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

151–160 of 180 posts

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

#151

Post by jjav »

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?

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

No person should be forced to perform actions they don't condone.

But there is no unalienable right to be a doctor. If someone wants to be a doctor and not perform health care procedures, then that's not compatible with being that kind of doctor.

They are entirely free to switch careers to do something else.

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

#152

Post by pstuart »

ieatcandlewax wrote: post #143
pstuart wrote: post #129

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…

> The politics of it started half a century ago, and the politicizing of abortion was very much intentional: It might have re-emerged as abortion became more in vogue in the early 20th century, but the politics of it have existed since ancient rome. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/infanticide-in-ancient... The rest of your argument is a strawman, you're imagining someone who disagrees with you and giving them w…

I'm arguing in good faith and welcome valid criticism.

Please note that I'm not trying to troll (the bit about God doing abortions may seem like it but that point stands on its own: if an abortion is the cessation of the development of a fetus or proto-human, then a miscarriage is effectively an "abortion"). The question becomes "why did that happen". This is an important question to ask because women are being imprisoned for miscarriages and the "passionate pursuit of the matter" does not always lead to justice.

As for any strawmen from me, my conflation of Catholic teaching and the Quiverfull movement -- I'll own that outright as being lazy on my part.

Politics can be construed in different ways. Yes, there have been laws and movements, but not under the banner of any US political party. I'm talking about as a partisan platform issue. I remember, I was there. It's very well documented and there's an even less palatable facet to that movement as it has been documented that it was intended to succeed segregation as a politically activating issue.

Now back to your points:

Conflating infanticide with "abortion" is an Equivocation — using a single term or concept across two things that differ in a morally or legally. Also known as a false equivalence. It also begs the question, since the equivalence between fetus and infant is precisely what's in dispute.

I'm engaging here in self-defense, because there are parties actively trying to make this country a theocracy and I think thats a very bad idea.

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

#153

Post by pstuart »

nateb2022 wrote: post #148
pstuart wrote: post #129

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…

> Catholics are "pro birth" in general, but it really doesn't have much in scripture to support it Exodus 20:13: "Thou shalt not kill."

That verse prohibits murder. Whether abortion constitutes murder depends on fetal personhood, which is the entire question.

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

#154

Post by Forgeties79 »

true_religion wrote: post #117
Forgeties79 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is talking about abortion writ large, not the relative risk of a specific medication. He’s even making an appeal to the “heart beat rule.”

When writing my comment, I did think to myself that the commenter might be biased, but it was borderline. So I deliberately chose to steel-man the argument. They are of course free to destroy their credibility and end civil discussion, but I didn't want to do it for them.

> So I deliberately chose to steel-man the argument.

Please don’t do that. This isn’t a debate team sparring session.

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

#155

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #97
lelanthran wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Indeed, access must be made easy. That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy. > I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible. I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice…

> No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important? > I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action. France, and many other countries, makes it a crime (misdemeanour I think?) not to help people. If I see someone about to die, and I…

Wouldn't selling pills online effectively remove the dilemma? The doctors can avoid killing and the women are free to go through abortion

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

#156

Post by nateb2022 »

pstuart wrote: post #153
nateb2022 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Catholics are "pro birth" in general, but it really doesn't have much in scripture to support it Exodus 20:13: "Thou shalt not kill."

That verse prohibits murder. Whether abortion constitutes murder depends on fetal personhood, which is the entire question.

I agree with this.

But I would add, I don't think we can define a person as anything other than a genetically distinct individual of the species Homo sapiens. If a definition were to be proposed not on the basis of what something is, but rather how it functions, where it exists, or its level of dependence on other persons, then personhood ceases to be an inherent property and becomes a conditional privilege. And historically, whenever society has tried to separate biological human status from legal 'personhood,' it has paved the way for dehumanization and injustice.

To preserve human equality, personhood must be tied strictly to objective biological reality.

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

#157

Post by pstuart »

nateb2022 wrote: post #156
pstuart wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That verse prohibits murder. Whether abortion constitutes murder depends on fetal personhood, which is the entire question.

I agree with this. But I would add, I don't think we can define a person as anything other than a genetically distinct individual of the species Homo sapiens. If a definition were to be proposed not on the basis of what something is , but rather how it functions, where it exists, or its level of dependence on other persons, then personhood ceases to be an inherent property and becomes a conditional privilege. And his…

> genetically distinct individual of the species Homo sapiens

Well yes, in principle. But is a Blastocyst a person or potential person?

> paved the way for dehumanization and injustice

Oh, that ship sailed a long time ago and it has nothing to do with babies.

> objective biological reality

objective is an interesting word, in that in this topic it seems to be very subjective.

My point stands: the easiest way to prevent abortions from happening is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

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

#158

Post by setopt »

munk-a wrote: post #58
setopt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. The explanation sounds very reasonable.

It's an unreasonable argument because the people who treat medication like candy are far less common than the people who are restricted from seeking medical assistance due to repressive family situations. In Italy these services are thankfully not restricted in the same way they are in, say, America - but there are still plenty of life situations (like suffering SA from a family member) where shame, social pressures…

No one claimed that people just "love popping abortion pills". At least my reading of their comment is that these pills are considered dangerous to take alone in your bedroom, without monitoring and follow-up by health professionals, and are therefore expected by the health system to be used in a hospital setting. That sounded reasonable to me.

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

#159

Post by munk-a »

setopt wrote: post #158
munk-a wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an unreasonable argument because the people who treat medication like candy are far less common than the people who are restricted from seeking medical assistance due to repressive family situations. In Italy these services are thankfully not restricted in the same way they are in, say, America - but there are still plenty of life situations (like suffering SA from a family member) where shame, social pressures…

No one claimed that people just "love popping abortion pills". At least my reading of their comment is that these pills are considered dangerous to take alone in your bedroom, without monitoring and follow-up by health professionals, and are therefore expected by the health system to be used in a hospital setting. That sounded reasonable to me.

The comment above the comment above mine said:

> Abortion pills are not candies.

That statement is unnecessary unless you believe that some people treat them as candies (not literally but take them casually and without thought).

All medication is dangerous in excess - OTC painkillers often have absolutely disastrous OD effects with ibuprofen causing major stomache problems if abused in moderation or heart/kidney problems if abused more seriously.

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

#160

Post by dwaltrip »

lelanthran wrote: post #91
loup-vaillant wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret, including from the family, especially if she’s underage. I don’t think that’s the direction they’re headed though. I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objectio…

> Indeed, access must be made easy. That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy. > I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible. I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice…

> I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.

This feels too broad. What modern government doesn't compel action?

Post reply on HN