Smartphone Surveillance Tech Used To Target Anti-Abortion Ads At Pregnant Women (rewire.news) 260
VoiceOfDoom writes: Rewire reports: "Last year, an enterprising advertising executive based in Boston, Massachusetts, had an idea: Instead of using his sophisticated mobile surveillance techniques to figure out which consumers might be interested in buying shoes, cars, or any of the other products typically advertised online, what if he used the same technology to figure out which women were potentially contemplating abortion, and send them ads on behalf of anti-choice organizations?"
Regardless of one's personal stance on the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate, the unfettered use of tracking and ad-targeting technology which makes this kind of application possible is surely a cause for concern. In Europe, Canada and many other parts of the world, the use of a person's data in this way would be illegal thanks to strict privacy laws. Is it time for the U.S. to consider a similar approach to protect its citizens? Google has been reportedly tracking users on around 80 percent of all 'Top 1 Million' domains. Facebook is doing something similar. A recent report shows that Facebook uses smartphone microphones to identify the things users are listening to or watching based on the music and TV shows its able to identify. Facebook says the feature must be turned on, and that "it's only active when you're writing a status update."
Regardless of one's personal stance on the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate, the unfettered use of tracking and ad-targeting technology which makes this kind of application possible is surely a cause for concern. In Europe, Canada and many other parts of the world, the use of a person's data in this way would be illegal thanks to strict privacy laws. Is it time for the U.S. to consider a similar approach to protect its citizens? Google has been reportedly tracking users on around 80 percent of all 'Top 1 Million' domains. Facebook is doing something similar. A recent report shows that Facebook uses smartphone microphones to identify the things users are listening to or watching based on the music and TV shows its able to identify. Facebook says the feature must be turned on, and that "it's only active when you're writing a status update."
So what (Score:3, Insightful)
Telling women to not do abortions is nothing bad IMO. Its what ads are about: telling us to do different stuff. Its what made google rich.
What IS bad though is to forbid abortions, because this will just lead to women who want to abort their child to use more dangerous methods.
Re:So what (Score:5, Interesting)
So unless a company telling you to go and get a new product is willing to buy it for you, it's none of their business as well?
The entire point of ads is about making suggestions that company thinks you ought to do. While it certainly is none of their business what you actually end up doing, by the very definition of "advertising", it *IS* their business to tell you what they think you should do.
Re: (Score:2)
It is ultimately the choice of the woman, and that's how it should be. But why is trying to give her guidance something bad? I mean its the same if greenpeace phones to the CEO of shell and tells them to stop destroying the environment, or some animal group writing a letter to the CEO of McDonalds asking them to stop killing the animals. It may be weird and may not reach its goal but why forbid them to do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Spying on her and then trying to tell her what to do is sleazy and wrong.
There is no more spying involved than there is with any of us. The moment she installs google apps on her smartphone she agrees to be spied upon by google (its in the TOS), and google in turn enables people to run targeted ads for people in special situations. She didn't mind when she bought the phone, did she? And if she minded, there are free and open source alternatives without any gapps.
You don't know her. You don't know her situation.
They know that she is contemplating abortion. That's more than maybe her parents know.
Does a sign on a bridge "please
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually it does... or at least no more wrong than advertisements in general already are. Suggesting that it should only be acceptable to advertise anti-abortion options when they are willing to adopt the child is approximately equivalent to suggesting that *ANY* commercial advertiser of a product should also be giving away that product for free. In the end, it's just an ad...while it's not the advertiser's business what you actually do after seeing the ad, it actually *IS* the
Plenty of people want to adopt (Score:2)
IF there was a shortage of parents wanting to adopt, then I would agree that this is a reasonable requirement. Since the reality is that people go to extraordinary lengths including travelling abroad, it is clear that there is no shortage.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that most people want to adopt want to adopt an infant while the majority of the children looking for a home are older. So the people go abroad looking for an infant in order to get their "perfect" child while the older children here get shuffled around from foster home to foster home.
