The end of Roe will bring about a sea change in the encryption debate
cyberlaw.stanford.edu
cyberlaw.stanford.edu
> Tech companies: Do you want to help put your users behind bars by handing over the data you hold about them in response to legal demands by law enforcement? Do you not really care if they go to prison, but do care about the bad PR you’ll get if the public finds out about it? Then start planning now for what you’re going to do when – not if – those demands start coming in. Data minimization and end-to-end-encryption are more important than ever. And start worrying about internal access controls and insider threats, too: don’t assume that none of your employees would ever dream of quietly digging through users’ data looking for people they could dox to the police in anti-abortion jurisdictions. Protecting your users is already so hard, and it’s going to get a lot harder. Update your threat models.
It's only in the last few years that some messenger services have probably (?) got secure group chat right. That's how hard it is for a well-studied application. Expecting developers to do this for lifestyle trackers is asking a lot.
It would be much more efficient for society if the government didn't criminalize common behaviors, requiring regular citizens to have nation-state-proof opsec.
There are a lot of people in tech (and, quite likely, on HN) who work for companies with such a profile. (Just for instance, everyone working for Google, Facebook, etc.) I doubt it's a majority, which is why the comment appears to have returned to a positive score, but there's certainly a strong contingent that could very well feel threatened by the idea that we might, as a society, have to abandon profiting off other people's data as a business model.
Better yet, though, why "on prem" when virtually everyone has a supercomputer in their pocket all the time ?
Remote access is a good point, but most commercial sensitive data (medical, manufacturing, etc) is location use restricted anyway.
For example, defense-in-depth was once an academic notion that nobody seriously considered due to the difficulty of implementing it. Far better if the operators would only be more vigilent or the perimeter were just made stronger. Then the threat model began to morph and the legal liability framework changed and suddenly nobody was laughing anymore.
Talking in terms of "people should" and "people shouldn't" and "if only this group would" is avoiding reality. And reality doesn't care if you're ready for it.
Personal data is a liability. We can profit from it now because we're still in the heyday, but that's going to end.
hence f-droid would not be able to comply with such an order since it doesn't even have a concept of user acounts. same goes for most linux distributions
I'm sure other developed nations have similar power to compel their citizens.
this is quite different from laws that allow to push a specifically crafted app to a particular individual.
and even the australian law apparently states that companies cannot be compelled to introduce a "systemic weakness" or a "systemic vulnerability"
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/australia-passes...
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/new_australia...
>The current law prohibits the creation of a “systemic weakness” or “systemic vulnerability” in encryption and other systems of “electronic protection,” terms that have proved difficult to define.
They can be compelled to introduce decryption and interception capability. It's just sophistry for them to say that this can't introduce weakness or vulnerability in the underlying system.
[1] https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/03/31/encryption-debate-i...
>The legislation ... creates a new framework for law enforcement agencies to request or compel technical assistance from tech companies, even to create new capabilities such as backdoors to get around the encryption in some of their products. [2]
They request a backdoor in the encryption and if the cooperator does not cooperate, then fine the company / Australian citizen and if they enter the country again, they can go to jail.
[1] https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryptio...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/09/austr...
Since googling a bit more, this is the best overview of the legislation: https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/03/31/encryption-debate-i...
You don't need to have personal data in your server logs.
You don't need to see the production data of your users in your database tables to make migrations that work. (You do have a staging environment, right?)
When you’re trying to debug a data corruption issue in user data, not being able to log data related to it makes it harder.
Also, keeping track of all the GDPR type sensitive data everywhere is harder than just YOLO’ing it, of course.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Parent provides 0, just hyperbole.
Highly sensitive personal information like medical records are of course easier to ignore.
It's not only about which data goes trough your system. It's about what you do with it.
When I go to my friend's house they also see my face and hear my voice, but they don't record it. That's an important distinction when it comes to privacy.
Which is pretty much any non-toy system, and a bunch of toy systems.
And you’d be surprised how many friends are recording, especially if they have kids - nanny cams, home security cameras, ring/doorbell cameras, etc.
It’s probably 50% or more of households now.
It doesn’t require that they’ve got a mic taped to their chest to be doing so.
Having said that, unless you work for an insurance company or something directly involved in healthcare i can't imagine how your product would know somebody had an abortion?
(although tbh anybody who gathers that sort of data is pretty despicable and I can't imagine them suddenly changing it now).
It depends on the law being enforced, doesn't it? For example is someone is accuse of peddling CSAM then tech companies would be tripping over themselves to hand over data. In fact tech companies (e.g. Apple) will try to set up dragnets that even catch innocents under the premise that it's better to hassle a few thousand innocents than let even one offender escape.
As for abortion, are all tech companies pro choice? I don't ink because it never was a relevant question before since choice was legal for decades.
You have a right to free speech as per the 1st, that includes transmitting gibberish, you have a right against unlawful searches and seizures as per the 4th, they have to basically already know what you're up to in order to force you to cooperate in an investigation, you have a right against self incrimination as per the 5th. That about covers encryption. I'm not quite sure what part of the constitution covers abortion, and I'm familiar with the ruling. While I don't want to comment on whether abortion should be legal or not in any given state, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with more than a cursory understanding on this topic that it is not actually constitutionally protected in the US, regardless whether you feel it should be or not.
With abortion, though, that assumption goes out the window. Many people, especially tech workers in coastal states, strongly believe that laws criminalizing abortion are downright evil. This would be a huge shift in that, for the first time, many of these folks could be convinced that protection from sharing data with the state, even one you think has generally "good" laws, because the idea to share data to prosecute someone for aiding an abortion is so deeply abhorrent to them. For these folks, it's likely this is the first time that the importance of strong encryption will "click" for them, due to them feeling like this is a clear case where legal requests from US law enforcement are unambiguously wrong.
There plenty of laws that “coastal tech workers” didn’t agree with long before abortion jumped into the headlines.
I fail to see how anything has changed other than another straw on the pile of hay.
1. Laws against gay marriage. Gay marriage has been legal in all US states since 2015. But specifically as it relates to encryption, even if gay marriage were made illegal again, it's not quite like people would be getting "surreptitiously" married (the whole point of legal gay marriage is legal benefits and societal acceptance), so I don't think folks would think that a governmental data request would somehow "expose" someone who was gay and married.
