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

251–260 of 297 posts

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

#251

Post by gruez »

lamontcg wrote: post #240
gruez wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 understan…

>backalley abortions.

thanks for clarifying, but I still need a source for the "deaths of thousands of young women" claim. The best I could find with a cursory search is:

"In Brazil, where abortion is also illegal, it’s estimated that 250,000 women are hospitalized from complications from abortions, and about 200 women a year die from the complications"

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/how-many-...

>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.

Or maybe you should clearly state what the basis of your numbers are the first time around, rather than asserting a number and letting your reader figure out what the basis is?

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

#252

Post by feet »

gruez wrote: post #250
feet wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>If they were parading around swastikas yea, I'd expect at least a few people to stand up and say something "say something" and then what? Convince them that being a nazi is bad so they leave? Let's be real here, the only realistic way of dealing with a nazi at a protest is through physical force. >I also didn't call the anti vax protestors Nazis. I said they were okay with Nazism, while similar it is different 1. th…

[flagged]

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

#253

Post by notacoward »

gruez wrote: post #251
lamontcg wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 understan…

>backalley abortions. thanks for clarifying, but I still need a source for the "deaths of thousands of young women" claim. The best I could find with a cursory search is: "In Brazil, where abortion is also illegal, it’s estimated that 250,000 women are hospitalized from complications from abortions, and about 200 women a year die from the complications" https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/how-many-...…

You're sea-lioning, or what the guidelines call cross-examining. No set time period was specified. Even the per-annum numbers already cited add up to thousands over a decade or two. Also, you seem to be demanding precision when you haven't even specified a threshold you would find acceptable. Is it OK for you that "merely" hundreds of women die needlessly? Instead of trying to make others chase your ever-receding goalposts, perhaps you should try making your own persuasive argument.

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

#254

Post by yucky »

diordiderot wrote: post #196
HumanReadable wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't believe it matters if the fetus is a person or not. Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive? I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.

How does a 39 week old fetus differ from a newborn? I think the point of contention for most people is on why a mother should be able to end the life of one and not the other.

The majority of Americans do not support elective abortion at 39 weeks, so that means by definition they support some regulations. In other words, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is, where?

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

#255

Post by yucky »

feet wrote: post #189
HumanReadable wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is a 39 week old fetus a "clump of cells that cannot survive" (any different than a newborn)? I think the real issue is that abortion support isn't as binary as some people make it out to be. I've met very few pro-choice people who support elective abortions at 39 weeks, which means even the pro-choice crowd thinks there needs to be regulations.

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

#256

Post by heavyset_go »

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…

The first is a result of sample and survivor bias, given that pregnancies with complications were aborted. Also, 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic.

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

#257

Post by feet »

yucky wrote: post #255
feet wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is a 39 week old fetus a "clump of cells that cannot survive" (any different than a newborn)? I think the real issue is that abortion support isn't as binary as some people make it out to be. I've met very few pro-choice people who support elective abortions at 39 weeks, which means even the pro-choice crowd thinks there needs to be regulations.

At 39 weeks the woman has known she has been pregnant for some time and intends to keep the baby. If an abortion happens at this point, it's an incredibly traumatic experience because something with the pregnancy has gone extremely wrong. You present a useless hypothetical that does nothing to advance the conversation. You're repeating a useless point that does nothing besides distract from the issues of the bodily autonomy of women, its disingenuous

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

#258

Post by gruez »

notacoward wrote: post #253
gruez wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>backalley abortions. thanks for clarifying, but I still need a source for the "deaths of thousands of young women" claim. The best I could find with a cursory search is: "In Brazil, where abortion is also illegal, it’s estimated that 250,000 women are hospitalized from complications from abortions, and about 200 women a year die from the complications" https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/how-many-...…

You're sea-lioning, or what the guidelines call cross-examining. No set time period was specified . Even the per-annum numbers already cited add up to thousands over a decade or two. Also, you seem to be demanding precision when you haven't even specified a threshold you would find acceptable. Is it OK for you that "merely" hundreds of women die needlessly? Instead of trying to make others chase your ever-receding go…

>You're sea-lioning, or what the guidelines call cross-examining. No set time period was specified. Even the per-annum numbers already cited add up to thousands over a decade or two.

Claiming that no time period was specified makes the statement true, but also makes the statement so weak that it doesn't really mean anything.

>Also, you seem to be demanding precision when you haven't even specified a threshold you would find acceptable. Is it OK for you that "merely" hundreds of women die needlessly? Instead of trying to make others chase your ever-receding goalposts, perhaps you should try making your own persuasive argument.

I already have, in my previous comment.

>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 abortion is murder (ie. 629,898 "deaths" from abortion vs "thousands" of "deaths")

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

#259

Post by [deleted] »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #224
fatherzine wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the trolley problem. There are plenty of avenues for political activism /outside/ the workplace. Adults should be capable of not conflating the workplace with their entire existence. The only acceptable activism is unionization, understood as narrowly focused on workplace issues. For a sample size of one, while I am very guilty of having many politically charged conversations with coworkers, I have always ke…

With healthcare tied to employment I don't think this issue can be considered strictly unrelated to work.

[deleted]

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

#260

Post by notacoward »

gruez wrote: post #258
notacoward wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're sea-lioning, or what the guidelines call cross-examining. No set time period was specified . Even the per-annum numbers already cited add up to thousands over a decade or two. Also, you seem to be demanding precision when you haven't even specified a threshold you would find acceptable. Is it OK for you that "merely" hundreds of women die needlessly? Instead of trying to make others chase your ever-receding go…

>You're sea-lioning, or what the guidelines call cross-examining. No set time period was specified. Even the per-annum numbers already cited add up to thousands over a decade or two. Claiming that no time period was specified makes the statement true, but also makes the statement so weak that it doesn't really mean anything. >Also, you seem to be demanding precision when you haven't even specified a threshold you wou…

> also makes the statement so weak that it doesn't really mean anything.

That might be a good-faith argument if we were allowing eons, but we're actually talking about years to (at most) decades.

> I already have, in my previous comment.

No, not really. You've regurgitated a number, but only as an appeal to emotion. You haven't connected it to the subject of this thread, which is the idea that even a fully formed human has no right to require physical sacrifice of another. Persuasion means connecting things in a way that might sway an interlocutor, not merely bashing them over the head with claims that you find compelling.

Post reply on HN