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

281–290 of 297 posts

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

#281

Post by labster »

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…

Left wing group organizers just call the police when literal nazis show up, and offer to help control the crowd on their side. Unless you have a situation where relations with the police are seriously degraded, they generally want to prevent that conflict, just by being present. The goal is to never lose control of the narrative, and violence always does that.

Incidentally most leftist groups try to keep good relations with the police, even when doing civil disobedience. I’ve seen a large group block traffic, and only those union members who planned to get arrested did so, slowly and quietly.

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

#282

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

yucky wrote: post #280
feet wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we wonder why the anti choice crowd is seen as mother killers I don't care about hypotheticals that have no basis in reality just like I don't give a shit about what the founding fathers thought, who were rapist-racist-sexist-slave owners who didn't want blacks, women, or poor people to have any say. Yea the document written by them is flawless lol sure. The constitution is out dated but the clowns in government…

>I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement You're making an argument for infanticide (abortions at 41 weeks <---your words) and wondering why I didn't follow the rest of your arguments?

> You're making an argument for infanticide

You're asking trick questions. Proof above; "aha! that's infanticide!!" So clever.

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

#283

Post by feet »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #282
yucky wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement You're making an argument for infanticide (abortions at 41 weeks <---your words) and wondering why I didn't follow the rest of your arguments?

> You're making an argument for infanticide You're asking trick questions. Proof above; "aha! that's infanticide!!" So clever.

Which is exactly why I responded the way that I did. Dude is spouting nonsense saying examples exist. They are making claims and when I ask for citations they shout about infanticide. It's disingenuous bullshit designed to distract

That's also why the poster didn't respond to the person who commented about Beto. They have no real response, position, or evidence. Their only position is fake outrage at something that doesn't exist in reality

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

#284

Post by feet »

yucky wrote: post #280
feet wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we wonder why the anti choice crowd is seen as mother killers I don't care about hypotheticals that have no basis in reality just like I don't give a shit about what the founding fathers thought, who were rapist-racist-sexist-slave owners who didn't want blacks, women, or poor people to have any say. Yea the document written by them is flawless lol sure. The constitution is out dated but the clowns in government…

>I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement You're making an argument for infanticide (abortions at 41 weeks <---your words) and wondering why I didn't follow the rest of your arguments?

Very convenient for you! Just ignore things when you see what you don't like!

Still waiting for that one singular example. Where are your citations for your evidence?

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...

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

#285

Post by yucky »

feet wrote: post #284
yucky wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement You're making an argument for infanticide (abortions at 41 weeks <---your words) and wondering why I didn't follow the rest of your arguments?

Very convenient for you! Just ignore things when you see what you don't like! Still waiting for that one singular example. Where are your citations for your evidence? https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t ...

Dr Kermit Gosnell performed a number of elective abortions that late in term, and we only know about those because he was dumb enough to get caught killing a few after delivery.

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

#286

Post by fatherzine »

55555 wrote: post #237
MandieD wrote: post #179

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.

Worth noting that the abortion rate is 1 in 5 pregnancies. Roughly 10x the rate of ectopic pregnancies.

Note: Thanks both of you for engaging in a respectful conversation.

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

#287

Post by feet »

yucky wrote: post #285
feet wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very convenient for you! Just ignore things when you see what you don't like! Still waiting for that one singular example. Where are your citations for your evidence? https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t ...

Dr Kermit Gosnell performed a number of elective abortions that late in term, and we only know about those because he was dumb enough to get caught killing a few after delivery.

Your example is a literal serial killer? Oh come on. He was inducing birth in order to kill babies outside of the uterus

>owned and operated the Women's Medical Society Clinic, a non-compliant abortion clinic

>Gosnell was convicted of the murders of three infants who were born alive after using drugs to induce birth, was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the death of one woman during an abortion procedure, and was convicted of several other medically related crimes.[3][4][5][6][7]

This dude should never have been a doctor in the first place and this is your shining example? Brilliant

>2011, Gosnell, his wife Pearl, and eight employees were charged with a total of 32 felonies and 227 misdemeanors in connection with deaths, illegal medical services, and regulatory violations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

I can't tell if you're a bad faith actor yourself or you just believe the nonsense put forth by the nationalist extremist party

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

#288

Post by yucky »

feet wrote: post #287
yucky wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr Kermit Gosnell performed a number of elective abortions that late in term, and we only know about those because he was dumb enough to get caught killing a few after delivery.