2. Lawrence v Texas outlawed most laws against homosexuality in 2003, before most people were aware of the issues of broad data collection (and before tech companies started to go all in on it). But I totally agree, if Lawrence v Texas were overturned, I think it would absolutely be in the bucket of Roe v Wade being overturned as it relates to tech workers thinking government data requests could be "evil".
3. Laws against drugs. Even if you disagree with the war on drugs, I think most tech workers, even if they were uncomfortable with a government data request for drug crimes, could quite easily rationalize it as "OK, the government is probably going after some big drug dealer who does bad shit. They're not likely going to ask Google for a data request for someone with a joint on them." I think that's fundamentally different from them thinking "The government wants data so they can arrest this woman who had an abortion."
4. Laws like asset forfeiture. Again, even if tech workers had real problems with asset forfeiture laws, I think most people could be able to rationalize a data request for it.
And perhaps most importantly is that Roe v. Wade has been the status quo for 50 years. It's not just about "tech workers disagree with a law", but it's about "tech workers seeing an important right being removed", and the emotions involved there are very different. If personal marijuana use was legal nationwide for 50 years, but then SCOTUS suddenly decided it would be OK for governments to start throwing people in jail for it, I think that would be a much more comparable situation.
That doesn't seem logical.
You don't seem to be asking, but for Roe vs Wade it's the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you agree with it, if you're familiar with the ruling then you must know that much.
When this future ruling comes down, I highly doubt you'll be citing it as justification for it's own existence and saying that disagreement is irrelevant. Those that are happy with it won't be either, they'll justify it by saying it is the correct one, in their opinion. Whether one agrees or not is at the core of the conversation.
All it says is: "everyone born here is a person" and "we don't recognize politicians or debt from rebellions."
- States are bound by the bill of rights (eg. they can’t violate your free speech for instance)
- States can’t tell you where your kid has to go to school, or what they can or can’t study
- States can’t restrict access to contraceptives
Since the 9th amendment acknowledges the existence of rights NOT enumerated in the constitution, the court decided that it has to look at rights that are historical and customary, or contained in the “penumbra” of enumerated rights. Since you have a right to be safe from searches and seizures, and to be free from having the government quarter troops in your home, and whatever unenumerated rights exist, they’d several years prior agreed includes “marital privacy” to protect couples’ rights to choose whether to use birth control. Shortly thereafter in Roe they decided that women have a right to choose to get an abortion prior to the first trimester. They chose that cutoff based on historical and customary treatment of abortion in English common law as well as older western legal traditions.
That’s a pretty brief summary, but that’s how they got there.
That's the one people use, right?
The Founders covered this in their writings. The defined rights were not to be considered the extent of the rights afforded the people.
They worried about including a specific Bill of Rights as it would lead to belief rights were indeed limited to the things they included.
A right to one’s own bodily agency, to discuss and engage in medical discourse and behaviors, is not explicitly called out in the Bill of Rights but it’s also not explicitly denied. The court uses that logic constantly when it empowers elites.
I think it’s pretty obvious America is done for since the people themselves believe now the powers that be can police their speech and agency in private settings when it’s merely what they don’t agree with.
Everything we could be trying to use & understand about ourselves is now a hazard, under the eyes of a pernicious, vicious, angry state.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273356 (160points, 6 years, 65 comments)
Q: When would one say that happened? Is there somewhere one can track which side (although I hate to use that phrase) has had a majority over which period?
Under Trump’s presidency, since he appointed three justices. The most significant shift was in 2020, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barret. Ginsburg was one of the most liberal justices.
Supreme court justice’s are non-partisan and don’t represent a political party, but they generally reflect the beliefs and ideology of the president who appoints them in their interpretation of the role of the constitution. e.g. originalism vs. a living document.
> Is there somewhere one can track which side (although I hate to use that phrase) has had a majority over which period?
That’s a good question, that would be a helpful resource. This seems like a good place to start:
https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-supreme-court-ideology-has...
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...
I’m aware of her comments on Roe vs. Wade, I just didn’t think it was relevant. She was a liberal justice who was replaced with a conservative justice.
I’m curious what her stance would be if she was still on the court. Despite her comments, I don’t believe she would have overturned it.
For her not to overturn it would be a pretty significant compromise of integrity.
The fact that something can be unconstitutional does not mean the same thing is illegal.
It is not of federal jurisdiction to set the precedent on the matter.
Every pro-abortionist seems to casually brush aside the fact that this has more to do with federal power than abortion
(As one of my teachers once said to me) I was expecting a slightly fully answer :)
(Disclosure: I don't live in the US)
Don't we at least have to look at who was replaced and what their voting record was?
It seems simplistic to say that any justice appointed by a President in party X is strictly supportive of X's policy. What would that mean anyway, since from the outside it seems there are a fairly broad range of policies and view on major issues inside each of the two parties...?
In the UK there's TheyWorkForYou[0] where you can search for your political representative and get a quick overview on how they vote by policy area, and a deeper list of voting record on individual votes grouped by topic. You can find MPs inside one party with wildly different voting records. Is there something like this for the US Supreme Court? If not, why not?
I know it's fictional, but I'm thinking of The West Wing S05E17 "The Supremes" and the scene towards the end in the Roosevelt Room[1] in which it turns out that pigeonholing people isn't quite as straightforward as we might think.
[0] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes_(The_West_Wing)
Yes. Trump appointed three justices who replaced Ginsberg (strong liberal), Kennedy (moderate, lean conservative), and Scalia (strong conservative). All three of Trump's appointments are more conservative than Kennedy.
It is true that the SCOTUS tends to be less ideologically rigid than the other major institutions and there are plenty of 9-0 decisions. But the West Wing episode is fictional. It is the sort of thing that people with were true. For the most controversial topics (abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, election policy), the justices are much more aligned with their associated parties. This is because they are selected based on their beliefs on these topics. As in, conservative administrations literally develop a list of justices that they know have opinions about various critical topics and use that to filter their selection options. And liberal administrations do the same.
Would it be hopelessly optimistic to suggest one might want to qualify that and say that "based on their previous decisions they appear to be more conservative than Kennedy"?
> SCOTUS tends to be less ideologically rigid than the other major institutions
Yet even in here, commentary on appointments to SCOTUS appears to show a fair degree of ideological rigidity.
> the justices are much more aligned with their associated parties
As I said before, at least from the outside it looks like there is a fair degree of non-alignment within the parties on major topics.
