Because it supposedly comes with a ranking boost (and if you are a Musk fan, the thrill of sending money to your hero), but if it is visible you can get mocked.

>abortions should be available for thouse who really need them

Well, this article is about taking away those abortions.

They work at Subway making sandwiches, but we are supposed to look to them for moral approval.

No woman or girl should need your approval for an abortion. It is none of your business what health care they need and receive. And you fucking work at Subway making sandwiches---what kind of qualification is that?

>Because I actually do care about people living and getting a chance to experience life to the fullest.

No you don't. You and your laws are going to kill women and girls. You are going to kill mothers who leave living children behind. All because you have a twisted idea about whether they met your incel idea of responsibility.

Killing women and girls because of your own theoretical beliefs is indeed "shocking, selfish, and brutal". That is the result of your belief, even if your mom tells you otherwise.

You still don't understand that pregnancy itself can be the danger, with all your "responsibility" bullshit. Responsible women who want to be pregnant and have a baby can get ectopic pregnancies---there is nothing they can do to be "responsible" for that. The only treatment is abortion. Fetuses can develop anomalies and not be compatible with life outside the womb---today, there are women with those fetuses who cannot get an abortion they need because of laws you people passed.

You aren't showing "human empathy", you are showing the opposite: an inability to understand what kind of health care women and girls need. I don't know why you care about some women getting abortions, but it is not your business.

Abortion is health care for women and girls.

I am the opposite of incel, I have a wife and daughter who need health care.

"Exceptions" in these laws do not work. Doctors cannot be sure that a prosecutor and jury will agree that a woman's life was actually in danger. Because these laws make abortion a crime by default. A doctor who uses the exception can still be put on trial and risk his or her license to practice and jail if someone disagrees about the risk in a court room a year later.

The only reason they put these "exceptions" in the law is to allow people like you to pretend they exist. Doctors stop performing abortions. Women with dead babies inside don't get abortions any more, because they aren't in the emergency room, and by the time they are, it is probably too late. Women with ectopic pregnancies die because the medicines aren't available in their state, or now they need a fallopian tube removed (possibly making them sterile) because the pill they could take is illegal to prescribe or dispense.

Abortion is health care for women and girls. I want them to get that care and you don't. Mine is the moral position, because I care about the women and girls who need it. Yours is the immoral position that they aren't allowed the health care they need.

The problem is that people can inform themselves in many ways other than posting comments on Reddit threads. It's a basic civic responsibility to inform yourself, not just lazily ask Redditors to do it for you.

It's borderline trolling, because lots of disingenuous trolls do the "just asking questions" routine over and over without any interest in actually learning or forming an opinion.

Tell me you know nothing about women and girls who need abortions without telling me.

Many women with pregnancies they wanted to have and wanted to carry to term need abortions to save their life. Girls who had no choice need abortions, too.

Their blood is on your hands, with your incel "abortion is for dumb sluts, huh huh huh" attitude.

They also want to subjugate and control rich women, but the rich women are better suited to evade their control.

Libertarians generally don't care about the liberty of women and girls.

For some reason, conservatives are generally dedicated to a power structure which puts some people over others: this usually includes patriarchy. A woman or girl in this view exists only to obey rules subjugating them to men, and their reproductive rights are limited to what men want from them.

A woman or girl who gets pregnant, in their mind, is now bound to incubate and raise the child in service of the patriarchy. If she was raped? Well, doesn't matter, a man was taking what belongs to him, the woman doesn't have the right to refuse.

The pregnancy is ectopic? Who cares, she's barely human, some other woman or girl will have to take her place after she dies in agony. As she is dying, she can take some pleasure in thinking of the children she bore and will leave behind, which will make her slightly more memorable to her widower.

Women have been dying in childbirth for millions of years; in a conservative's mind, that is how God ordered the world. Giving them modern medical care is a luxury, better spent giving the patriarch treatment for ED or whatever else he needs to keep himself alive and fertilizing brood mares.

