6 ms·

>I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. That's because access to contraceptives has been shown to provide

>I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. That's because access to contraceptives has been shown to provide a wide range of benefits. From reducing poverty, prevention of STDs, increasing maternal health (from unsafe abortions, and increasing inter-pregnancy interval), reinforcing women's rights and allowing for proper family planning. >When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else. You should, because there really is no downside. The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. It's kind of like being on the Jenny McCarthy side in the vaccine 'debate' - sometimes you're just wrong.

humanrebar 13y ago
> The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  Sometimes things are arguable and debatable, and sometimes the evidence is stacked on one-side so much that a contrary position is irrational. Contraceptive access is a cornerstone of health policy in every developed nation. It has been endorsed by WHO and every study done has implicitly or explicitly has supported this position. What are the odds sdegutis has a good reason to object?
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    I believe not leaving people room for conscientious objection is irrational.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      Which is defined as being a personal choice, not one you get to force onto others. Which is what they advocate - using their position of privilege to deny the choice to others.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        Which force are you talking about? I'm talking about the one that mandates that people pay for contraception with tax dollars.
        sdegutis 13y ago
        That (combined with your comment right above it) is completely and utterly surprising to hear from someone on HN.
        humanrebar 13y ago
        For the record, I don't agree with you about contraception. I'm all for building wells in Africa and setting bins of free condoms right next to them. But people started talking about force, and the only force I can see in this case is the IRS (or the equivalent). I'm frankly dismayed that HN seems so opposed to conscientious objection in this case. I presume it's an irrational prejudice against different (or maybe particular?) ethical worldviews.
        sdegutis 13y ago
        They're just taking the mindset of: "Such and such things are inherently wrong, and I'm 100% certain that I'm right about this; therefore anyone who disagrees about it is an enemy to humanity and the common good, and therefore must be silenced and must not be allowed to affect legislation." That's all they're doing. And it's understandable. But that's not the part I take issue with.
        mikeash 13y ago
        Seems pretty negligible compared to the one that mandates people to pay for unjustified foreign wars, incarcerating people because they put a certain molecule into their own bodies, etc. There's an argument to be made against taxation there, but if we're going to have it, you should probably start with the better part of a trillion dollars Americans pay each year for killing brown people (or building the capability to kill them in the future), rather than the relatively negligible amount spent on contraception. It still amazes me that people can make a fuss about being forced to pay for contraception with their tax dollars but those same people have no problem with their tax dollars being spent on war.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      I'm not sure how I can do that. If he has a conscientious objection that's his right. I neither can nor want to force him to change it. It's a free (speech) country after all. However, I reserve the right to call this objection deranged, insane or stupid. That's my right.
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        He wasn't talking about verbal conscientious objection. See his reply to the other person who replied to his comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099573
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    Being able to understand and interpret evidence properly is not a universally held trait. That has implications on both sides of any debate. Related note: I often wonder how many people are victim to argumentum ad populum.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      On the other hand, sometimes when you find yourself, alone, on the wrong the side of the debate, it may make sense to at least rethink your assumptions and consider that you may be wrong. Maybe the debate isn't actually there. Maybe all those well-meaning public health-policy writers at the WHO and at the national levels have a point. At the very least, maybe consider that pragmatic realities trump religious ideologies. Besides, I've read your arguments in other threads. They are backwards, destructive (if actually implemented as public health policy) and have no basis in actual reality (your only argument is a hand-waving 'every-POTENTIAL(!!)-human-life-is-precious'). There is a reason why you, Jenny McCarthy and Ken Ham find yourself outsiders by the 'establishment' with your respective positions.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I just noticed the guy's username. I know him. His objection is religious. So the inference is correct, at least in this case.
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    My objection may stem from religious beliefs, but that isn't to say it isn't arguable from non-religious standpoints. People use a hill of solid reasoning with a kernel of faith at very the bottom (kind of like the L4 microkernel family), whether that faith is in religion or something else. At the end of the day, everyone's argument will always come down to "I just think that's how the world works best."
    - mikeash 13y ago
      And that is why I said "at least in this case." Your position may be arguable without religion, but you're not doing that.
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        I am arguing for it without appealing to religion, but my replies are kind of scattered and drowned out by requests for them. This whole thread is really hard to navigate. Shouldn't have started it out the way I did. Lesson learned.
        mikeash 13y ago
        No, you're stating your opinion without appealing to religion, but you haven't argued for it at all. Basically, you stepped into a community that heavily leans atheist and rationalist, stated an opinion based on religion that the community disagrees with, and said that this makes you feel like an outsider. All I can say is, duh. And if you aren't interested in actually defending that opinion, what is the point? As far as I can tell, you were just looking for a little hit of persecution and martyrdom.
        13y ago
stonemetal 13y ago
You should, because there really is no downside. Right, there are no negative side effects to taking birth control, like increased risk of heart disease.
- Guvante 13y ago
  Are we talking about individual incidents or the overall impact on the economy? The health impacts of contraceptives are insignificant compared to the benefits. To put it another way, look at how expensive kids are in the developed world. Now think about handling that expense when you are part of the extreme poverty bracket. The economic benefit of not having kids when you don't want them is huge.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Are you aware that "contraceptives" covers a wide range of devices and medications? It's not just "the pill". For example, I'm not aware of any increased risk of heart disease or any other disease due to using condoms.