Even though I am a pro-choice liberal, I recognize that Roe v Wade was a poor decision and approve its overturning on that basis.
The federal government does not have the authority make every decision and such is reflected in the correct ruling. States can decide where they will draw the line.
Constantly there is this voice of anti-reason, that fails to recognize jurisdiction and jurisprudence. This is a country of law and order. You are not the arbiter of law by virtue of your position on 'justice'
Reading this, I knew he was right, but formed my own opinion that math and reality should decide that balance. Math has spoken, and it is in favor of encryption. The day may come when the pendulum swings back and a way is revealed to break all forms of encryption, if that is the case, then so be it, then and now doing math should remain legal.
(Not exactly a fresh idea, but I wanted to write it.)
"It's hard to care about foundation repair when you're lying in the rubble with broken bones." Well sure! You had decades to care!
This isn't a privacy issue any more than the legality of anything else is a privacy issue. Things don't become legal just because they're done in secret. It's not even a controlling-women issue.
The abortion debate is, and has always been, a question of whether fetuses are alive enough for the term "murder" to apply to them. The longer we refuse to meet the opponent on those grounds, the longer every single thing we say will continue to sound like "it's okay to murder people because I'm doing so privately".
This isn't to say the loss of those rights is okay. But our side did just get called out on some obvious bullshit, and if we want to get those rights back, we really need to do better than tenuous strawman arguments.
Unless, of course, our goal isn't to win, but to just be eternally aggrieved. I am increasingly convinced that is the case.
It's worked pretty well for the conservatives the past couple decades.
It's true that good argument's rarely change people's mind about the issue. But a good argument, one that shows you are capable of seeing things from the other side, can change another person's mind about you.
The whole abortion debate is a political tool to rally people behind. It is irrational precisely for this too work. Abortion proponents are not interested in debate and a reasonable outcome.
The way I see internet debates is like this: am I going to change this person's mind? Probably not. But this is a public forum, and there are many other people watching. Some are young people poking their heads into politics for the first time. Those people are the ones dragging the Overton window around.
I do not want their first impression of my side of an issue to be "wow, these people are just incoherently mad about everything, but the other side has a bunch of well-reasoned arguments". Regardless of my opinion on the premises of those arguments - and that's all this is, you're starting from different premises than me and you reached the only reasonable conclusion from there - that is going to affect their perceptions of my side and push them toward the people I disagree with.
They're not people. Lots of things are alive - spiders, bacteria, grass, mushrooms, there are even cogent arguments for saying viruses may be alive. The use of the term "murder" for non-people is merely an attempt at emotional manipulation.
Now, I don't think newborn babies are people either, but the nice thing about a newborn baby is that you can just give it to somebody else which simplifies the ethics considerably, it's no more difficult to decide what we should do about a newborn whose mother can't or won't keep it than for a puppy.
What is it, exactly, about newborn babies (for now, I'll ask about embryos later) that makes you think they are "not people"? Is it something they do, or something they don't/can't do? Something else?
Full disclosure: i don't think the debate is on these grounds, i think the violinist or the seed-people are better ways to think about abortion right now (and at least until unwanted children are completely taken care of by the society and not the mother, and until a pregnancy gives you a white year/have no influence on your career prospects).
But I did some research last year about consciousness in animals (i was always a functionalist, Chamets made me an illusionnist, i wanted to understand what it meant for animals and for AI). I was quite shocked to learn that a baby in his first weeks had a worse sense than any newborn mammal, and than most birds.
What does that mean? For functionalists (probably GP is one), going full moral utilitarist, killing a litter (to avoid getting overwhelmed by kittens) is probably ten time worse than killing a three weeks old baby. Luckily, while i think utilitarist moral intuitions are probably the most accurate, I'm not fully utilitarist, and this kind of intuition repulse me.
All of this to say that thinking logically, being pro-life to avoid 'murder' should push people to go full vegan (or eating only insects and seafood), and aborting a cat or killing a litter should be prosecuted as well.
The argument seems to be made in defense of allowing abortion because, ostensibly, who wouldn't want to say "get this violinist off of me" in that situation, and of course if one were raped and found out pregnant wouldn't you definitely want to be able to get that violinist out of your uterus.
But, it's not the same thing at all, because if you were to separate yourself from the violinist, they would die from their disease / from not being given very extraordinary aid, but if you were to separate yourself from the fetus, it would die from not being given very ordinary means of sustenance.
... and then something about saying that tialaramex is a functionalist (? I can't say whether I agree here). I am also repulsed by any thought that some calculus would allow us to say that N kittens are "worth" M human babies (for whatever M,N).
> being pro-life to avoid 'murder' should push people to go full vegan
Murder is a particular word we only use when a person kills another person. We wouldn't use it for killing animals, ... or for an animal killing a hum-- wait, here:
|--------------------+--------+--------|
| perp | victim | result |
|--------------------+--------+--------|
| human | human | murder |
|--------------------+--------+--------|
| human | horse | kill |
| lion | human | kill |
| cat | bird | kill |
| dog | dog | kill |
| bacteria | ape | kill |
|--------------------+--------+--------|
| thinking rocks [0] | human | kill |
|--------------------+--------+--------|
Killing animals for food is perfectly fine, but killing them for sport is very much not.
> full vegan (or eating only insects and seafood)
Because they have lower consciousness or something?
Why does whether it's a common (pregancy) or uncommon (violinist hooked up to sleeper) occurrence alter the moral status of disconnecting the person who is reliant on their connection to another for their continued existence?
If instead of being sewn up with a violinist, the person in the thought experiment woke up with an embryo implanted in their uterus, then separating themselves from the embryo would be removing ordinary aid and the embryo would die from being deprived of basic nutrition.
This latter case is what happens in e.g. date rape, which is, I think, the whole purpose of the "violinist" thought experiment to begin with.
But specifically, they don't seem to be aware of themselves as distinct from everything else, which is a prerequisite.
Are they no longer people? The machines keeping them alive are taking up resources, maybe it would be fine to disconnect them since there seems to longer by anybody home.
The thing is, some of those people actually recover: https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/the-story-behind-a-ve... .
What about the mentally handicapped? How are we to assess the internal state of a non-verbal person to determine whether they are aware of anything?
Making judgements about a person's quality of life and using those to justify killing them is inhumane.
