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

231–240 of 297 posts

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

#231

Post by heywoodlh »

Mezzie wrote: post #218
heywoodlh wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

An appeal to fewer emotions in politics can sometimes come from a place of privilege, but I'm coming to realize that it's still USEFUL. I'm also in an odd, semi-orthogonal situation: I'm a homosexual female of child-bearing age, so while I may be impacted by this, it's far less likely than for other women and the situation would always be one of those tricky exceptions (plus, since most women are raped by men they kn…

> I think it's possible to both acknowledge the devastation people are feeling while also thinking it's counter-productive to ONLY have that conversation.

Very good point -- I completely agree. From my place of privilege (again, not saying this about anyone else) I think I often considered emotion to be completely useless and to just set it aside. Thank you for the reminder that both emotion and logical thinking should be acknowledged.

> since most women are raped by men

One of the things that blows my mind about many pro-life arguments is how little responsibility is placed on men if they impregnate a woman. Women literally can't get pregnant without a man and yet the fixation surrounding abortion is on controlling the woman's body. And when this is acknowledged, it is accompanied by unreal ideas around stopping all rape completely. Idk, it seems to me like banning abortion is treating a symptom rather than the root of why unwanted pregnancies occur (i.e. lack of sex education, dysfunctional family/societal dynamics, etc.)

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

#232

Post by ch4s3 »

david38 wrote: post #107
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…

“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…

I actually don’t believe the “start of life” is decisive or especially relevant. First and foremost I think the constitution and bill of rights give you a right to security of your person which extends to terminating an unwanted pregnancy. The state forcing you to carry to term is a violation of that right. I believe the right of the mother supersedes other rights here because there is only one way to exercise that right, and because self ownership is so core to our constitutional rights.

If you favor originalism, the the 9th amendment guarantees unenumerated rights which were deep rooted at the founding. Abortion before “quickening” was legal in all 13 states at the signing and had been part of common law for hundreds of years, so the 9th applies. The 14th amendment should apply that to the states, and the argument some originalists make about resetting the clock seems dumb to me.

So here are two very reasonable paths to the right that don’t involve the question about when laws start or some vague notion to the right to privacy. I think you need to have both an activist reading of constitutional law and a disregard for security of ones person to sidestep both arguments.

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

#233

Post by feet »

gruez wrote: post #216
feet wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Or that might be a situation of no one wanting to enact vigilante justice against someone who's not actively doing anything violent? This isn't hard to imagine. In my experience, anti-social behavior on public transit is regularly met with apathy from all the other passengers, yet I doubt you'd lump all the passengers as being anti-social and/or condoning anti-social behavior themselves.

[flagged]

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

#234

Post by feet »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #229
feet wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I do not know to which point you have separation of church and state, taken that the oath is done on the Bible (at least traditionally), with a formal "So help me God" at the end ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_presiden... ). It sure can be omitted and you could swear on something else than the Bible but this sends a message. We French do not have a clear cut separation of the two either, but th…

Oaths taken on the bible are done by choice. Someone being sworn in can choose any book they want.

The god stuff was added during the cold war due to the red scare and its definitely unconstitutional to force people to recite those words.

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

#235

Post by feet »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #223
feet wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Murder is okay as long as my religion says it is.

It's honestly bizarre that the same people in the US who were screaming about Sharia law are now pulling this dumb crap

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

#236

Post by tacitusarc »

feet wrote: post #186
UkrainianJew wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

It’s fascinating to me how being against a particular behavior being mandated is now considered being against the behavior.

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

#237

Post by 55555 »

MandieD wrote: post #179
55555 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the info. Some of the people online claiming to just be curious actually are just curious. For other readers, the prevalence of ectopic pregnancy is 1 in 50 pregnancies which is surprisingly high.

I see how once the pregnancy is officially confirmed, intentionally causing a miscarriage would be scary/risky.

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

#238

Post by clifdweller »

MandieD wrote: post #177
heywoodlh wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

i think that will be the major test to strike down any ban law that does not have triage protected. it's a tough one cause both physical and mental conditions need to be considered and thus will have different medical opinions of which politicians opinions should play no part.

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

#239

Post by gruez »

feet wrote: post #233
gruez wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that might be a situation of no one wanting to enact vigilante justice against someone who's not actively doing anything violent? This isn't hard to imagine. In my experience, anti-social behavior on public transit is regularly met with apathy from all the other passengers, yet I doubt you'd lump all the passengers as being anti-social and/or condoning anti-social behavior themselves.

[flagged]

> You're blatantly ignoring the white supremacist views and actions of literal neonazis

>Sorry, but I don't care if they're being actively violent at that moment in time because their views are centered around oppressing others and committing violence against minorities and other "nonwhites"

Okay, let's compare apples to apples then. If there was a "literal neonazi" on a subway car and he was unmolested by fellow passengers, would you conclude that public transit users are nazis? This more or less follows the thought process of the parent comment, ie. "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".

>So again, sorry if I don't have any sympathy for literal Nazis

You totally missed the point of my comment. I'm not defending "literal Nazis", I'm pointing out the fact that not enacting vigilante justice on "literal Nazis" is pretty common, so the fact that a "literal Nazi" was roaming around the protest unmolested isn't really indicative of anything. Outside of far-left groups, I suspect the amount of "punch a nazi" type of people is minuscule.

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

#240

Post by lamontcg »

gruez wrote: post #202
lamontcg wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). That banning abortion leads to the deaths of thousands of young women. Pretty sure we all agree that a girl's life starts before she can get pregnant.

1. where are you getting "deaths of thousands of young women" from? According to the CDC the mortality rate associated with live births is 23.8 per 100,000. In the US there are only 629,898 abortions per year. Multiply those numbers out, and you only get 150 deaths. 2. even if you accept that there would be "deaths of thousands of young women", I doubt those deaths would sway the opinion of someone who thinks each ab…

> 1. where are you getting "deaths of thousands of young women" from? According to the CDC the mortality rate associated with live births is 23.8 per 100,000. In the US there are only 629,898 abortions per year. Multiply those numbers out, and you only get 150 deaths.

backalley abortions.

i'm 100% anti-clotheshanger.

it is interesting that a lot of people on this site need to be intellectually spoonfed into understanding that this is the major issue that most pro-choice people focus on.

you can't magically turn all those abortions into unproblematic births without seeing deaths due to backalley abortions. it is like arguing that by banning drugs you can make drug use go away. you just discount the desperation those women are under and consider them criminals and are okay with the stochastic death penalty.

Post reply on HN