Your example is a literal serial killer? Oh come on. He was inducing birth in order to kill babies outside of the uterus >owned and operated the Women's Medical Society Clinic, a non-compliant abortion clinic >Gosnell was convicted of the murders of three infants who were born alive after using drugs to induce birth, was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the death of one woman during an abortion procedure,…

He didn't go to prison for the 39 week abortions, he went to prison for the 41 week abortions, you know - the ones you were in favor of.

You said it never happens, but it does. Most doctors that offer the late term abortions don't get in trouble because they're not as sloppy as him.

So the question remains, the one you refuse to answer - why would we not restrict ELECTIVE abortions after a certain point in a pregnancy? What is the argument against that? Nobody is arguing against it if they're medically necessary, I'm asking specifically about elective abortions beyond the point of viability. That's it. That's where the breakdown occurs for most people.

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

#289

Post by feet »

yucky wrote: post #288
feet wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example is a literal serial killer? Oh come on. He was inducing birth in order to kill babies outside of the uterus >owned and operated the Women's Medical Society Clinic, a non-compliant abortion clinic >Gosnell was convicted of the murders of three infants who were born alive after using drugs to induce birth, was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the death of one woman during an abortion procedure,…

He didn't go to prison for the 39 week abortions, he went to prison for the 41 week abortions, you know - the ones you were in favor of. You said it never happens, but it does. Most doctors that offer the late term abortions don't get in trouble because they're not as sloppy as him. So the question remains, the one you refuse to answer - why would we not restrict ELECTIVE abortions after a certain point in a pregnanc…

>211 counts of violating Pennsylvania's 24-hour informed consent law

Sounds to me like he patients were not aware of what he was doing

And he was doing a hell of a lot more than just abortions

>The DEA, The FBI, and the Office of the Inspector General also sought a 23-count indictment charging Gosnell and seven members of his former staff with drug conspiracy relating to the practice's illegally prescribing highly-addictive painkillers and sedatives outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.

So again, you pick out one guy who should not have been a physician who did not inform his patient of what he was doing

And this detail is pretty important, these were not abortions but murders after birth

>They arise because of the "born alive rule", a principle of common law which stipulates that by default, for legal purposes, personhood arises – and therefore unlawful killing constituting murder becomes possible – immediately upon the victim's being born alive

Pointing this guy out is like pointing out that old veteran who's like 110 years old and smokes and drinks every day and claiming nobody gets cancer from smoking and drinking

You are aware that murder, killing people who are already born, is already illegal? These examples were not abortions, plain and simple

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

#290

Post by yucky »

feet wrote: post #289
yucky wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't go to prison for the 39 week abortions, he went to prison for the 41 week abortions, you know - the ones you were in favor of. You said it never happens, but it does. Most doctors that offer the late term abortions don't get in trouble because they're not as sloppy as him. So the question remains, the one you refuse to answer - why would we not restrict ELECTIVE abortions after a certain point in a pregnanc…

>211 counts of violating Pennsylvania's 24-hour informed consent law Sounds to me like he patients were not aware of what he was doing And he was doing a hell of a lot more than just abortions >The DEA, The FBI, and the Office of the Inspector General also sought a 23-count indictment charging Gosnell and seven members of his former staff with drug conspiracy relating to the practice's illegally prescribing highly-ad…

>You are aware that murder, killing people who are already born, is already illegal? These examples were not abortions, plain and simple

Only the "41 week old abortions" were treated as murder, the 39 week old ones weren't. My question is - what's the difference? In your mind, how do you justify a 39 week old elective abortion?

Post reply on HN