this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
2270 points (99.9% liked)

Technology

34978 readers
78 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1874605

A 17-year-old from Nebraska and her mother are facing criminal charges including performing an illegal abortion and concealing a dead body after police obtained the pair’s private chat history from Facebook, court documents published by Motherboard show.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I agree that these people did a crime.

I just don't think their crime should be illegal.

If this was about murdering a full-grown adult and not aborting a fetus, nobody would be talking about privacy concerns. Guaranteed.

[–] brainrein@feddit.de 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you know they committed a crime. After reading the article I don’t know. It looks totally as if it’s possible that she just had a miscarriage.

Maybe there’s just a prosecutor eager for convictions.

Maybe she was trying do avoid exactly this kind of trouble.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

She took abortion drugs.....

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

We'd still be talking about the privacy part because it'd be still more concerning than the death of one random dude.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

For what it's worth, the fetus was viable outside the womb 4 weeks before they did this. Viable at 24 weeks, aborted at 28. Pretty fucked up imo

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Also, there's no general agreement or scientific pointing of where life and consciousness is started on a fetus so, if the government job is to conserve the life of a individual, a fetus life still matters and shouldn't be taken by neither the parents or anyone else.

Brazil (ironically enough) has a good constitution about about abortion where's it is strictly prohibited unless some cases apply like: the baby has developed no brain, the baby has originated from a sexual assault case or the process of giving birth or the pregnancy itself represents a risk of death for the mother. It is simple, states that life's have the same values as well as showing the individual rights matter.

[–] MyEdgyAlt@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why do you think a life created by sexual assault is less valuable than a life created otherwise? Isn’t the resulting life the same?

Thinking this through might help you understand the tradeoffs behind most abortions. Pregnancy is dangerous, childbirth is dangerous, parenting is incredibly difficult.

A child could push a family into poverty and devastate siblings’ futures. How do you evaluate the harm caused by that against the harm caused by being forced to carry a child produced by sexual assault?

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is not less valuable but the way it was created was against the individual rights of the mother.

I agree abortion laws are about trade-offs as I showed in my example and that's why abortion shouldn't be legal in the cases I stated. Abortion shouldn't be legal for anyone cause, if it was in a consensual relationship, the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy.

The only lives that are less valuable are those which deliberately risk or take way the others' lives.

Also, thanks for being respectful.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only lives that are less valuable are those which deliberately risk or take way the others’ lives.

By choosing to be alive, you're impacting all present and future generations, causing the deaths of potentially billions of humans and countless other animals. Do you see how your attempted distinction doesn't actually exist?

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess you don't know much about numbers.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow, great argument. Superb insight.

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago

"Billions must die."

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

A child could push a family into poverty and devastate siblings’ futures.

A child can also be put up for adoption btw.

[–] raistlin@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which often means shoving them into massively underfunded institutions, that are full of corruption and abuse, making it a less than ideal alternative.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

Less ideal than being dead?

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you care so much, go ahead and adopt a child.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah I'm ok. If she wanted an abortion she should have gotten one in the 20 weeks where she's legally allowed to. Doesn't seem like a hard thing to do.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you seem oh so worried about the children. What's stopping you?

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know this is a stupid argument, right? I'm not looking to adopt a kid. Many, many, many people are.

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 1 year ago

It's easy to force a woman to act as a living incubator when you're not impacted by it.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're joking, right? First, abortions aren't mentioned in the Brazilian constitution - you'd have to look at specific legal codices, such as the Civil Code or the Penal Code. Second, that's the bare minimum, not "pretty good".

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago

The objective is supposed to be to find the situations where abortion would be fair a fair trade-off of lives and rights, not to try to speedrun the abortion rank; it makes no sense you're saying it is bare minimum when the objective is to reduce it as it is inherently bad.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would you be ok with someone aborting a 39 week old fetus? What about a 40 week old fetus? What about during labour?

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 1 year ago

Slippery slope fallacy detected