261–270 of 297 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Meta is using the money they make off the women working for them against them.
Wat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're at work doing a job, you aren't getting paid to converse about non work matters. If working at say Coinbase or any other apolitical tech company isn't your cup of tea, then there are plenty of politically charged places you can work instead that also need software engineers such as the CTO office of the President, Defense tech, think tanks, Congressional offices, Twitter, Planned Parenthood, PETA, and any othe…
If I'm at work doing a job, then I'm paid to get the job done. And how I manage my time and what I'm allowed to think or discuss are my concern. There is no such monster as "politically neutral." That is synonymous with "supporting the status quo," which is a political stance. It's the trolley problem - not deciding is still opting into a bad option.
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…
You can't just take the number for live births and apply it to abortions. The actual number from people who making direct observations instead of committing statistical malpractice seem to be around 0.7 deaths per 100K abortions. The authors say it might be even lower; there's certainly no rational reason to believe it has gotten worse since the last numbers were made available. (BTW I do wonder why they're no longer available, and suspect political pressure was involved much as with tracking gun deaths.)
https://scdhec.gov/risks-abortion
Besides considering the difference between safe vs. unsafe abortions, a real comparison of abortion vs. live-birth death rates would also have to consider pregnancies that end in miscarriage, and the fact that the availability of safe abortion in high-risk cases improves prognoses for live birth. A particularly instructive example is Romania, which saw abortion death rate go from 20/100K to 148/100K when abortion was restricted in 1966, and then back down to 9/100K after the restrictions were removed in 1989.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
BTW note that the abortion death rate in 1965 Romania was lower than the live-birth death rate in modern US. It's currently a safer option for the mother in a great many cases, but would become much worse if it had to go underground, and some of us think that matters.
I'm pretty surprised how many people in this thread are suddenly in favour of censorship.
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. 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 hum…
uhh what? I'm not advocating for one side or another. I'm only pointing out that if you think that aborted fetuses are "deaths", then a few extra thousand deaths pales in comparison to the number of "deaths" from abortions.
>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.
1. That's an nice argument and all, but it certainly wasn't in "the subject of this thread". I traversed through all the parent comments and couldn't find any comment that made an argument to that effect.
2. since we're already bringing this topic up, the obvious response I can think of would be: really? no "physical sacrifice" whatsoever? What about mask/vaccine mandates, which require some token/small amount of sacrifice? Obviously wearing something over your face/getting jabbed isn't equivalent to carrying a baby to term, but the argument (at least as you presented it) seems to take an absolutist position rather than some sort of cost-benefit analysis one.
>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.
Again, you seem to think I'm trying to convince people that abortions are bad. However, if you read my original comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31883521) more carefully, see that I'm only trying to point out that the "deaths of thousands of young women" argument isn't persuasive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far i understood, this is about allowing or disallowing employees to discuss the ruling. Nobody is talking about forcing people to take part on the discussion or to pick a side —you always have the option not to participate on these things— so i'm not really getting where your point is coming from, sorry.
No you do not. Let'e bob goes on a rant about capital punishment against aborters or incarceration for gay people once that is also repealed. How will you feel as a pro choice person or a gay person? Will you not feel hurt in the slightest and will it not affect how you work and interact with bob? People like you must have always been in positions of power and priviledge. I have been at the other end enduring all sor…
No need for these assumptions. Your argument is clear without them.
Maybe you and i would not respond the same way on the same situation, and that's OK. Personally, when i had coworkers that would say things that i consider totally indefensible, yes, it made me feel terrible and angry, but at the same time, i was at least glad to now know who i was dealing with. I knew that person couldn't be trusted, and how i should (avoid to) interact with them. This is especially true for me in the cases where such person is a superior, or when nobody else in the organization calls on their shit; those are start-to-look-for-another-job situations for me personally.
And, sincerely, i don't think banning such topics from work environments would work for these kind of cases. Those people will keep being the way they are and acting their shitty way when and where they feel they'll get away with it; you'll just may not know who they are, yet.
Disclaimer: i'm not from the USA, or a "first world" country, so it's very possible for our cultures and work environments where we've been to be quite different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So when I had a big early 40th birthday surprise, I went straight to my gyno for her to make sure it wasn’t going to be a repeat - especially since we already had plans to visit my family back in Texas a few weeks after that. Then, the concern was merely financial/logistical. Now…
The (mostly) happy ending: a boringly normal pregnancy that left me with lingering back pain and numbness in some toes, and the most wonderful little boy that I’d given up on having years before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re leaving out that Thomas also said that some of those and other implied rights might be found in the privileges and immunities clause. Thomas doesn’t deny that there are unenumerated rights that were recognized at the time of the founding. Also, I’d be curious to know if any other advanced democracy has a doctrine similar to Griswold. It’s Constitutionally infirm, and if they don’t need it, why do we?
> You’re leaving out that Thomas also said that some of those and other implied rights might be found in the privileges and immunities clause. Yes, and I also leave out (as, hiwever, does Thomas as well) that many of the substantive due process cases, including the line of marriage cases including Loving and Obergefell , were, in their own decisions, were found to be mandated independently by each due process and equ…
Have you read Thomas’s thoughts on these issues? He’s not hiding the ball here, he’s been addressing them for years. He does not think the Equal Protection Clause is a “nullity” lol.
> Thomas also leaves out that the Court has (long before coming up with the Substantive Due Process theory he calls on it to reject), actually already done the P&I analysis he calls for and rejected the idea that that clause covers anything other than explicitly enumerated rights,
Which Thomas thinks is incorrect and he’s got a good argument for why. Again, Thomas acknowledges there are unenumerated rights. He disagrees with liberals about the source of those rights and their scope, but he doesn’t deny they exist.
> (note that this problem would not exist with the Ninth Amendment which is fairly explicitly about unenumerated rights
The Ninth Amendment is a savings clause. It isn’t a source of rights. It’s not a vehicle for 20th century judges to create new rights.
> The US doesn't even have a doctrine similar to Griswold; the right in Griswold was upheld by later cases on a substantive due process basis (closer to Byron and Harlan’s concurrence), but Griswold itself wasn't actually a substantive due process case.
I’m asking whether it matters that there is a Constitutional protection for contraception or not. To my knowledge, other developed countries get along fine without one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t her district being redrawn and possibly affecting demographics? I might have misheard.
Redistricting made her district more favorable to Democrats and Democrats are expected to take back the seat next year. But the Democratic candidate, Vicente Gonzales, is also pro life: https://sbaprolife.org/representative/vicente-gonzalez Pro-choice Democrats have painted themselves into a tough spot. After moving left on race and immigration, they lost significant support in the Midwest and Rust Belt. They assumed…
It seems to be the Republicans game to lose, which they have proven to be far better at avoiding than the Democrats. Abortion though is one issue that Republicans have bet the ranch on in the past with disastrous results. It is a land mine for them if they go too far with it.