Article says saving unborn babies is evil! (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't suppose there's a less biased, neutral toned article on this subject available to read, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Near me recently a twelve year old, who had been raped and had a non-trivial risk of death if she took the child to term, had to go through a complex legal process at two levels of court to get approval. That's how badly things currently fail the "common-sense" test.
From the outside it looks to me like the abortion supporters want it to be possible without the state paying s
Re: (Score:2)
Well how I'd imagine the process should be is that a woman who seeks abortion first need to speak to a doctor who had a special course, and then she can get it done. Maybe even on the same visit, and regardless of whether she is a rape victim or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one from yesterday from the Australian state of Victoria which was voted on yesterday but didn't pass the senate:
Re: (Score:2)
First the abortion supporters say it should be made as easy and as normal as possible, like getting a haircut, and now you say its something deeply personal.
WTF? Deciding on a haircut is a deeply personal decision. Especially if it's the hair that isn't on your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Still ads for haircuts are legal. And would you disapprove of ads that say "let them grow long"?
Re: (Score:2)
What would piss me off is if I saw a barbershop ad, went to get a haircut, got cornered inside by a bunch of long-haired hippies telling me about all the bad things that happen to people with haircuts, and then got harassed for weeks by people leaving flyers on my door with pictures of cut-off hair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but this is just bad taste... and yes, I would say the same if these were pro-abortion ads ("You're pregnant! Ever considered an abortion?"). Also, I suspect any attempt at having anti-abortion ads is bound to backfire and "promote" the idea as an option.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Any unbiased article on abortion would be attacked as biased by both sides. They don't even use the same terminology.
Cry me a river... (Score:2)
According to AdBlockPlus, I'm already blocking 10 ads on this page alone. Fortunately, this means I'll never have to find out if they're targeted or not.
HIPAA? (Score:2, Interesting)
HIPAA?
Double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize that people are emotional about abortion, but objectively this is no more creepy or unethical than anything else in the advertising industry.
Re: (Score:2)
while that may be true in a superficial sense, it's a step further in that it's intrusive based on an opposing ideology rather than selling a product. it would be like if it determined you were republican and fed you misinformation about voting dates and locations.
You oppose offering help? Promote abortion? Honest (Score:2, Insightful)
> based on an opposing ideology
Crisis Pregnancy Centers offer help to young and struggling moms-to-be, such as free diapers and baby products, classes on parenting, and a lot of encouragement and support - being a young single mom is hard, but with help you can do it.
Certainly some Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteers are aware that if no assistance and support were offered, if these young women felt that they had to do it all alone, some would get abortions. Some may feel that abortion is similar to murd
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Spreading misinformation and lying
So... the *same* as the rest of the advertising industry.
Re: (Score:3)
Some may feel that abortion is similar to murder.
those women are the women who never even consider getting abortions.
You say there is an "opposing idealogy". There is an idealogy which opposes offering help and encouragement to people who are facing difficult challenges?
yes, there is. have you see what protesters write on their signs at abortion clinics? they don't right, "we want to help you," they write shit like, "murdering whores burn in hell" which i feel is exceptionally unhelpful.
Is that YOUR ideology? If so, you've been unusually honest, probably unintentionally.
you've taken a benign comment and attacked me out of personal zeal for your point of view. i hope you can learn some self-control because the world does not need more people lashing out emotionally.
It's orders of magintude (Score:2)
Willfully obtuse (Score:2)
Because having an abortion is on the same level as buying ethernet cables or looking up used car ratings? Methinks not.
Re: (Score:2)
but objectively this is no more creepy or unethical than anything else in the advertising industry.
So, in other words, spectacularly creepy and deeply unethical then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The advertising is long since way past "just advertising". The pure evil is just a little more obvious in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Medical privacy?
Re: (Score:2)
When's your next coat hanger party?
And may I come?
Ads on Slashdot (Score:2)
I admit this is sort of off topic, but this story just made me consider: why do I suddenly have ads on /.?
