A stark example of how digital footprints will be utilized in a post-Roe America

The article is from Aug 10, 2022 but remains relevant

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    > > > it does not look like Facebook did something wrong > >

    Illegal. You mean to say it doesn’t look like Facebook did something illegal. It’s undeniable (unless you hate women) that Facebook did something wrong in helping a fascist state oppress women.

    Illegality and morality are not the same.

    • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do so many people find it so hard to understand the position of anti-abortionists and invent a fantasy about misogynist fascists?

      To them fetuses are babies (which is correct at some point before birth, when is another debate) and therefore subjects of rights, so from their position they are defending a much greater right, the right to life. Essentially, from their perspective they are defending human rights, is it that hard for you to empathize with that?

      > > > It’s undeniable (unless you hate women) > >

      Oh yep, you seem to have a flexible mentality, open to debate and not demonizing others, the opposite of what fascists typically do.

      • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        > > > Oh yep, you seem to have a flexible mentality, open to debate and not demonizing others, the opposite of what fascists typically do. > >

        And there’s the DARVO. That didn’t take much time.

        If foetuses are babies to anti-abortionists (you’ve dropped the pro-life facade) then anti-abortionists need science lessons, because foetuses are not babies.

        Since anti-abortionists don’t consider women as human beings possessing equal human rights, they don’t care about any baby born or unborn from her. Indeed, they think they have the right to dictate to women on what her rights should be, ignoring that she is born with inalienable basic rights. “Born with” not ‘unborn/ in-utero’ with.

        A right to life without right to agency is slavery. Do you understand that anti-abortionists want women to be slaves?

        • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s probably a waste of time, but okay, I will be kind enough not to delve into your ignorant slander, delusions, straw men and ad hominems.

          > > > Since anti-abortionists don’t consider women as human beings possessing equal human rights (…) A right to life without right to agency is slavery. Do you understand that anti-abortionists want women to be slaves? > >

          Let us come to the main issue. As I mentioned, this is a difference of importance, not all rights are equal and when there is a conflict one should prevail over the other. Although nothing is written it is easy in some cases, for example, the right not to be tortured is more important than the right to marry.

          If for a moment you are able to consider the premise that fetuses are subjects of rights (say one of 42-week to make it easier), tell me, which is more important, the temporary and partial suspension of the right of agency or the right to life?
          (I do not include slavery because I find it fucking absurd, as well as a trivialization of something very serious. You could have said something more coherent like reproductive freedom.)

          This is not something like seeing the woman as property to be controlled, only considering the rights and interests of “both”. Let us also not forget that it is a self-imposed situation, and the cases in which it is “imposed by third parties” abortion is allowed all over the world.

          • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thank you for making clear

            1. your utter contempt for women,
            2. your denial of women as human beings with human rights, and
            3. your misconception that you and other anti-abortionists are arbiters of human rights

            ps: How is an unwanted pregnancy is a “self-imposed situation”? Is it your understanding that women are capable of parthenogenesis?