4 ms·

About those hysterectomies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2

• gruez 6y ago
  > The AP’s review did not find evidence of mass hysterectomies (apnews.com) > Accused hospital says just two hysterectomies were performed there (washingtonpost.com) >Hospital for ICE accused of mass hysterectomies says it only carried out 2 (businessinsider.com) >No evidence of sterilization of migrant Mexican women, says Mexican minister (reuters.com) Based on the headlines, I guess it's safe to say that there there isn't a genocide going on?
  • uoaei 6y ago
    I'm ashamed that HN's reputation is not reflected in your responses. Specifically, it is very surprising that you're using the hospital's own press release to conclude that no injustice happens on their premises. Also, people entering from the Mexican border are not all Mexican. Many come from countries further south.
    • DuskStar 6y ago
      And I'm ashamed that you're describing a number of hysterectomies that at most, using laughably high estimates, could number in the thousands, as genocide. (Which would be horrible! But also leave enough evidence that it would clearly not be one or two cases) If someone's actually attempting genocide and all they can manage is a few thousand sterilizations, they should be fired for incompetence, too! (Plus, you know, genocide) Further, is there any evidence that you would be willing to accept that genocide is not happening here? Any source that you'd be willing to commit to accepting?
      • uoaei 6y ago
        Please, I implore you, read your comment again. It is so callous as to be near-sociopathic. Yours is very much not a healthy view into morality.
        • DuskStar 6y ago
          I think my comment was unclear, so let me try and clarify. > And I'm ashamed that you're describing a number of hysterectomies that at most, using laughably high estimates, could number in the thousands, as genocide Two things here: 1. the number of hysterectomies that a single doctor could perform over, say, 4 years is ~10,000 (at 10/day). That's an extreme case, and relies on almost everything being geared towards rate of surgeries, and so works as an upper bound for what was alleged. (That there was a doctor purposefully sterilizing ICE detainees) 2. 10k sterilizations is not genocide. It would be monstrous, but it's at least 100x too few to count as that IMO given the ~10m illegal immigrants already residing within the US. > (Which would be horrible! But also leave enough evidence that it would clearly not be one or two cases) "Which would be horrible!" should require no explanation. The second point here is that if a doctor was somehow able to perform thousands of hysterectomies every year, there would be mountains of evidence for that, and conservatively tens of victims willing to speak up and go to the press, even if only 1% were willing and able. > If someone's actually attempting genocide and all they can manage is a few thousand sterilizations, they should be fired for incompetence, too! (Plus, you know, genocide) If this was being orchestrated by someone at ICE somehow, I would expect there to be more "effective" and less likely to be exposed methods of sterilization available to a determined administrator. Thus, two reasons to fire them - one is that they're an utter piece of shit for attempting genocide, and the second is that they're fucking incompetent. A sort of "awful taste AND awful execution" scenario. > Further, is there any evidence that you would be willing to accept that genocide is not happening here? Any source that you'd be willing to commit to accepting? This should also be self explanatory. Is there a news source that you would trust if it said that there was no evidence of genocide here? If MSNBC or the NY Times said that this was all a hoax, would you accept that? Or the governments of Guatemala, Honduras, etc? I ask this because you've rejected denials from ICE, the hospital, and the Mexican government - what other sources do you expect to be reliable? If your belief isn't falsifiable, then I know not to expect any engagement from you. > Please, I implore you, read your comment again. It is so callous as to be near-sociopathic. Yours is very much not a healthy view into morality. I've clarified everything there that I think might have been unclear. Is it less sociopathic to you now?