For many years now, I've had no ads with a little message explaining that since I've had a story on the front page, I could browse Slashdot ad free. Did this go away with the last regime change?
Re: (Score:2)
That checkbox never worked for me. Maybe because I reset cookies each time I visit slashdot.
Perhaps your cookie has expired and you had to re-login, perhaps try to re-check the checkbox.
Anyway, I have an adblocker, so I don't notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because I reset cookies each time I visit slashdot.
No, it won't be that. Slashdot implement that feature using telepathic visitor tracking.
Re: (Score:2)
Moral relativity (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am very strongly pro-choice (where choice is the right for a woman to seek an abortion if she wants).
If men could get pregnant (Score:2)
I don't remember what comedian said it, but it's quite true, if men could get pregnant, you'd have a drive-through abortion clinic in every WalMart. And don't forget to have your membership card stamped, for with every tenth you get a pack of condoms for free!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The abortion part is clickbait. What this is about is if privacy laws should be stricter in the US.
Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious.
/. have what I would call "slashdotitis". Slashdotitis is a commonly occurring degenerative disorder whereby someone will blabber endlessly in a post about completely idiotic shit without even "grokking" WTF the point of the parent, linked article is. Usually the blabbering occurs about a "hot button" issue like gun control, abortion, environmental regulations, climate chang
Why isn't it obvious?
Because many, or actually most of the people who post to
Abortion is wrong and should be criminalized. (Score:4, Insightful)
The inflammatory title is meant to get attention. However, I also believe it’s true (for most cases).
We find it distasteful to force arbitary morals onto people or bombard them with propaganda and ads. Privacy violations are wrong too, and that’s what this article is really about. But the abortion issue itself is something that can be looked at objectively. And I want to understand how some people can claim to value human life on the one hand and then blithely throw it awas on the other hand.
There are situations where abortions are medically necessary (like when the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy), and there are some gray areas when it comes to serious developmental defects that are often terminal anyway. But a lot of the time, abortion is used as retroactive contraception. People with no self-control or forward planning ability have sex, and pregnancy happens. There are lots of ways to prevent pregnancy in the first place, not the least of which is to find a partner of the same sex, which is something we honestly need to push our society into taking advantage of more.
But hey, let’s just terminate human life willy-nilly because it’s fucking convenient for us! As someone who is liberal about most things, I see abortion (most of the time) as a massive shirking of personal responsibility. CHOICES have consequences, and you should have to deal with them and not force others to pay for your mistakes or, say, murder someone over it.
This is what I really don’t get about the “pro choice” people. A human fetus does indeed have an underdeveloped nervous system, so killing it is not the same as torture. At the same time, you can also kill adults painlessly, yet we don’t have clinics where you can take your office enemies to have them euthanized. A human fetus is definitely alive, and it’s definitely human. So why do people make some arbitrary distinction that because it hasn’t been BORN yet, it’s okay to murder it? (I’m using the word “murder” because I don’t want to hide behind euphamisms. Deal with it. Abortion is killing someone who is not threatening your life, which makes it at least manslaughter.)
Hey, maybe you want to live in a society ruled by social darwinism, where there’s are no rules against killing people. Most slashdotters would have been killed by now by bullies in highschool in that case, so you should appreciate the systems of laws and morals that protect you. I don’t care if you’re devoutly religious or an atheist, we have solid grounds for human societies to have ethics. And we as humans have decided that killing your fellow humans is wrong. Interestingly, I find atheists to often have a stronger sense of morality, because they don’t have religious fervor to tell them when it’s okay to break their own rules to force someone else to live by their bizarre and arbitrary religious tennets. So just to be clear, this is not a religious issue.
Indeed, putting stupid religions aside, most people find murder to be objectively wrong. We value human life, instinctively, unless we’re psychopaths. It doesn’t matter if Christians tell you murder is wrong because Christians have been known to murder in the name of their God. The same is true of Muslims. When wars are fought and terrorists bomb airports, the rest of the world stands aghast at the needless loss of human life over stupid idiological issues.