humanrebar 13y ago

> The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.

macspoofing 13y ago
Sometimes things are arguable and debatable, and sometimes the evidence is stacked on one-side so much that a contrary position is irrational. Contraceptive access is a cornerstone of health policy in every developed nation. It has been endorsed by WHO and every study done has implicitly or explicitly has supported this position. What are the odds sdegutis has a good reason to object?
- humanrebar 13y ago
  I believe not leaving people room for conscientious objection is irrational.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Which is defined as being a personal choice, not one you get to force onto others. Which is what they advocate - using their position of privilege to deny the choice to others.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      Which force are you talking about? I'm talking about the one that mandates that people pay for contraception with tax dollars.
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        That (combined with your comment right above it) is completely and utterly surprising to hear from someone on HN.
        humanrebar 13y ago
        For the record, I don't agree with you about contraception. I'm all for building wells in Africa and setting bins of free condoms right next to them. But people started talking about force, and the only force I can see in this case is the IRS (or the equivalent). I'm frankly dismayed that HN seems so opposed to conscientious objection in this case. I presume it's an irrational prejudice against different (or maybe particular?) ethical worldviews.
        sdegutis 13y ago
        They're just taking the mindset of: "Such and such things are inherently wrong, and I'm 100% certain that I'm right about this; therefore anyone who disagrees about it is an enemy to humanity and the common good, and therefore must be silenced and must not be allowed to affect legislation." That's all they're doing. And it's understandable. But that's not the part I take issue with.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Seems pretty negligible compared to the one that mandates people to pay for unjustified foreign wars, incarcerating people because they put a certain molecule into their own bodies, etc. There's an argument to be made against taxation there, but if we're going to have it, you should probably start with the better part of a trillion dollars Americans pay each year for killing brown people (or building the capability to kill them in the future), rather than the relatively negligible amount spent on contraception. It still amazes me that people can make a fuss about being forced to pay for contraception with their tax dollars but those same people have no problem with their tax dollars being spent on war.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    I'm not sure how I can do that. If he has a conscientious objection that's his right. I neither can nor want to force him to change it. It's a free (speech) country after all. However, I reserve the right to call this objection deranged, insane or stupid. That's my right.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      He wasn't talking about verbal conscientious objection. See his reply to the other person who replied to his comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099573
- sdegutis 13y ago
  Being able to understand and interpret evidence properly is not a universally held trait. That has implications on both sides of any debate. Related note: I often wonder how many people are victim to argumentum ad populum.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    On the other hand, sometimes when you find yourself, alone, on the wrong the side of the debate, it may make sense to at least rethink your assumptions and consider that you may be wrong. Maybe the debate isn't actually there. Maybe all those well-meaning public health-policy writers at the WHO and at the national levels have a point. At the very least, maybe consider that pragmatic realities trump religious ideologies. Besides, I've read your arguments in other threads. They are backwards, destructive (if actually implemented as public health policy) and have no basis in actual reality (your only argument is a hand-waving 'every-POTENTIAL(!!)-human-life-is-precious'). There is a reason why you, Jenny McCarthy and Ken Ham find yourself outsiders by the 'establishment' with your respective positions.
mikeash 13y ago
I just noticed the guy's username. I know him. His objection is religious. So the inference is correct, at least in this case.
- sdegutis 13y ago
  My objection may stem from religious beliefs, but that isn't to say it isn't arguable from non-religious standpoints. People use a hill of solid reasoning with a kernel of faith at very the bottom (kind of like the L4 microkernel family), whether that faith is in religion or something else. At the end of the day, everyone's argument will always come down to "I just think that's how the world works best."
  - mikeash 13y ago
    And that is why I said "at least in this case." Your position may be arguable without religion, but you're not doing that.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      I am arguing for it without appealing to religion, but my replies are kind of scattered and drowned out by requests for them. This whole thread is really hard to navigate. Shouldn't have started it out the way I did. Lesson learned.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        No, you're stating your opinion without appealing to religion, but you haven't argued for it at all. Basically, you stepped into a community that heavily leans atheist and rationalist, stated an opinion based on religion that the community disagrees with, and said that this makes you feel like an outsider. All I can say is, duh. And if you aren't interested in actually defending that opinion, what is the point? As far as I can tell, you were just looking for a little hit of persecution and martyrdom.
        13y ago

stonemetal 13y ago

You should, because there really is no downside. Right, there are no negative side effects to taking birth control, like increased risk of heart disease.

Guvante 13y ago
Are we talking about individual incidents or the overall impact on the economy? The health impacts of contraceptives are insignificant compared to the benefits. To put it another way, look at how expensive kids are in the developed world. Now think about handling that expense when you are part of the extreme poverty bracket. The economic benefit of not having kids when you don't want them is huge.
mikeash 13y ago
Are you aware that "contraceptives" covers a wide range of devices and medications? It's not just "the pill". For example, I'm not aware of any increased risk of heart disease or any other disease due to using condoms.