Youth Defence Wesbite

o1s1n

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I never even knew YD Existed until this thread.

Well done hacker, you just give that group free advertising. No such thing as bad publicity and all that.

You must have been the last person in the country so. Welcome to contemporary Irish news. :pac:

krudler

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I never even knew YD Existed until this thread.

Well done hacker, you just give that group free advertising. No such thing as bad publicity and all that.

Not in this case though, I know a couple of people who liked YD's page on facebook who didnt realise what a shower of scumbags they are, the more people are aware of shady they are the better.

Zulu

floggg wrote: »

Noting that the question wasnt.... blah blah blah.

I bow to your pedantry.

Grayson

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Yes, computers are the only common factor...except for the minor details that both involve innocent civilians having private internet activity illegally used against them (in this instance or potentially used against them in the US case) by an unaccountable third party. Toast and pasta indeed...

The US prism project was/is legal.
The hacking of the YD site wasn't

Prism collected data and mined it. It never penetrated website security.
The hacking of the youth defense site involved breaking through defenses to gain access to privately held information.

The hacking of the youth defense site involved pasting up information that was illegally gained.
The Prism project never released any personal information into the public domain.

It's also possible to think for example that the taking of a life is wrong, yet support it on occasions. So it's possible to support a person who killed a serial killer as he was about to kill a person and not at the same time support the actions of a serial killer.

In this case it's allowed to think that it was good when Edward Snowdon released information that he had access to (That involved no personal information about private individuals at all. Please make sure you understand that, because your entire argument seems to imply that he did) and yet condemn an act of criminal hacking. Snowdons actions exposed a surveilance system that streaches around the world. The hacking of the YD site doesn't.

Zulu

Grayson wrote: »

The US prism project was/is legal.

...in the US, was it? I'm fairly confident it was illegal in the EU. (but open to correction)

Pompey Magnus

Grayson wrote: »

The US prism project was/is legal.
The hacking of the YD site wasn't

Prism collected data and mined it. It never penetrated website security.
The hacking of the youth defense site involved breaking through defenses to gain access to privately held information.

The hacking of the youth defense site involved pasting up information that was illegally gained.
The Prism project never released any personal information into the public domain.

It's also possible to think for example that the taking of a life is wrong, yet support it on occasions. So it's possible to support a person who killed a serial killer as he was about to kill a person and not at the same time support the actions of a serial killer.

In this case it's allowed to think that it was good when Edward Snowdon released information that he had access to (That involved no personal information about private individuals at all. Please make sure you understand that, because your entire argument seems to imply that he did) and yet condemn an act of criminal hacking. Snowdons actions exposed a surveilance system that streaches around the world. The hacking of the YD site doesn't.

Seems to me like you have misunderstood the point I was making. I was not comparing Snowdon's actions with yesterday's hacker's stunt, I never even mentioned him. I was comparing the perceived threat from Prism with yesterday's events.

My point was that 2 weeks ago the consensus opinion on here was that Prism is a danger because of the threat that personal internet activity could be used against individuals and that online privacy should be respected. Yesterday however, when this outcome occured through illegal means the perpetrator was made into a hero and congratulated, conveniently ignoring that he did exactly what so many here feared the US might do simply because in this instance it was their opposition that suffered.

RDM_83 again

Grayson wrote: »

Do yoiu have a link to the guidelines that state this? Or are you assuming that doctors hate babies and will just let it die?

If a foetus is delivered and it is viable, doctors will try to help it survive. When the doctors do something like this, it will not be a voluntenary choice that the mother is making. It will be because her life is endanger. Doctors will terminate the pregnancy to save the life of the mother, but they will at the same time attempt to save the baby. And once it's out of the womb, it will have the same rights as a baby born at full term.

Did you read my post fully ,and that wasn;t clear enough I clarified it in my next post

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I am not arguing that the medical staff will not try and save the child.

Grayson wrote: »

Additionally, the suicide issue is not an issue. During the hearings back in january they had a prenatal psychiatrist give testamony. He said that if a woman was suicidal first she woiuld go to her GP. Then the GP would refer to either him or one of his two collegues (there are only three prenatal psychiatrists in the country). They would then disgnose and treat the patient. The option for a termination would only be one option they'd consider alongside counceling and medication. He stated that if a woman really wanted an abortion and was just saying she was suicidal, they'd either be able to tell or it'd take so long that the woman would find it easier to hop on a plane to the UK.

I'm not implying that the woman would be pretending to be suicidal though. I am unaware however if there is any properly consistent way of determining someones risk of suicide if they do not have a past history of mental illness and are self identifying as having suicidal thoughts.No expert though
And in the scenario I am discussing England would not necessarily be an easier option (British limit is 24 weeks AFAIK).

floggg wrote: »

She wouldn't necessarily have the baby anyway.

Remember, if we are talking a suicide case, in those circumstances she can actually go ahead and commit suicide if refused and abortion - unless you actually restrain her as you advocate.

If a woman genuinely feels death is preferable to the trauma of being forced to carry the baby to term, then ultimately she has the option to carry through on that - as much as I am loathe to see anybody do that.

I think if it gets to the stage where you are locking up women in order to force them to deliver a child against their will you are treating them as nothing more than livestock.

And even if you lock her up, and the woman felt truly despondent about this, how do you ensure that the baby will get proper nutrition? Do you force feed the woman? Check out the video on the other thread where they show how it's done.

Do you want that done to a pregnant, suicidal woman?

Do you also strap her to undergo medical exams? Strap her down and sedate her will she is examined? While the baby is delivered?

I would imagine the sense of violation the woman would feel after put through all that and forced to bring a life into this world would be far worse than rape, and would feel her leaving worthless and used for the rest of her life.

If she felt suicidal before, imagine how she would feel after that. You are essentially discarding her life.

Don't get me wrong - I don't believe it's right to terminate a late term pregnancy, and none of this is easy to grapple with from a moral stand point. I just don't believe that ATTEMPTING to bring a new life into the world justifies treating women like that in any circumstances.

Yes those options would have to be considered, they are extremely harsh and brutal and unpleasant.BUT they may be justified as this is not a pleasant situation.
I don't want to get into the crude emotive tactics used often but I could tell you watch a video of a child growing up with severe disabilities in severe pain/ discomfort for their entire lives or dying slowly in an incubator as a valid counter point to the idea of "essentially discarding her life"
Now we can both agree with the idea that neither situation is something that we would like to see (and thankfully its a narrow time window!), but I am uncomfortable with the idea that bodily integrity is a right that automatically supersedes all others and negates any impacts.

In this situation the right to bodily integrity directly impacts on another human life not a potential human life.
In the case of a woman in this condition, is there and should there be an onus on medical staff to consider the impacts of their actions in terms of the child, as well as the mother, rather than treating the mother as their sole focus of concern when considering treatment. Considering as soon as treatment occurs (termination of pregnancy in this example), it both creates* and severely impacts on another patient.

*legally I presume, the fetus/child, is only considered a patient once it leaves the womb regardless of its development

For those that haven't read my other post I am not a rabid pro-lifer and am referring to a point in gestation where the fetus can experience pain and when termination of pregnancy occurs a living child will be "born" of uncertain survival chances and at very high risk of severe disability