So don’t distort the abortion issue into a right vs. left thing or a stupid religious issue. 99% of religion is bullshit, and we don't get the idea of murder being wrong from religion.
Often single mothers are vilified, especially if they’re in high school. (Although most abortions, I think, are not had by high school girls.) And the fathers frequently skip town or deny responsibility. A girl who has a baby before she can finish her college degree is typically screwed in more ways th
Re: (Score:3)
But here in the US, corporations....
"You will do as you are told. Until the rights to you are sold."
- F. Zappa
VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! (Score:4, Insightful)
TFA:
Fuck you, VoiceOfDoom
What is the fucking point of inserting an inflammatory / accusatory 'anti-choice' label in the article?
This is Slashdot, not some pro-choice / pro-life forum
VoiceOfDoom, go fuck youself !
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the term, "pro-life" really doesn't have any meaning. What life? Whose life? Just human life or does it cover viruses?
I find "pro-reproductive rights" and "anti-reproductive rights" to be more accurate and less inflammatory.
Re:VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be less inflammatory, but the subject is abortion, not reproductive rights as a whole.
I do like the nice, friendly and progressive sounding "pro-choice" moniker. And the cuddly, protective, "pro-life" one.
But why not just call it what it is and be done with it?
pro-abortion/anti-abortion
No need to sugar coat it. If you need to sugar coat it to make it palatable, there is something wrong with it.
Re:VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro-choice and anti-choice seems to sum up the sides more accurately. One side wants to allow a legal choice. The other doesn't. The rest is emotional smokescreen.
Re: (Score:2)
I could actually see myself being pro-abortion, the problem is that it's the wrong people who get an abortion.
What should've been aborted is the religious fucknuts that keep pumping out a unit every 9 months that litter our social system.
Re: (Score:3)
As long we apply this to every single other political issue which exists. Because gun rights is just as validly "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice." And school vouchers. And if cities/states choose to implement capital punishment. Etc. Or do you have a particular reason why "choice" is a word which politically is only about abortion and nothing else?
Personally, I really hate this Orwellian crap where you try to win your ideological battles by modifying the dictionary. Pro-abortion/anti-abortion clearly defines
Re: (Score:2)
You must not know any "environmentalists for the extinction of humanity" types then.
Re: VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! (Score:3, Funny)
Yep. Especially the post-natal ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you be intellectually honest by changing your "pro-choice" terminology to "pro-abortion" because that's what it is all about.
Why don't you be intellectually honest and admit that you don't care one iota about the life of the baby or mother/father and only give a shit that the baby is born, nothing else matters just that the baby is born. Call yourself pro-birth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are those who have views that are both anti-abortion and unfortunately, also encourage the production of more undesired children. That is not universally the case.
In any event, the positions are entirely separate. You can be 100% in favor of sex education, support for adoption, contraception, and even socialist programs to ensure that the children as a result of unwanted pregnancies are fully supported by the state and you can still be against abortion in almost all cases.
I understand that you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How about account by dollars allocated to each service.
Those numbers are available. That you don't quote them indicates you'd rather push your agenda than the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Intrusive nanny-statists that want red tape in the bedroom and those that are not.
That really shows up that many of those that screech "small government" are not - they want to regulate what goes on in bedrooms and where you go to piss.
Is where you go to piss ontopic for Slashdot? Of course it is. It's an I pee address.
Because you can be anti-abortion & pro choice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing political about it. How can a standard medical term for a medical procedure be considered political speak?
It only seems political to you because "pro-abortion" sounds bad compared to "pro-choice" simply because people tend to know what the procedure does. So why duck the truth and paint it in colorful language if you are proud of your political stance?
