1) had an abortion(natural or unnatural), and then burned the body and buried her, or (2) gave birth at 6 months to a viable baby, and then killed her shortly after it was born?
cronix 4y ago
If it involves the legal or political system, it's all of our business, at least within whatever jurisdiction we're talking about. There aren't subjects only women get to talk about and vote on and only men get to talk about and vote on. If we vote on it (or the people who will) - we ALL get an opinion and a voice and a vote. It would also probably be good to not assume everyone's comment who you disagree with are "men."
- hparadiz 4y ago
  No. Women have the right to bodily autonomy. I don't care what the "law" says. The world is full of unjust laws of men. It's pretty clearly mostly men making these comments cause there's a distinct lack of awareness about how female anatomy actually works.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    I asked this elsewhere, but I'll ask the same question to you: Do you think it is a private health matter to abort a fetus after 40 weeks of gestation, that is 100% normal, 100% viable, and poses no abnormal risk to the mother?
    - trasz 4y ago
      Do you think parents should be forced by law to donate their organs for transplant when necessary to save their kids? Because it's the exact same situation.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        No, it clearly isn't. There is no taking of organs. It would be merely removing the parasite from the body of the host. And from a practical perspective, how exactly are you getting rid of a 40 week old fetus? You need to effectively give birth to get rid of it, regardless of whether you kill it or let it live.
        4y ago
cr3ditcard 4y ago

branon 4y ago

Agreed on your points but less sexism please. The really important part is: when you decide to break an unjust law, don't talk about it on surveilled platforms, they're complicit and will hand your ass in. Don't bring your smartphone with you either. Edit: yes I understand the laws themselves are sexist, but HN users didn't write the laws, and the "all you men" fingerpointing isn't really productive. Why the men here? You have much easier and more significant targets than male HN users. I just want to say for the record that this comment briefly had a positive score before I got dogpiled.

bognition 4y ago
Sure, keeping sensitive conversations off of un-surveilled systems is easy for an informed person to say but most people have no clue how much surveillance actually happens. The battle to get people to chose to use the correct tools has been lost. The only course of action here to to fight and push for privacy rights.
munk-a 4y ago
Sexism is unfortunately a key component of this discussion. Anti-abortion laws are focused on controlling a woman's body. I do agree that it's more productive when the conversation is civil and polite - but sexism is firmly in the middle of this particular topic.
- 202206241203 4y ago
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    - 202206241203 4y ago
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        Child support isn't hypocritical and calling that a "cancellation" makes you look like an even bigger fool. And insulting your argument is the opposite of ad hominem.
      - staticassertion 4y ago
- cr3ditcard 4y ago
  How is this about controlling a woman's body? It is the question of what life is and when is it okay to end it. I think abortions should be legal, however, whether you are a male or a female does not make your opinion more valid. Unless you think there is a difference between a baby inside of a woman and a baby outside of her.
PedroCandeias 4y ago
Parent is calling it out, not doing it themselves. The topic itself is deeply rooted in sexism. These kinds of transgressions against women often get drowned in debates about technicalities, which end up dominating the conversation and shifting attention away from the real problem - in this case bodily autonomy. So I for one actually applaud parent for calling it out.
blueline 4y ago
not sure it's realistic to expect children to have the opsec of a tech worker

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

DubiousPusher 4y ago

Making excuses for the state or making excuses for Facebook? Because I will apologize for Facebook in this case all day long. Not because I think their motives are pure. But because they are behaving exactly as the system incentivizes them. And to me, this is the most clear example of why Roe was a good precedent. Because a big part of laws is how they are enforced and there was a for some time a pro-democracy court which believed this was relevant. And now there is a legal absolutist court which believes that the letter of law is imporant and how a law is enforced can be regarded free of context at another time. But the tools of the state are blunt and this can be reason as much as justice for choosing what is and is not a crime. And to blame Facebook in this case rather than to accept that the consequence of laws is state violence is a way of deceiving oneself.

enduser 4y ago
Facebook lied about privacy.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  Corporations are amoral constructs. The expectation that they will behave morally and that they therefore deserve moral reciprocity is the greatest mass deception of our time. You have one legal mechanism for enforcing good behavior upon capital, democracy.
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    > Corporations are amoral constructs. Such nonsense. Corporations are a legal entity, they exist on paper. Facebook is people. People make decisions. People are not amoral.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      There are countless examples of individuals placing the welfare of the corporation above their own personal morality. The same happens within the armed forces, the police, governments, religious institutions, etc. If you think there is sufficient historical precedent to believe that shaming corporations into good behavior is an effective long term way to protect individuals then we simply disagree. I think you're wrong and believe that law is the only mechanism to ensure their behavior is pro-social. To me, complaining about the bad behavior of capital is like being angry at the sun for burning you. IMO, you're only real option is to protect yourself.

wnevets 4y ago

> All these men making excuses for why the state should investigate a 17 year old for a miscarriage. I'm very curious to know what the percentage of those people self-identify as libertarians and have "don't tread on me" decals on their vehicles.

prepend 4y ago
I would expect 0% as those folks are pretty hard core libertarians who wouldn’t want the state interfering with medical issues.
- wnevets 4y ago
  > I would expect 0% as those folks are pretty hard core libertarians Which folks are pretty hard core libertarians?
yew 4y ago
Exactly. Demanding that Facebook upend the law for personal benefit has never been a real political position. It's just animals making a mess all over the democratic system.

