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

181–190 of 297 posts

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

#181

Post by akomtu »

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…

Such rallies are a lot closer to gypsy dancing where a bunch of drugged participants create a whirlpool of emotions, turn off their minds and unleash their animal side. Speeches there serve as mantras of some sort: they must sound a certain rhythmic way, but their meaning is irrelevant.

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

#182

Post by toofy »

HWR_14 wrote: post #124
Flankk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's way too much emotion in politics these days. I would like to see a return of rational discourse. I've had my fill of both the screaming liberals and the dusty conservatives. Most of the complex issues deal with morality so it's probably all for naught. The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people. No point using empirical evidence when you don't believe in it to begin with.

> The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people I don't believe this is true in western societies anymore. Even in the US, people who describe themselves as "very religious" or belong to a church are the minority.

> people who describe themselves as "very religious" or belong to a church are the minority.

i’m not sure this is at all an accurate depiction of americans and religion. last i looked into it—which admittedly was like two years ago—an absolutely terrifying number of americans believed in angels and god. if i’m remembering correctly, it was a wild shocking number, like more than 70%.

i mean, if we’re limiting it to only self-described “very religious” maybe, but believing in god and angels is suspect enough in a persons rational judgement and that absolutely is not a minority of people.

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

#183

Post by phatfish »

water554 wrote: post #175
SR2Z wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A government HAS to mandate behavior to create a functioning society. The idea of democracy is that everyone should participate in where the boundaries lie.

The tendency now it seems is for people to absolve themselves from maintaining a democratic discourse by taking a selfish absolutist position.

There will always exceptions.

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

#184

Post by BrandoElFollito »

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 do not think that each get is ignoring the important parts of the other. I think they think that these important things are simply wrong.

A foetus is "alive" since the conception. "Wrong" says the other side, it is alive when (something).

Contraception and sex ed are key. "Wrong" says the other side, you can just be abstinent and learn as you go because this is natural.

Ignoring would be simpler, because you could realize that what you are ignoring actually makes sense. We are in a case where each side has well defined views on the important things of the adversary.

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

#185

Post by TMWNN »

rayiner wrote: post #117
tomc1985 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The irony is that if it wasn’t for intersectionality, there’s a good chance Democrats could have held their traditional ambivalent stance on immigration, and Trump wouldn’t have gotten elected and wouldn’t have gotten those Supreme Court picks. Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest, Black people…

>Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest

This faction's support for Democrats is rapidly disintegrating, based on the massive shift to Trump seen in the Texas border counties in 2020. Like, 30 points' worth of movement.

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

#186

Post by feet »

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.

[flagged]

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

#187

Post by feet »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #184
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 do not think that each get is ignoring the important parts of the other. I think they think that these important things are simply wrong. A foetus is "alive" since the conception. "Wrong" says the other side, it is alive when (something). Contraception and sex ed are key. "Wrong" says the other side, you can just be abstinent and learn as you go because this is natural. Ignoring would be simpler, because you could…

Why should people be forced into abstinence? Why are republicans trying to make contraceptives illegal?

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

#188

Post by feet »

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?

No post body was provided.

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

#189

Post by feet »

HumanReadable wrote: post #173
diordiderot wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the US humans have rights on a sliding scale, a child does not have the same rights as an 18 year old

I don't think its unreasonable that a fetus, being a clump of cells that cannot survive and is not independently living, has less rights to life than a minor child

The mother is the fully independently living human in this case with full rights, those should not be overridden by a clump of cells with potential

If we judge everything by it's "potential" then we need to start charging men for masturbating and not saving their ejaculate and charging women for having menstrual cycles

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

#190

Post by krapp »

rayiner wrote: post #136
amatwl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except there are already some House Republicans publicly discussing a nationwide ban on abortion - guaranteed it's going to be on the agenda if Republicans take back Congress (which is highly likely). Also, it's not exactly easy to move to another state.

Social conservatives spent virtually all of their political capital on Roe and it still took them 50 years to get rid of a precedent that was not only completely lacking in foundation, but forced Georgia to allow elective abortions two months further into a pregnancy than France. And you think that banning abortion nationwide is “guaranteed” to “be on the agenda” the next go around?

Conservatives didn't spend anything close to all of their political capital, rather they have more now than they ever had, and getting rid of Roe has always been a pretext to banning abortions entirely. This isn't merely a political issue for them, it's religious and existential. Conservatives aren't just going to stop at Roe on principle, even though they have a lock on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas suggested they consider rolling back contraceptive rights and gay marriage as well. Of course he conveniently forgot about Loving v. Virginia but realistically that's on the table now too, because he seems to have forgotten the true nature of American politics and the ideology now in control of the Court. This isn't over by a long shot.
Post reply on HN