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

Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 297 posts

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#171

Post by diordiderot »

throwaway744678 wrote: post #164
david38 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The issues” themselves aren’t even fully agreed upon, especially if they’re not believed to be core by everyone. Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue. It’s the basis for the pro-life movement. It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). There are other things some people believe are core which others don’t believe e…

> Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue. Yes, the core issue is here. Though no-one seriously argues that a foetus is not human, nor alive: the issue is "is it a person (yet)?". Is it something, or someone? Answering that question - not an easy one - makes one swing one way or another of the issue.

The core issue is 'Is a human obligated to use their body to keep another human alive'

A thought experiment.

You get too drunk and pass out in a bar.

I take you home a f hook you up to a person with failing kidneys so that you filter their blood.

If you unhook yourself they will die.

Should you go to prison for unhooking yourself?

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#172

Post by SR2Z »

thrown_22 wrote: post #154
rayiner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis. Even Thomas doesn’t disagree that there are implied rights. His view is that they originate from the “privileges and immunities” clause, not the “due process clause.” But nobody disagrees, for example, that marria…

>The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis. That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again. Along with cases on gay marriage, anal sex and contraceptives. A year ago I made the case that if we can force people to divulge their vaccination status th…

People have been required to disclose vaccine status for decades in many situations.

Your right to privacy is not absolute; the state (and society in general) frequently need to know things about you to function well, including protecting public health and reducing senseless death.

This is a necessary evil for us to have a civilization in the first place and is not "destroying the bedrock of the last 50 years of social progress." Vaccine "mandates" are not unduly invasive, because the vaccine is free and shown beyond all reasonable doubt to be safe.

In any case, Loving v. Virginia was not decided on the basis of privacy at all - it was decided under the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause. If Thomas gets his way and decides to revisit the conclusion in this case, it will be because he does not think that marriage is a protected under the Privileges and Immunities clause.

It will have nothing to do with the right to privacy, because that case had nothing to do with it.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#173

Post by HumanReadable »

diordiderot wrote: post #171
throwaway744678 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue. Yes, the core issue is here. Though no-one seriously argues that a foetus is not human, nor alive: the issue is "is it a person (yet)?". Is it something, or someone? Answering that question - not an easy one - makes one swing one way or another of the issue.

The core issue is 'Is a human obligated to use their body to keep another human alive' A thought experiment. You get too drunk and pass out in a bar. I take you home a f hook you up to a person with failing kidneys so that you filter their blood. If you unhook yourself they will die. Should you go to prison for unhooking yourself?

That really doesn't seem like the core issue to me. Once child is born parents have tons of obligations towards them, and severe neglect can cause a prison sentence.

I'm not American, so forgive me for barging in, but it seems to me you have two core issues:

First there is the debate over when a Fetus should be considered a person and receive the rights that come with it.

Secondly there is a debate over states rights and what topics the federal government should get a say in.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#174

Post by GoodJokes »

Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…

No post body was provided.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#175

Post by water554 »

SR2Z wrote: post #172
thrown_22 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis. That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again. Along with cases on gay marriage, anal sex and contraceptives. A year ago I made the case that if we can force people to divulge their vaccination status th…

People have been required to disclose vaccine status for decades in many situations. Your right to privacy is not absolute; the state (and society in general) frequently need to know things about you to function well, including protecting public health and reducing senseless death. This is a necessary evil for us to have a civilization in the first place and is not "destroying the bedrock of the last 50 years of soci…

It doesn’t matter if the vaccine gives you wings and free beer for life. The government should NOT be able to mandate an injection (tested for not very long) into a person’s sovereign body. (I am vaccinated btw, not that it matters)

Privacy violations are NOT a necessary evil. They are the slipperiest of slopes. Look to china to see where this road ends. The government is not our parents, it’s a naughty power hungry child.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#176

Post by GoodJokes »

tomc1985 wrote: post #97
Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…

I attended a rally and march on Roe v Wade last night, and it was alarming to hear just how many other issues rally leaders tossed into the ring, to a large cheering crowd. Some of these were things have a legitimate intersection with reproductive rights -- minority access to equal healthcare, or the various kinds of service ghettos that spring up minority neighborhoods, or other issues SCOTUS has indicated it wants…