Is it possible to get it wrong? Sure. Over history we've got this wrong lots of times, and as you showed the most dramatic examples make news. I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretence that newborns are people.
> I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretense that newborns are people.
Well, you're the one proposing this radical idea that newborns aren't people (and suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people"); you justify it.
At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? We can't check with you on a case-by-case basis.
Such patients weren't in fact dead. They were, it turns out, very much alive and still forming memories. Resurrection is not a thing.
> suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people"
Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't.
As I think I already said, the nice thing about a newborn baby from an ethical point of view is that it's not biologically dependent on the mother for life support, so you can just find somebody to adopt it. Turns out there are in fact plenty of would-be adoptive parents.
> At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people?
This appears to be a gradual process. Parents will be able to tell you it really sneaks up on you. Fortunately it will almost never matter exactly when and so there's no reason to expend thought on drawing a line in the sand for something you're never going to need to care about.
> Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't.
It wouldn't be, but what I'm driving at is that killing a newborn (or fetus) is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog.
There is no calculus whereby one can say that some number of animals is "worth more" than some number of humans who may be deficient in some way (too young, unaware of their surroundings, apparently mentally handicapped, severely physically handicapped, whatever), or that killing the latter is "more okay" than killing the former.
Notice how rather than offer any rationale for why you believe this, you just state it - as if astonished that most people don't agree. You've gone from supposed "curiosity" to just re-starting your beliefs and asserting that everybody else is wrong.
Most people who get there do so via dogmatic belief, that is, an insistence that there is no rationale, they don't need one because there are just some things which are correct and everyone will "obviously" believe those things. This can run into a pretty nasty problem beyond just being obviously wrong, which is that it's contrary to Freedom of Conscience and thus if you have power to "enforce" it you've got a UDHR violation...
I think a lot of people would agree, though, if left alone with nothing to do except think about whether it's okay to kill a helpless person because we think they can't feel it, or are unaware of what's happening.
I looked at the language in the UDHR and right there in Article 1, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." French naissant, Spanish nacen, Russian рождаются, etc. That's unfortunate.
The UDHR builds on such documents as the Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads "Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s [...] disability, birth or other status." [0] (emphasis added), and the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child which reads "The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development" [1] (emphasis added).
The UDHR text should read "All human beings are conceived free and equal in dignity and rights."
[0] Article 2, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-te... [1] http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm
I think it should say "people" or perhaps "persons" but that didn't happen for a different reason that I'm sure you likewise have dogmatic beliefs about.
The Declaration isn't supplied with teeth, but even without them it seems especially nonsensical to insist upon denying facts. Pregnancies are aborted spontaneously all the time, merely "conceiving" a human being means almost nothing.
I'm well aware pregnancies are commonly spontaneously aborted, but the key word there is spontaneously, "without apparent cause or stimulus", i.e. not through the choice or neglect of the mother.
See, you didn't need any help. Given that some were insistent that humans are not animals, and others were insistent that some ethnic or religious groups of humans aren't people, the resolution was to highlight that the latter claim is wrong, and give up on the other claim for the time being.
This means that status of other species (e.g. octopuses) is not recognised in the UDHR. Arguably a realistic setting of priorities, but still unfortunate in my view of course.
> the key word there is spontaneously
So how is your intuition for other spontaneous events? If your child is spontaneously struck down by Influenza, too bad - they live or die and you're not bothered either way? If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you?
yes
> and you're not bothered either way?
of course I'd be bothered. elsewhere in this thread I mentioned grieving the loss of the two miscarriages that my wife and I knew about.
> If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you?
Either you or I or both of us have really lost the thread here... I guess the falling down the stairs might be considered spontaneous but the others stepping over him instead of helping him is deliberate and probably reprehensible.
> it's not easy standing up for what you believe is the truth when it's inconvenient
From what I can tell, it sure doesn't seem like what you "believe is the truth" is inconvenient for you at all. For somebody who just had about 1% of their lifespan re-assigned as human incubator it seems pretty damn inconvenient.
Your use of the passive voice here makes it seem like the woman wasn't involved in the decision. Choosing to rely on contraception, which has a low but nonzero failure rate, means accepting the low but nonzero possibility of conceiving a child. Having sex without the willingness to bear possible children is tacitly accepting a possibility of needing to kill that child.
The only acceptable choice is to only have sex when you're willing to keep the natural products of sex. This applies to men and women alike. It might be difficult or hard to imagine for some, but it's simple.
I would absolutely support the government easing the burden of women impregnated by rape, including free ultrasounds, pregnancy-related physician visits, a stipend to make it easier for them to order food when they're nauseated and don't want to cook, hell even massages by pregnancy-certified masseuses. Until the government provides those services, I do what I can by donating to life centers.
Let's try again, "For somebody who just had 1% of their lifespan re-assigned by Phil Snowberger here". Does that make it clear where the problem is now?
> The abortion debate is, and has always been, a question of whether fetuses are alive enough for the term "murder" to apply to them. The longer we refuse to meet the opponent on those grounds, the longer every single thing we say will continue to sound like "it's okay to murder people because I'm doing so privately".
I don't see how the abortion debate ever was about whether murder applies to fetuses. That's just been a figleaf. The self-proclaimed "pro-life" movement also strongly supports the death penalty, strongly oppose any sort of financial aid for poor children, are typically strong supporters of the military and violent intervention, unconditionally support the police in police violence cases, support corporal punishment of children etc.. "Pro-life" supporters have shown absolute disregard for born life, so I can not take serious a claim that they care about unborn life. Moreover, they oppose the measure which has been shown to be the most effective of reducing abortions, sexual education and availability of contraception. Make no mistake, the abortion debate has always been about forcing a specific belief system on everyone, once abortion rights have been taken away, they will move to the next part of their belief system to force on others.
> The self-proclaimed "pro-life" movement also strongly supports the death penalty, strongly oppose any sort of financial aid for poor children, are typically strong supporters of the military and violent intervention, unconditionally support the police in police violence cases, support corporal punishment of children etc..
This is an incoherent straw man caricature of "the right". Unfortunately for us all, there are tons of people in every side of politics who hold incoherent sets of positions. They're the "sound of a potato rotating" [0] kind of folks.
By "incoherent" I mean that I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for somebody to both be "pro-life" and also support the death penalty. But there are people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent.
Why bother crafting arguments against the former (where you'll gain little if anything from winning) when you could against the latter (where you have a chance of changing the minds of a lot of people, if you make a strong argument)?
