Hacker News Reader

Comment by overrun11 | Hacker News Reader

Ok but the original comment from andrewclunn was clearly correct and your response incorrect. His point was that when nuance is added, the majority belief is less clear. This seems pretty important when there is no definitive understanding of exactly what "pro-choice" means.

You've now retreated to an argument that no one was making.

View on HN

His argument was negating a true claim by playing a game of definitions. Regardless of how you cut it, pro-life is a minority view. Attempting to use shades of pro-choice to diminish that is not arguing in good faith. It's the argument equivalent of going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" while holding your finger in front of someone's face.

Ultimately though, what matters is how many approve of Roe being overturned, which is a binary, and those who oppose Roe V. Wade are in a very clear cut minority.

There's no possible reading of the original comment where it is "objectively incorrect." Clarifying what is meant by extremely vague labels like "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" is far from a definition game.

> what matters is how many approve of Roe being overturned

Exceptionally few people understand exactly what the implications of Roe are so this framing is useless.

> Exceptionally few people understand exactly what the implications of Roe are so this framing is useless.

I'd like to hear why you think this. It's only a "useless" framing if you don't buy into the concept of democracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com