No post body was provided.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#177

Post by MandieD »

heywoodlh wrote: post #145
killdozer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> like we approach discussions around kubernetes I've already deployed my CloudNative Political Belief System in a fault-tolerant EKS cluster with a fully implemented CI/CD pipeline. > Yes i wish people would stop being so emotional about their rights being stripped from them On a more serious note, I appreciate this sarcasm as my wife and I were devastated about this news because of how we feel it impacts us (we're…

As someone who had a surprise (but most welcome) pregnancy at 40, many years after an ectopic one, I’m coming to grips with the fact that my home state’s government, and possibly a large percentage of its residents including most of my close relatives, are ok with me dying if I have another ectopic and happen to be visiting when things get critical.

“But there are exceptions for the life of the mother, and an ectopic surely is that!”

How many women won’t seek medical help when the pain and bleeding start because they think it might be a “normal” miscarriage and are scared of being investigated for inducing an abortion?

I have the privilege of a German residence permit and a healthy bank account that would normally mean I could hop on a flight to my chosen home the next day to get medical assistance without fear, but in the age of Covid, that assumption has been overturned as well.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#178

Post by labster »

UkrainianJew wrote: post #148
labster wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you haven’t been to many rallies or protests. People always show up with unrelated issues, and there’s not much you can do about it as an organizer. I helped to organize a protest asking Trump to release his taxes, and people showed up with signs to abolish ICE (immigration enforcement). I went to a rally to get out the vote, and the local congresswoman was drowned out by a woman who wanted her son freed from…

Yep, and then you do an anti-vaccine-mandate rally in Canada, one idiot with a swastika shows up, and then media goes on for weeks how everyone opposing vaccine mandates is a Nazi.

I do feel for you, even being on the opposite side of the issue. The press is too driven to present outrage, so you lose the message 99% of the people were there to deliver.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#179

Post by MandieD »

55555 wrote: post #133
escape_goat wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court decision will affect people's work lives at Meta, and that is something that needs to be discussed. There are apparently states now where women lose rights just by visiting a doctor, where they can be criminally prosecuted for an abortion outside of the state if there is evidence that they had been pregnant at any point. Should Meta employees be required to continue living and working in those state…

Honestly I get that rights are important and worth fighting over, but from a practical perspective, if you want to have an abortion, what’s wrong with just ordering abortion pills online and taking them? That pretty much solves the problem, right? Just curious.

Ok, “just curious,” there’s something called an ectopic pregnancy. You cannot be sure that’s why you’re bleeding and in pain, so in a normal place like Germany (where I had mine) or pretty much anywhere in the US before this Friday, you would go to your gyno or the emergency room to see what’s going on. If it really is a fetus that implanted itself in your Fallopian tubes or somewhere else where it will slowly bleed you to death, it must be removed medically (my and most early cases) or surgically. Depending on location, it either could never or is highly unlikely to result in an infant that could survive outside your body in any form.

If it’s in your uterus, either you’ll have the option of intervening to try keeping the pregnancy going (if the doctor thinks that’s even possible), or, more likely, be sent home with painkillers and encouraging words about “trying again”.

In Texas, my home state, I would be very hesitant to make that visit, for fear it wasn’t ectopic and that I was exposing myself to, at the very least, a rather physically and psychologically invasive and expensive investigation into whether I induced the miscarriage.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#180

Post by soundsgoodtome »

tomc1985 wrote: post #97
Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…

I attended a rally and march on Roe v Wade last night, and it was alarming to hear just how many other issues rally leaders tossed into the ring, to a large cheering crowd. Some of these were things have a legitimate intersection with reproductive rights -- minority access to equal healthcare, or the various kinds of service ghettos that spring up minority neighborhoods, or other issues SCOTUS has indicated it wants…

This is how it played out in Austin, which may or may not be the protest you’re referring to.

IMO, the biggest issue here is that no one has any patience for anything anymore (outside of what they’re getting paid to be thoughtful about), so nuance has gone out the window.

Post reply on HN