[0] https://twitter.com/onlinegrapes/status/970945537435303936
I actually very much dislike labels such as "the right" and "the left", that said the "pro-life" movement as in the political movement that is trying to overturn Roe are very much exactly how I portrait them above. Name any prominent figure in the pro-life movement who also strongly opposes the death penalty.
> By "incoherent" I mean that I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for somebody to both be "pro-life" and also support the death penalty. But there are people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent.
> Why bother crafting arguments against the former (where you'll gain little if anything from winning) when you could against the latter (where you have a chance of changing the minds of a lot of people, if you make a strong argument)?
The issue is that the debate is not about convincing the fundamentalists, they can not be convinced, this is about pointing out the motivations of the fundamentalists to others. There is a very good book in German (unfortunately I do not believe there is an English translation): "Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken" which analyses forms of argumentation and historical debates and their philosophical underpinnings. One of the central concluding arguments is that in fighting totalitarism and fundamentalism the debate with a fundamentalist can will never convince them, because fundamentally their belief trumps rational arguments (something that fundamentalists on all sides of the spectrum consistently repeat), the debate should be to convince/warn the observers, to point out the inconsistencies, the real motivations.
I do as well, because they conflate too many unrelated things together, and it's impossible to pin down something as amorphous as "the [direction]".
> the "pro-life" movement as in the political movement that is trying to overturn Roe are very much exactly how I portray them above
So are you against this "movement" or the position? I'm in the pro-life movement and I don't support the death penalty.
> Name any prominent figure in the pro-life movement who also strongly opposes the death penalty.
Oh, I'm not prominent though.
Archbishop Gomez, president of the USCCB and board member of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, is pro-life and against the death penalty.
> The issue is that the debate is not about convincing the fundamentalists, they can not be convinced
I referred to "people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent", and then you started talking about fundamentalism? What does it mean to be "fundamentalist"? It sounds like it's one whose "belief trumps rational arguments". Those people are the worst. I don't think that they're the same people as who I was referring to, though.
Anyway, I think we both agree on the nit I was trying to pick initially which is that broad labels aren't generally helpful to anybody trying to reach the truth, but they sure do get used a lot in our modern discourse.
Yes I agree with you, and I should have been more specific that by fundamentalist I don't necessarily mean religion either. Your characterisation of "someone whose belief trumps rational arguments" hits it quite well on the head.
> Anyway, I think we both agree on the nit I was trying to pick initially which is that broad labels aren't generally helpful to anybody trying to reach the truth, but they sure do get used a lot in our modern discourse.
I generally agree, but what I tried to say with referring to the book above, was that there are different types of debates.
That said, I accept the criticism, we should try to keep the debates here on HN more about exchanging views in an "honest" (for lack of a better word) discourse, and use less labels. I will try to do better in the future.
Those words were a quotation from your post :)
It seems to me like a good definition of a certain kind of person who I don't like to argue with, but I don't like abdicating the term "fundamentalist" to them because I consider myself a fundamentalist / because it just doesn't seem to really fit.
I enjoyed this exchange, thanks and cheers to you.
The death penalty is done to a tiny portion of criminals, is subject to very strict procedures and rules, has plenty of time to appeal, and is generally not "murder" by any description necessary. It can be misused of course, and there's plenty of arguments it is unnecessary, but we abort 800k alone per year in the USA and there's significant debate about the humanity of what the procedure is inflicted on. We have killed 1550 people this year for the death penalty.
They are two different things. You might as well say all prolife people should be anti-war and all prochoice people be pro-war for that rationale. I never see why people think this is a gotcha of hypocrisy.
You're considerably off with that. In America, 6 people have been executed so far in 2022 and 11 people were executed for the whole of 2021.
Substitute any [X] you like in the above and it still applies. Who is forcing a belief system on whom? That's politics.
1. Same sex marriage: One side: "nobody should be able to marry the same sex", i.e. I forbid you from marrying your gay partner. The other side, "everyone should be able to marry no matter what the sex", i.e. you are free to marry only other sex partners, as long as I can marry a partner of any sex. One side is forcing the other side to adhere to their belief system, the other isn't.
2. Eating Pork. One side: "We believe eating pork is dirty, so selling pork meat should be illegal" the other side "Everyone should be able to eat the meat they want"
That's the crux of the debate, whether pregnant people have as much bodily autonomy as everyone else. If anti-choice people were to also concede that people should be forced to give up bodily autonomy in other areas like the ones I listed above, I would take them more seriously and we could discuss whether a fetus is a person. Until then it doesn't matter, it's just about restricting rights of others and almost always based in religious arguments and sexism.
... well, if they are, then abortion is murder, right? I don't see why you wouldn't care whether they "are people" or not. It seems crucial, at least if you think, like I do, that murder is just about the worst thing a person could do.
> The fact is that bodily autonomy is never restricted so much [...] I'm not forced to donate organs, to donate blood, or even to do something so simple as get a vaccine.
These are not in the same category. All of these might give another person a chance at living longer (and yes, some of them like organ donation in particular carry some risk of death for the donor). Abortion definitely takes away any possibility of living from another person.
I don't buy the bodily autonomy argument. Yes, ~half the human population bears the burden of carrying children, and no, that's not fair. Everybody (men and women, of all generations) should be invested in living in a society where we don't create incentives for anybody to kill anybody else, up to and including not having sex outside of some setup/framework where any children produced will be loved and cared for.
If we can't agree to something like that, then it seems like we would have to collectively accept that murder isn't all that bad.
Just like carrying a pregnancy to term. Especially in the US which has a very high maternal mortality rate.
> if they are, then abortion is murder, right?
If I'm giving someone a blood transfusion because their kidneys are failing and they'll die within minutes/hours if I stop, is it murder to disconnect us? Maybe so but I should still have the right to choose. I can only recommend this video which makes the point much better than I ever could https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2PAajlHbnU
> Abortion definitely takes away any possibility of living from another person.
This seems to contradict your idea that a fetus is already living in the first place? And if it is already living than just like organ donation, carrying the pregnancy to term "_might_ give another person a chance at living longer" just like organ donation. Remember miscarriages are common, stillbirths are common, dying in infancy is common. Organ/blood donation is extremely comparable to being pregnant if a fetus is alive: they are alive at the grace of and only because of your body.
