Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

ooni.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 180 posts

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#121

Post by nancyminusone »

cocoto wrote: post #84
quickthrowman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is morally opposed to abortion, they don’t need to have one. That’s where it should end, there’s no need to control the bodies of others due to a moral belief that other people don’t hold.

The whole point of the debate is that the fetus has no choice during an absorption, not some “moral” ground that you are imposing to someone else.

That is unfortunate, but the opposing view entitles a fetus to use of another persons body. This is something I am not entitled to, even if a blood transfusion, marrow transplant, or organ donation would save my life with certainty.

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#122

Post by dudefeliciano »

Manuel_D wrote: post #120
dudefeliciano wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, you are deliberately dismissing rape victims that got pregnant[1], what is their recourse? Or do you just care about the rights of a fetus while it's in utero and then they're on their own as soon as they pop out? [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

Nothing in your link contradicts the fact that the vast majority of abortions are not terminating rape-related pregnancies.

Maybe because that is not the argument I am trying to make?

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#123

Post by ordu »

lelanthran wrote: post #109
ordu wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. The only way is to make access easy. If you make it hard, then demand for black market drugs will drive supply. Which in turn would drive a repressive machine. Sites blocked, people convicted and so on. I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic…

> I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior. The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people - see above where a pro-choicer is arguing that abortion 1 day before delivery should be legal.

> The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people

Tu quoque[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque_defense

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#124

Post by munk-a »

chpatrick wrote: post #72
lelanthran wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

It has absolutely no medical function apart from further traumatizing a woman who's already in a really shitty situation. No one's saying abortion should be possible at 8 months. At 6 weeks when there's a heartbeat it's barely a bag of cells.

Abortion should be possible at 8 months - it absolutely must be possible in the cases of complications to save the life of the mother. For other cases I believe it shouldn't be easily legal to ensure that people seek abortion aide earlier in their pregnancy but in the case someone is unaware (it does happen though it's outrageously rare) or in the case someone is prevented from seeking earlier care it should be an option. 8 months should be restricted purely because it can cause an immense amount of damage to your body and abortions at that point are technically complex so ideally people should be encouraged to make that decision earlier in the process.

In my personal opinion, though I am a bit in the fringe, person-hood doesn't come into being until a few years of development though if a baby is born and the family can't take care of it that's obviously a case where adoption would be preferred. Child rearing is a big life changing responsibility and I generally think it should only be undertaken voluntarily though the societal requirements and supports for child rearing in nearly all of the world put reasonable constraints on how far we can move in that direction[1].

1. As an example: financial obligations for child support are absolutely justified in societies where the financial strain on single parents isn't otherwise accounted for.

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#125

Post by ordu »

exolymph wrote: post #115
ordu wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter. Maybe they are free of charge, idk, but they doesn't seem to be free of judgement. From the article: Even if an abortion seeker is within the 12 week gestational limit and has access to a local hospital, a doctor can turn them away on the basis of conscientious objection, which legally allows any doctor to deny a patient an abortion on mo…

Should doctors be forced to perform abortions they don't condone?

No one forced them to become gynecologists.

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#126

Post by drdaeman »

mullingitover wrote: post #106
lelanthran wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

> Hang on, how is listening to the heartbeat mental torture? How about if the state decided that it wouldn't force you to donate your organs to some dying person who needed them, but every time there was a person who needed your your organs and you declined you would have to sit and listen to their heartbeat for 20 minutes. Really sit and think about the person you're deciding to kill. After all, if you don't give yo…

There’s no person in case of a fetus.

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#127

Post by khriss »

lelanthran wrote: post #108
khriss wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's clearly already a child and I will object. Clearly you believe in the primacy of preserving life. I am wondering if your belief extends to after the child is born?

> Clearly you believe in the primacy of preserving life. I am wondering if your belief extends to after the child is born?Clearly you believe in the primacy of preserving life. I am wondering if your belief extends to after the child is born? Are you suggesting that, because I object to abortion a day before delivery, that I must be some kind of misogynistic monster? Because that's where the line is drawn in this cur…

Really? The linked article clearly says the limit is 12 weeks. Quite a ways away from 'one day' before delivery.

Also, you didn't really answer the question....

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#128

Post by nateb2022 »

munk-a wrote: post #124
chpatrick wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has absolutely no medical function apart from further traumatizing a woman who's already in a really shitty situation. No one's saying abortion should be possible at 8 months. At 6 weeks when there's a heartbeat it's barely a bag of cells.

Abortion should be possible at 8 months - it absolutely must be possible in the cases of complications to save the life of the mother. For other cases I believe it shouldn't be easily legal to ensure that people seek abortion aide earlier in their pregnancy but in the case someone is unaware (it does happen though it's outrageously rare) or in the case someone is prevented from seeking earlier care it should be an op…

[dead]

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#129

Post by pstuart »

This is obviously a contentious issue, but it's important to understand why.

Catholics are "pro birth" in general, but it really doesn't have much in scripture to support it; there is of course the "Quiverfull" movement which aims for each birth to be "an arrow in the quiver of God's army"

So for all of that, it's clearly a religious viewpoint and that raises serious 1A questions.

A question I've never seen addressed by those who hew to this belief system:

Apparently roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, which is (using the belief system above), God is performing an abortion. How does that reconcile with that stance.

My personal take is simple: "every baby should be a wanted baby"

The politics of it started half a century ago, and the politicizing of abortion was very much intentional:

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-again...

It's important to have discussions based on logic and facts, rather than emotion. It will be interesting to see how that plays out here.

Re: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

#130

Post by mullingitover »

drdaeman wrote: post #126
mullingitover wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hang on, how is listening to the heartbeat mental torture? How about if the state decided that it wouldn't force you to donate your organs to some dying person who needed them, but every time there was a person who needed your your organs and you declined you would have to sit and listen to their heartbeat for 20 minutes. Really sit and think about the person you're deciding to kill. After all, if you don't give yo…

There’s no person in case of a fetus.

I agree, but for a sizable chunk of the population who've had it drilled into them from the time they were a toddler, it's an article of faith.

So for people who won't debate on anything but that axiom, it's important to point out the major issues with it.

Post reply on HN