The center to the argument is not whether women have the right to reproductive freedom (there's another one of those feel-good terms). The anti-abo
Labels (Score:2)
The issue that GP had was not with the terms themselves, but with the inflammatory undertones that have been attached to them. Much like how the term "liberal" is now used as an insult in conservative circles. Sure the term may be an accurate description of someone, and have a specific meaning, but it's been given another meaning in popular discourse that's intended to be inflammatory.
Choice between what? (Score:5, Interesting)
It has just as much meaning as the term "pro-choice". Which choice? What are the options?
That of a human fetus. Which — to millions of people world-wide — is already a human being. The choice, which you and VoiceOfDoom wish to preserve, has two options in these millions' opinion:
Because they consider abortion to be murder, they don't view this particular choice as legitimate.
Not sure, whether the organizations mentioned in TFA think so, or simply wish to increase the birth-rates in USA. But even in the former case, they are not "anti-choice" in general — they are against offering this particular choice.
No doubt, there are a lot of things you think ought to be illegal — even if abortion is not among them. That makes you "ant-choice" too, whenever the choice is between doing and not doing one of those things...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Happens all the time. FDA would not let terminal cancer patients try experimental treatments, for example — not without lengthy application and review process — yet, when I rail about FDA's power here, my opponents are usually people, who do not mind abortions.
You are not kidding. Many countries [womenonweb.org] — inclu
Re:Choice between what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think, I worded my posting most carefully to avoid specifying my own opinion.
Do not make it personal.
The point remains — the people, whom you denounce as "anti-choice", are not — contrary to your implication — against choice in general. They are against the particular choice between having an abortion and not having one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not until you come here with a subpoena.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the point I made. Which you would not refute.
I think, we are done here.
Re: (Score:2)
My beliefs are irrelevant to the point I made. Which you would not refute.
No, they are quite relevant to the point you made. You represented one perspective. Identifying the bias in the speaker is required to evaluate the statements made. That you claim otherwise indicates you are an idiot that gets robbed every time you go to buy a car or negotiate for anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is that the validity of the statement must be taken as true, and the argument made about the logic and subject. The most likely answer is that the statement is a lie. That makes the speaker a liar. One can't evaluate the statement without making some conclusion about the speaker.
The statement made was opinion without logic, so how can one evaluate the logic?
Re:Choice between what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've done that myself a few times after being over-served.
Re: (Score:2)
Does a zygote or a blastula count as a living human being? I'd say, sure it is. It's obviously not a camel.
Anyone who has seen a zygote or blastula and claimed to be able to identify the species it came from is lying. You can't by any kind of non-destructive physical examination distinguish between any two animal (and even some non-animal) zygotes or blastula. Sure, it is not a mature camel but you can't tell me if it is a camel, a human, a fruitfly, a worm, or any other critter you can think of.
Re:Choice between what? (Score:4, Interesting)
One prank I love is posting a picture of a fetus, and asking someone, "Do you really think this counts as a human being?"
"Of course it is, you monster!
"Then you're an idiot, because that's a cat fetus."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's also a certain irony that those who cry "murder" are living in a country with a death penalty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The jokes gets even more bizarre when you realize that the people who cry bloody murder over abortion (quite literally so) are usually very much the same that think the death penalty is a really swell idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't mind if I use this. There's a few people I know who would go for it hook, line and sinker...and I don't like them. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, while those people are morons for confusing cat and human fetuses, the cat fetuses are the ones which really shouldn't be aborted, because they're going to grow up to become cute, furry, and intelligent animals, and the human ones will mostly grow up to just be assholes like all these jerks here on Slashdot.
Of course, birds might disagree with this sentiment.
Bogus contradiction vs. death penalty (Score:2)
"Murder" is a very specific kind of killing — executing a lawfully-condemned prisoner does not qualify.
Plenty of crimes do deserve death-penalty — the only valid argument against it can be based on the imperfections of the justice systems. Because, unlike a prison-sentence, death penalty is irreversible — the wrongfully accused can not be compensated upon exoneration.
But the fetus has no
Re: (Score:2)
If the fetus is a human being, then its very life is a valid concern for all members of society.