No, similar to how it's not murder to disconnect somebody in a coma from life support or other extraordinary medical means. If the person dies, it's from their loss of blood, not from you refusing/failing to give them your blood.
I admit I didn't watch more than 60 seconds here and there of the video; it's almost 40 minutes long and it's late here.
> This seems to contradict your idea that a fetus is already living in the first place
Hm, I should have added "any longer" to clarify: "Abortion definitely takes away any possibility of living any longer from another person".
> just like organ donation
Organ donation is extraordinary; pregnancy is the most ordinary thing in the world.
it's actually 19 per 100k, which UNICEF considers to be "Very Low" [0].
> If I'm giving someone a blood transfusion because their kidneys are failing and they'll die within minutes/hours if I stop, is it murder to disconnect us?
Except in this case we're talking about your child, towards whom you have legal obligations that you would not have towards anybody else. It's legal to let the homeless man down the street starve to death, but it's not legal to let your child starve to death.
So the only situation in which it wouldn't be murder is if you don't consider the fetus to be a real human yet, which is a very difficult question to answer.
[0] https://data.unicef.org/topic/maternal-health/maternal-morta...
Even with your child you're not obligated to donate blood or organs, which is more analogous than giving food since giving someone food doesn't impact your health or body in any direct way. In some places in the US you don't even have to provide a child with health care if it goes against your religion, I don't see why you should be forced to give up your body for 9 months and then also possibly suffer various conditions afterwards or death.
I don't really understand the legal framework for it but definitely a lot of abortions that are performed here are technically illegal, it's just not enforced.
And France has a lot of problems with right-wing ideologies. All but the furthest left parties in France are violently islamaphobic, for instance. In their recent elections they almost elected Le Pen (again) who wants to leave the EU, has close ties to Russia, is extremely LGBTQ-phobic, etc...
Europe has a rising alt-right problem in every country that I have any knowledge of their politics. Of course some of it is not new either, like Poland has never had legal abortions, many (if not most countries) still make changing your legal name and gender very difficult and/or humiliating, and many countries still don't even have same-sex marriage. Far from the liberal paradise I see US republicans online make it out to be
If you only have a penny and I have a nickel, I am 5x richer than you. But am I terrifyingly rich?
0.00019 is certainly bigger than 0.00006, but they're both quite small.
Speaking of things that are frustrating, it’s incredibly frustrating how many people who claim to be pro-abortion seem to be mollified by the legal arguments that are being used to dismantle it. Sometimes I think the real genius of the US Constitution is the seemingly magical ability it has to appeal to men’s innate desire to feel like very smart, very rational beings through nitpicking, pedantic debate. Who cares whether Alito’s argument makes sense? Who cares whether RBG thought Roe was built on a solid legal foundation? The thing that actually matters is that a very important right - the right to not be forced to risk your own wellbeing for the sake of another - is being taken away.
Whatever Constitutional interpretation got us there is about as meaningful and impressive as Joseph Smith putting on his stone glasses to interpret the word of God. The rationalization was reverse engineered from the conservative justice’s political viewpoint, not the other way around. Whatever the Supreme Court was intended to be, it is absolutely a political body now. Unfortunately only one side - the ones who successfully ramrodded this change into effect against the wishes of most Americans - seems to recognize it. The other side is so caught up in the childish fantasy of Smart People Openly Debating the Tough Issues With Logic and Reason™, so enamored of this Aaron Sorkin inspired belief that the right soaring speech with a well thought out argument will always win the day, that they are and will continue to be thoroughly trounced by the other side, who at least realize that politics is a dirty game now where anything goes.
> Unless, of course, our goal isn't to win, but to just be eternally aggrieved. I am increasingly convinced that is the case
Where there is smoke, there is fire.
Both the draft (or any form of compulsory service) and taxes are counter-examples.
You're probably going to object to taxes, but it's reasonably well established that wealth is health. (It's also true that taxes are spent on things that don't save or preserve the life of another human.) More to the point, taxes take my time, which I can't possibly get back.
Interesting enough, so does prison.
Framing this as "privacy" makes no sense.
Framing it as "choice" can be coherent if you express it this well, but most people don't.
(I think I weakened my own argument here by including that sentence, but too late to edit it now. What I was trying to express is that this isn't actually a sexism thing: I have no trouble imagining these people applying the same standard to men in a world where any human could get pregnant.)
In many countries, if a mother kills her baby in the first few months after birth, this is illegal, the liveliness of the baby is not in doubt, and yet the killing is not considered murder, but rather the lesser homicide of infanticide.
Likewise, while the Old Testament prescribes severe penalities for violence that causes a woman to miscarry, it has nothing to say about expectant mothers pursuing abortions. The illegalisation of abortion seems to date back to the Emperor Constantine.
It is a false dichotmoy, that either the fetus is not considered yet alive, or the state should treat the mother as a murderer.
Far better to have Congress actually pass laws that clearly define privacy protections, that then make it easy for the courts to rule on.
Like I said, just because you don’t agree with their rulings doesn’t mean the court is “hyper-partisan” and does the “bidding of the right”.
"Tech companies" will not save you. They may act like they are sticking their neck out , but it's all just calculated to a cost/benefit. Ask the Uyghurs and Yemenis how bravely these vaunted companies that do business in China and Saudi have been standing up for their rights. How many companies were waving the rainbow flag in the 1980s?
Corporations act the way they do not because they are leaders in human rights, it's because of the attitudes of the people in the societies they operate in. You are forcing them to act in a particular way. They are not the leaders, you are. They are followers. Don't let them try to take credit or fool you into thinking they are leading these movements or that you owe them anything or need them to bring about further change.
It is pretty clear that the ability to have safer online conversations is key to exercising your ability to make intimate decisions in the modern age, so the two meanings do converge there.
Encryption is a technology; it's a tool. All tools can be broken, subverted, avoided.
Privacy is a legal right.
There are no physical walls high enough to prevent the state from entering my house if it chooses do to so; the only way to keep the state out of my house is by legal means -- ie, ironically, by regulations and more state, not less.
Plus even if they are pro-abortion, abortions are a rare and exceptional event, and this might make them think that encryption is "special" in the same way. But encryption is ubiquitous.
It's also pretty easy to make sure your company doesn't possess the ability to produce the data in unencrypted form anyways.
I'm sure law enforcement in the US has a lot of problems, but this is pure nonsense. I'm really concerned about what it's going on in the US because if an article like this makes into HN, it means the situations is as bad as it seems.