Jensson 4y ago

To me this is no more disgusting than whatever happens in China or the Islamist world. Very few here lives in a place where abortion is banned (abortion is legal in most of USA as well) so not sure why it is such a huge deal compared to all other shit that happens in the world. If you want this to change then vote for it to change, don't pressure Facebook to change it, encouraging companies to break laws isn't a good thing.

necrotic_comp 4y ago
That's a really low bar.
- Jensson 4y ago
  No, it is a reasonable bar. People say that different states in the US are like different countries, if that was the case why are people so outraged that this happened to a girl in a different country? It isn't like I am outraged that abortion is illegal in Poland, but I would be outraged if they banned abortion in my country.
  - necrotic_comp 4y ago
    Different states are not different countries, and, if I may be so bold, the U.S. should be held to a higher standard than theocratic states or dictatorships.
colechristensen 4y ago
There are legal means for resisting a search warrant which a company responsible for so much personal information would hopefully pursue based on the merits and contents of a search warrant. Plenty of silicon valley companies resist laws with much larger consequences freely and mostly with impunity. Some of the same people will be saying uber was a hero for breaking taxi laws around the world (more before it became fashionable to hate uber)
- Jensson 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

colechristensen 4y ago

The state should not. Facebook should have fought the search warrant if it, say, wanted to hold on to its most valuable demographic. But the amount that you can be outraged at Facebook for complying with a court order is limited, rule of law (and not just rule of your opinion on what the law should be) is important. You definitely don't want people who have opposite opinions to be making up what they think the law should be.

staticassertion 4y ago
I don't think I'm anywhere near my limit with regards to outrage towards Facebook. Facebook should have protected that data better, Facebook should have fought the warrant, and yeah I'm fine with Facebook refusing to hand over the data and going to court over it. I believe that companies should be zealous advocates for their users, just as lawyers are for their clients. Facebook was not any kind of advocate here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rootusrootus 4y ago

> It's a private health matter. Period. Up to what point? Are you saying that someone should be allowed to abort their baby one day before it would be born on its own? That would actually be a pretty extreme opinion, and would put you in a fairly small minority. Most people recognize that somewhere along the line a fetus becomes a child with a set of basic human rights just like the rest of us. The definition of that point is the entire reason we argue incessantly about it.

hparadiz 4y ago
And yet this happens naturally all the time and we don't investigate every single case because it's..... A private health matter. No matter how many times I say this someone always jumps in with "what about". Let me stop you right there. It's not your business. It's a private health matter. Period. There's a reason we don't count unborn fetuses until they are actually born as people. Mainly the fact that so much can go wrong between those two points in time.
- googlryas 4y ago
  What does whether it is investigated or not have to do with whether it is morally or legally right? A lot of rapes don't get investigated, I guess that is just a private matter too. > Let me stop you right there. It's not your business. It's a private health matter. Period That's literally the heart of the discussion. A lot of people don't view it to be a private health manner if you kill a fetus that would be perfectly fine on the outside world, but just hasn't made that transition yet. You're just saying "Stop talking. I'm right". Good for you in having confidence in your convictions I guess, but don't expect to convince anyone. > There's a reason we don't count unborn fetuses until they are actually born as people. Mainly the fact that so much can go wrong between those two points in time. Yes, and already born humans can die from natural or unnatural causes. The system is fairly good at detecting if someone died from natural or unnatural causes though, and then looking into the unnatural causes a bit deeper if it seems appropriate. How would you be able to tell if this woman (1) had an abortion(natural or unnatural), and then burned the body and buried her, or (2) gave birth at 6 months to a viable baby, and then killed her shortly after it was born?

cronix 4y ago

If it involves the legal or political system, it's all of our business, at least within whatever jurisdiction we're talking about. There aren't subjects only women get to talk about and vote on and only men get to talk about and vote on. If we vote on it (or the people who will) - we ALL get an opinion and a voice and a vote. It would also probably be good to not assume everyone's comment who you disagree with are "men."

hparadiz 4y ago
No. Women have the right to bodily autonomy. I don't care what the "law" says. The world is full of unjust laws of men. It's pretty clearly mostly men making these comments cause there's a distinct lack of awareness about how female anatomy actually works.
- googlryas 4y ago
  I asked this elsewhere, but I'll ask the same question to you: Do you think it is a private health matter to abort a fetus after 40 weeks of gestation, that is 100% normal, 100% viable, and poses no abnormal risk to the mother?
  - trasz 4y ago
    Do you think parents should be forced by law to donate their organs for transplant when necessary to save their kids? Because it's the exact same situation.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      No, it clearly isn't. There is no taking of organs. It would be merely removing the parasite from the body of the host. And from a practical perspective, how exactly are you getting rid of a 40 week old fetus? You need to effectively give birth to get rid of it, regardless of whether you kill it or let it live.
      - 4y ago

cr3ditcard 4y ago