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

  • Ginkko117@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, it does not look like Facebook did something wrong when you read the article. A pregnant woman used a medicine to trigger a miscarriage, then she and her mother got rid of the body. Police knew that they’ve discussed this in Facebook messenger. They contacted Facebook and received chat messages. Then police used those messages to incriminate women according to existing law. The only problem here is that a woman could go to an abortion clinic and do it properly and legally if not for obnoxious laws in some states. But that’s a completely different issue

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

        • Pegatron@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          All the pro life arguments are new. Theyre disingenuous and hypocritical. The modern pro life movement was cooked up by hardcore right wingers when they lost the fight against civil rights , in a transparent attempt to create a new voting bloc. Before the 1960s, the Baptists and Methodists were pro abortion and called it a Catholic issue.

          Person hood is a red herring. Even if you accept fetal person hood, no one owes another person the use of their body.

          Lastly, legislators have no place in medical decisions. Doctors are not terminating viable fetuses in the third trimester and never have. There were less than 10 third trimester abortions in the US per year and all we’re either to save the life of the mother or to remove a fetus that had a fatal defect. Banning the procedure will only have deleterious effects and keep doctors from performing vital life saving procedures. We have already seen this in Ireland and central America.

          • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They are not pro-life. If they were pro-life they would work to make life good/ better for those who they insist birth children and for those who they should be born.

            They are pro-slavery, Forcing/ coercing women to be incubators against their will is sexual slavery. They refuse to consider women as equal human beings with equal rights to men, and seek to diminsh women’s independence by forcing on her (and only her, men are not held accountable) to the unwanted burden of gestating, birthing, and caring for children, even at the cosf of her physical and mental well-being.

            Their call of “fetal personhood” is a tool to emotionally manipulate people (“won’t you think of the children?”), while they deny actual living persons their personhood. All their actions & words are geared towards dehumanizing women.

            Tellingly, they also are not against child labour (“wont you think of the billionaire’s profits?”), once a child is born. Their goal is to deny women their personhood, bind women to sexual slavery, and ensure the wealthy have a supply of cheap & easily available labour.

        • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          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
              ·
              edit-2
              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?

              • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                *Sigh. As I guessed, your reading comprehension is nil and you are not capable of debate or simple mental work, you can only use fallacies. Well, at least I tried.

            • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fetus does not have the right to life. It’s not a person, it does not have rights. Simple as that. People have rights, fetus does not.

              • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Aha, we agree, at least until high fetal development and viability.
                However, that’s not my point, and it’s a pity no one bothers to address it.

    • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is not a different issue. It is an issue of basic human rights.

      A woman’s right to agency over her body is an unalienable human right. The existing laws violate her human right.

      Then police used those messages to incriminate women according to existing law.

      "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws. " - Martin Luther King, Jr. in “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963)

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

        It is not a different issue. It is an issue of basic human rights.

        I don’t believe it’s a basic human right to murder a late term foetus. That’s not a right enshrined in any UN convention or national constitution. That’s something you want.

        • Aatube@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Do any constitutions or UN conventions give you the right to use the internet? Shouldn’t this count as healthcare, for which there are at least 6 UN conventions? Don’t 13 states ban all forms of abortion including early, in which not even the heart has formed?

        • Killakomodo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah but your opinion is total shit and worthless … so who cares what you gotta say?

          awe seems I pissed off religious extremists how ever would I sleep at night after this, oh yeah just fine.

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

            I mean, I’m pro-choice and I downvoted you because you would rather troll this person and add to the negativity than state your case. I downvoted them too, for the record.

            • Killakomodo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Why make a case to people who have no want to hear said case, have probably heard all the cases already and continue to want to control people? I am done talking to people that want to decide others lives and put them at risk, they don’t care about them so why should I care about the person trying to retain control?

              I am willing to explain myself to you, but you as stated do not intend to steal rights and you being pro choice already know all the reasons why I am against people taking others rights so I don’t have to explain it because it is falling either on ears that know or ears that don’t want to hear.

              I am sick off pretending malice is ignorance.

              I am just telling them to get lost as we should with all people that want to take others rights.

            • Killakomodo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Don’t know why you are getting mad at me, I replied to a person against abortion, which I disagree with. Not you, who said it was a human right, which I agree with. So I do care about making sure abortion is legal, I don’t care to listen to the religious extremist horseshit ideals on why it should be illegal.

              I assume you just got the notification because it’s your post and assumed I was talking to you when I am not saying your opinion does not matter, just peoples opinion that want’s to take away human rights.

              • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m sorry. I completely misunderstood and assumed you were replying to me. I apologize and have deleted my misguided response.

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

          There is no such thing as a late term abortion. The fetus would be viable. No person seeking an abortion would wait seven to nine months, bullshit laws or no bullshit laws. An abortion is a termination of a pregnancy, not a fetus. Abortions are typically performed before the embryo even has a chance to develop into a fetus (10 weeks).

      • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Read this somewhere “If something is banned in EU it likely violates human rights, but if something is banned in a republican state it probably is a human right.”

        :(

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

      Regardless of the politics surrounding abortion, Facebook chat never claims to be encrypted nor secure. Users should be aware that their chats are available in this capacity and should also be aware that platforms like Signal exist which are encrypted and secure.

      • tinyzimmer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Except it is encrypted, and pretty secure. That’s not really related to the issue. Facebook complied with a subpoena as they are legally required to do so. Signal would have to do the same. The only difference there is that Signal doesn’t retain decryption keys for your data so subpoenaing them would be pretty pointless except to prove that some conversation happened.