I could agree that the connection is not immediately obvious in the EU context.
However, isn't one of the strong libertarian pro-encryption arguments that encryption allows the individual to protect their liberties against the state?
and, as you are pro-choice, you believe that a woman has a right to get an abortion, i.e. this is one of her personal liberties?
1. Overturning Roe would be a decision about privacy (specifically that US citizens do not have the right to private medical decisions)
2. Once Roe is overturned, women who need abortions -- perhaps even to save their lives -- may need to do so using the black market, which is fundamentally impossible without digital privacy
3. Women who have miscarriages may be suspected of abortions and prosecuted, and it's possible to detect a miscarriage in many non-medical data sets (shopping patterns, period trackers, chat logs, browsing history, phone records, etc.)
4. Forced-birth states, like Texas, will try to reach across state lines to prevent women from getting abortions in other states, which is much easier if the woman can be tracked with a simple subpoena to (for example) Google or her phone company
A bit of a nitpick, but the reason Roe has been considered to have “shakey limbs” (see Ginsberg’s comments on the case) is the court was ambiguous on why it was decided as it was.
You can easily overturn Roe while leaving all other rights in place.
That said there is the very simple argument that selling your kidney should be allowed. And if we are worried about someone exploiting others by forcing them to sell their kidneys then we can regulate the commerce part (set minimum price, blind donors to recipients), just as the medical market is regulated. (And in general if oppression/exploitation is a concern then the law should address that - provide a social safety net so people don't have to even think about to sell their kidney for money, instead of regulating the symptom.)
Now with the supreme court set to argue that there is no constitutional right to abortion this also follows that there is no constitutional right to privacy either. The argument is essentially that the constitution does not directly spell out a right to either, therefore the previous rulings are null and void. Anyone that cares even an iota about privacy should be very concerned about this.
I am all for reasonable abortion access but Roe was a disastrously bad ruling in many ways.
So by that argument: Do you agree that the government has the right to ban encryption and other details relating to privacy? Because if you want to argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy then that's the route you get to go down. Alito is arguing that if it's not directly in the constitution it does not exist.
Frankly I'm not willing to accept any challenge to Roe v Wade because the people doing so aim to destroy abortion no matter how many other rights or precedent they have to trample over. If abortion is banned they will stop at nothing to destroy encryption and privacy in order to prosecute anyone that ever has an abortion, even across state lines.
I agree that it would be good if we had that. But just because it would be good doesn't mean we can pretend it already is so.
I think it would be very likely that a law passed by the legislative branch banning encryption would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't think there's much room for debate here.
Digital privacy and abortion are issues that must be handled in the legislative branch, not the judicial one.
it doesn't? AFAIK you can refuse such a test, they really can't force it on you. of course if you do there will be consequences, but if you don't want the government to know your blood alcohol level you absolutely can. most probably you will be sentenced for driving under the influence, but that would be just a sentence and not actual provable data about you.
That is a significant problem though. The court shouldn't just make stuff up that has no constitutional basis.
Anyways, the government can already compel you to give them data against your consent, it's called a subpoena. There are even cases of people being held in jail for refusing to provide decryption keys.
So it's very likely you'll have law enforcement in forced-birth states try to subpoena data from tech companies where servers and workers are in abortion-legal states. The argument is that strong encryption will prevent these kinds of immoral (from the perspective of the author) data requests from being fulfilled.
The legal shenanigans we see happening could deepen this divide, as you say, and transform it into a economic divide as well. Will we one day seek companies that do not host their data in certain states? How will this effect those states where nobody wants to do business?
Texas recently passed a law that Twitter cannot censor people based on political views, and that it is illegal for Twitter to simply leave the state. We may see this play out, where a state feels wronged by a "foreign" company in another state, yet may not have the power to enforce any punishment on the company in those other states, again, furthering the divide.
When communications security gets into the way of authority it's the next thing on the chopping block, which has already been the case over the last two decades.
For the record, I don't have a problem with abortion. Obviously I think it should be a last resort, but the impression I get is that most people who get abortions view it that way too.
That said, framing the debate around abortion purely as a question of bodily autonomy always seemed to be a very dishonest way of engaging with the debate. The issue at stake for most people(again, I don't care!) who oppose abortion is not that women are getting a medical procedure done to themselves, but that, in their view, a 2nd and entirely different person is killed as the result of this procedure.
But, many people who bring up the slogans of bodily autonomy already know this. By ignoring the core debate and taking this alternate tack, they get to:
1.) Smear their opponents' position as purely misogynist and obfuscate the core of the debate, and
2.) Signal their own loyalty to their political tribe, by demonstrating their unwillingness to even engage with the "other side."
The inverse of this question is actually very interesting:
"What is it that makes a fetus NOT a person?" Maybe it's the lack of consciousnessness/low brain activity? Then, should we be allowed to kill braindead and comatose people arbitrarily? And anyway, we don't even know what consciousness is to begin with.
Or maybe, they just don't look like people, so we don't have to treat them that way? Well, that opens up a pretty ugly can of worms.
Or maybe it's the fact that the fetus is completely physically dependent on the mother's body? That's an interesting proposition, but then again, so is every baby until just days before it leaves the womb, and almost nobody is arguing the morality of ultra-late-stage abortions.
So you immediately end up with all these (admittedly) edge-cases that demonstrate some of the moral and legislative complexity of this issue, not to mention its entanglement with the federal-state-local American legal system, which is what Roe v. Wade really addresses to begin with. I'm not doing this as some kind of "gotcha!" or takedown of the whole concept of abortion. Just asking that on this forum we don't trick ourselves into believing the sound-bite version of things.
Yet again, I don't really care either way whether people get abortions or not. In general it seems like something that's impossible to legislate out of existence anyway. But I always fail to see how this is a simple question of women's bodies and evil government overreach.
This question has been resolved for years. The government has weighed abortion vs viability and has put reasonably limits on abortion. The pro-life constituent seek to entirely ban abortion past fertilization and even want to ban contraceptives.
I'm not interested in debating anyone that's pro-life anymore because there is no debate or movement to be had. The goal of overturning Roe v Wade isn't a debate, it's a demand. And you should be fighting demands that seek to take away rights with a hard no.
I think it should be, but it is not an enumerated right subject to the 10th amendment. Nor is there a federal law. We have been living with a restriction placed on states by a court decision.