They don't care about the potential humans, really, they just want to oppress, subjugate, and punish women and girls.

The restriction is on other people offering guidance, and to argue on behalf of someone else, such as the service offering the AI for this purpose, particularly if the AI is being consulted at court and offering "knowledge" about the law.

The grifter is straight up running a service and saying "use this to get help for your legal situation". This is pretty much as clear as a violation can be.

Here's someone with legal training explaining just one part of why shit like this can't work and is actively harmful

https://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/1618620649412624387

Unlicensed practice of law does not have an "I know I am not a lawyer" exception. If he is using an AI to give people advice on what to do when they appear before a judge, that is practicing law. And neither he nor the AI are licensed for that in any jurisdiction.

As for "low stakes", the same grifter bro was offering a million dollars for some "lawyer or person" to use AI before the Supreme Court.

Also, you start playing games with a Court, they can cite you for contempt, beyond whatever the ticket penalty would be. You could get the judge to suspend your license when he was just going to give you a fine.

This is not a fucking game where people should try out experimental shit just to see how it goes.

No, this something is not better, this kind of shit is worse, because it can actively get clients in trouble while thinking they have help. That's why unlicensed practice of law is forbidden.

It's like sending cancer patients to faith healers or giving them fake medicine or poison.

Edit: https://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/1618620649412624387?s=20&t=x4sD7_5Y4zXim9B5d7ZbTQ

Makes several points including that making legal filings or statements in court can cause serious problems if they are not true or if this is your only/last chance to raise important issues and you fail to do so.

Also, lawyers have to find out facts that are relevant, by knowing which facts would be important, how to establish those facts (given human imperfections like bad memory or dishonesty), and prove them to the relevant legal standard.

It's not just making the right kind of word noises.

The idiot was not clear about whose ticket it was and said he sent a subpoena to the cop which is the absolute last thing you want to do. Basically your only hope in a speeding ticket is the cop not showing up.

If it was his ticket, he was just stupid, if it was someone else's ticket, it is unlicensed practice of law, and really bad advice.

>. I read yesterday that (I think) ChatGPT passed the essay portion of a bar exam...

I don't think that is what happened. A bot got a mediocre grade on law school questions, and passed a couple sections of the multiple choice part of the multi state bar exam.

>how on earth can you still have it stuck in your head that I am talking about AI giving legal advice

Idiot, we are in a thread about some other idiot applying AI to pretend to give legal advice.

>lawyers have prevented anyone from even trying?

That is not what happened. Some douchebro with no clue was stopped from completely screwing over innocent people by giving them garbage advice.

The way to figure out if AI can help is to engage on good faith with lawyers doing the work, not to pretend you have some patent medicine to cure every legal problem and brag online.

>decipher patterns from every legal source document that's ever been created

See, this is the stupid shit that techbros say which shows they do not have any clue at all what the practice of law is about.

Public defenders don't need to find some secret piece of law hidden deep in a vault to help their clients. They need an understanding of what the prosecution is trying to do, the evidence and witnesses and questions they will use to persuade a jury, identify the weaknesses of the case, negotiate with the prosecution if possible, find and prepare their own witnesses and evidence, understand the procedures of the court, know how to work within those procedures and motion practice to get the best possible outcome, challenge the prosecution motions and actions, effectively cross-examine witnesses, and explain things to the client and emotionally guide them through the process.

Not consult millions of lines of legal documents.

What "practice" are you even talking about? These AI bots are completely unsuited for giving legal advice.

Public defenders don't need AI. They need enough hours in the day to help the clients they have, which means the public needs to hire enough for the caseload, not asking a hopped-up ELIZA to pretend to help.

Only to techbro idiots who don't understand how the legal system and lawyers (and Reddit) work. The comment was not a good one, it gets down votes, it isn't worth arguing with.

Yes. Because lawyers don't need artificial intelligence to "summarize" the law, they need a legal education, experience, and sometimes search indices.