Unless, of course, you are prepared to argue, laws against murder, for example, are wrong too.
And, maybe, they are — or some of them. For example, a Libertarian could say, fine, let's stipulate fetus is a human being. Then he (not "it"!) is trespassing inside the womb — and so the woman has a right to expel him by any mea
Re: VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, "anti-choice" only appears in a direct quote from the ridiculous article. VoiceOfDoom uses the phrase "anti-abortion."
Re: VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Crisis Pregnancy Centers exist to give women a very firm push towards making the decision the center operators want her to make, and they aren't above the use of deception or emotional manipulation to achieve that goal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And women's reproductive health clinics push them towards having abortions, and they aren't above the use of deception or emotional manipulation to achieve that goal.
That's how the world works. People push what they want. No surprises here.
Progressvies, *FUCK YOU*!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep, TFA is about convincing women to make the right choice. But for "progressives" some choices are more equal than others.
Choosing to have a baby makes you "anti-choice".
Re: (Score:2)
That we are having this discussion at all in a forum such as this is a bit of an indication of how intrusive this excessive red tape from those who say they are "small government" advocates is. The majority of the people here know fuckall about the topic but noise happens because excessive government interference has turned something that really doesn't mat
Re: (Score:3)
There is not a word about "government" in TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Utter bollocks. Progressives want people to get impartial medical advice and support, so they can make a decision. The important part is that there is a genuine decision. Conservatives are the ones pushing laws to try to guilt women into making the "right" decision, like forcing them to see the foetus on an ultrasound first and then take pain killers "for the child" even though they have no effect.
If you make a free and informed decision to keep the child, then that's fine and you will find progressive orga
Re: (Score:2)
The label comes from the article, it is even in the article headline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If one child's life is saved by being anti-choice, then I'm willing to be anti-choice. It's a small price to pay in comparison to a human life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, abortion has very little to do with the woman's body. She's just the gateway. She's not actually doing anything to her body. It's the body of another she's after.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest both that you are a man, and don't know anyone who's had a baby other than your mother.
Just the gateway? I mean, I've read the normal anti-abortion life-begins-at-conception nonsense, but this is a new one for me. Having a baby is a physically life-changing event for a woman's body, and neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to tell that woman what to do with her own body. That we are still having this conversation in a supposedly civilised and free coun
Re: (Score:2)
Just a gateway!?!?!? Are you for real?
You know how you sound? Like those totally perverted, sexually frustrated, boy-raping, homosexual woman-haters called Christian priests, who claimed for hundreds of years that a:) women had no souls and b:) that a woman is a filthy bag of scum, a creature driven only by lust, a Satan's spawn whose only desire is to seduce the innocent men and veer them away from God.
Source: "The name of the rose" and before someone says that it is just a book I'd like to remind that U.E
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pro-choice is also anti-abortion. A pro-choice person is more likely to support condom distribution and use, which decreases abortions. So pro-choice is more anti-abortion than anti-choice people. Ant
Re: (Score:2)
The left is more likely to remove the choice of gun ownership, the choice of who you can do business with, what size soda you can buy, or what you can say as a religious leader.
The right is more likely to remove the choice of whether you can kill your fetus or baby (depending on your viewpoint)
Whether abortion should be legal really comes down to a belief. When does a person become a person? If you believe
Re: (Score:3)
Well, no, they aren't because they aren't forcing people to have abortions.
As opposed to the anti-abortion types who want to force people to have babies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking a Trump presidency will be very kind to my ilk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A Trump presidency is the best that could happen to me, to be honest. I really expect this to increase our economic viability along with my own.
Then again, I'm not in the US...
Re: (Score:2)
And you know, I don't get it. I mean, religious and gays, it seems like a match made in heaven when it comes to anti-abortion.
I mean, who has fewer abortions than gays?
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is the strength of the Democratic Party and how they are able to fool so many young people today with their Orwellian tactics.