I wish on the last 50 years someone attempted to make it an actual right or even a law.
I wouldn't call these two scenarios equatable though because in one instance a person is compelled to do something they have nothing to do with, whereas on the other hand they're performing a (very interesting) biological function. I've also heard an argument about implied contract, when you perform the function to create the dependency voluntarily and create it, you're committing to the dependency. It's somewhat compelling, but my point only is that these two situations don't match up fundamentally.
Personally I'm a Brit and I'm satisfied with the consensus here. I'm simply not willing to support coercing women to forcibly carry babies to term against their will, even if the foetus does have a right to life. Even accepting the pro-life argument, the resulting savage life ruining oppression of vulnerable women necessary to actively enforce that view is utterly abhorrent to me. It's a hypothetical, but even if I was vehemently pro-life I still like to think I wouldn't support such policies.
Maybe /you/ think it's a dishonest way of engaging with the debate. Most people who are pro-choice consider framing the issue as murder as dishonest.
> Then, should we be allowed to kill braindead and comatose people arbitrarily?
> Or maybe, they just don't look like people, so we don't have to treat them that way? Well, that opens up a pretty ugly can of worms.
These questions are not part of any rational debate.
I don't think OP was saying it is murder but that it's helpful to have some argument why it's not murder (since there are some that claim that it is). If someone says "Meat is murder" and I say "I have the right to eat what I want" then I've not really responded to their argument and to some it might even sound like I'm implicitly accepting their premise.
I am obviously pro-choice and I do understand the people arguing against abortion rights are doing so in bad faith in most cases but I am still not sure why there is such reluctance (in debates I've seen) to not demolish the "fetus=human being" argument which is put forward as the primary reason to ban abortion.
I think this is disproven by the fact that even extreme pro-life advocates generally carve out exceptions in case of rape or incest, which ought to be irrelevant if the personhood of the child was the factor that is actually in question.
This debate doesn't add much depth because killing is not automatically murder, and there are plenty of cases in which killing is justified to preserve autonomy, including of course of animals most of which have more claim to autonomy or protection from harm themselves than an early stage fetus.
>"Then, should we be allowed to kill braindead and comatose people arbitrarily"
Probably not arbitrarily, but if its in the interest of a person who still has a working brain then I would say it's hard to find a coherent argument to not answer that question with yes.
Sexual education is another topic, a lot of people oppose it to one degree or another, we all have ideas about what a kid should learn about and at what age, it isn't that unreasonable to say that a parent should have the final say in their children's education, but with that should come more responsibility which it seems many parents don't want to take on.
So them insisting they care about life is just dishonest. It’s obviously to enforce their archaic views of the world. It’s not even written in their beloved Bible, it’s a made up concern.
If you buy into this pro-life bullshit, you’re either being manipulated or dishonest.
The reality is that the second often does derive from the first, it's just enough degrees separated that they don't feel the cognitive dissonance. It's the same reasons why the pro-life constituents are often against increasing welfare and aid for single mothers, as George Carlin once brought up.
First, you assert that being pro-gun implicitly means being pro-death. This is not the case. I and many others who are vehemently pro-gun feel the way we do because we believe that self-defense is a fundamental right of a human being, and that possessing and carrying the means to effectively defend one’s self is the practical implementation of recognition of the right.
Second, you assert that gun rights are about enforcing one’s view on others. This is also not true for anyone with whom I’ve discussed this issue. Gun rights advocates see this as about preventing people from imposing their will on others by force.
Third, you implicitly assert that all gun rights advocates are Christian. This is demonstrably false.
Fourth, after asking the reader to take the above assertions as fact, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being ignorant of their own biases or a liar.
People don’t have to agree. That’s fine. You may be surprised to discover that people who hold different views from you do so because they form those views from different lived experiences. All it takes is a little empathy.
> First, you assert that being pro-gun implicitly means being pro-death. This is not the case. I and many others who are vehemently pro-gun feel the way we do because we believe that self-defense is a fundamental right of a human being, and that possessing and carrying the means to effectively defend one’s self is the practical implementation of recognition of the right.
The argument does not need to be that pro-gun means pro-death, but can mean self-autonomy/self-defense over being forced to do something. That same argument could be made for an abortion, e.g. the mother uses it as a last means of self-defense over being forced to care for a child for the rest of their lives.
> Second, you assert that gun rights are about enforcing one’s view on others. This is also not true for anyone with whom I’ve discussed this issue. Gun rights advocates see this as about preventing people from imposing their will on others by force.
Actually they said pro-lifers want to force their view onto others. He also said pro-lifers are typically pro-gun, however that does not logically imply that all pro-gun proponents are pro-life and want to force their view onto others.
> Third, you implicitly assert that all gun rights advocates are Christian. This is demonstrably false.
Again all (most) pro-lifers are pro-gun does not imply that all pro-gunners are pro-life. That's logically incorrect.
But that’s not what’s actually going on with that debate on a national scale.
You can’t deny that it almost never comes genuinely because someone is curious. It’s not a philosophical question. we ever need to "debate" it because it’s pushed down Americans throat by people with an obviously reactionary political agenda. I don’t believe those who adhere to this political package and pretend to care about a feotus when they don’t care about his mother’s life. Could we stop pretending it’s not about controlling women?
Eventually the law will come for your abortions.
We must protect ourselves with technology from tyrants and authoritarians all over the world. Laws change but math is universal.
Can’t beat keys out of dead men.
This article says "because abortion can now be illegal, everything that I like will be illegal", and something about Xinjiang.
Anyway I am pro-life and I don't think allowing abortion (and interpreting "right to privacy" from 1868 as "right to abortion" as Roe v Wade has done) is "progress" and being against abortion is "oppression", so I guess this article does not apply to me.
her body, her decision.
my communication, my decision.
Had I been a non-rich woman in El Salvador, Ireland[0] or in some of the states where legislators think like you, there's a good chance I wouldn't be.
[0] Today, Ireland has a relatively high level of personal freedom for women of reproductive age. 10 years ago, I would have been able to get treatment for the ectopic pregnancy beyond "watch and see", but not the fallopian tube-preserving method I had the option of here, because it was just targeted to the ectopic pregnancy, not removal of the tube that incidentally ended the pregnancy and is the only permissible treatment according to certain readings of Catholic canon law. Even though I'm not Catholic.