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

291–297 of 297 posts

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

#291

Post by feet »

yucky wrote: post #290
feet wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

He induced birth then killed the baby

That's not an abortion

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

#292

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

feet wrote: post #291
yucky wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

He induced birth then killed the baby That's not an abortion

And now you're playing the fools game by engaging with the Gosnell nonsense, giving angry debate about "shocking" things that they have changed the topic too.

Not only is it derailing of a serious issue, it is deliberately visceral, disturbing, which makes it harder to debate logically about. Standard tactic: wind them up so they don't notice the inconsistencies.

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

#293

Post by feet »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #292
feet wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He induced birth then killed the baby That's not an abortion

And now you're playing the fools game by engaging with the Gosnell nonsense, giving angry debate about "shocking" things that they have changed the topic too. Not only is it derailing of a serious issue, it is deliberately visceral, disturbing, which makes it harder to debate logically about. Standard tactic: wind them up so they don't notice the inconsistencies.

Thank you for being a voice of reason. You're right, I shouldn't engage that nonsense but I got sucked in. I don't know what we can do about people spreading such FUD

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

#294

Post by yucky »

feet wrote: post #291
yucky wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

He induced birth then killed the baby That's not an abortion

It's called Intact Dilation & Extraction, and is absolutely a type of abortion.

And you still haven't answered - what is your logic for not having a problem with a 36, 37, 38 week etc elective abortion? What is the argument for allowing them?

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

#295

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

feet wrote: post #293
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now you're playing the fools game by engaging with the Gosnell nonsense, giving angry debate about "shocking" things that they have changed the topic too. Not only is it derailing of a serious issue, it is deliberately visceral, disturbing, which makes it harder to debate logically about. Standard tactic: wind them up so they don't notice the inconsistencies.

Thank you for being a voice of reason. You're right, I shouldn't engage that nonsense but I got sucked in. I don't know what we can do about people spreading such FUD

Sadly that account has a track record of repeating their inflammatory talking points. Even after they are debunked, they just move an and try it on someone else again.

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

#296

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #269
dragonwriter wrote: post #227

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. 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…

> Privileges and Immunities clause analysis Thomas suggests would be entirely superfluous unless the Court not only through our the substantive due process theory but also just read the Equal Protection Clause into a nullity. 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 al…

It’s P or I, but you both knew that

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

#297

Post by yucky »

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.

https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-860w,f...
Post reply on HN