The mother and baby are more likely to die. I don't think wanting to prevent that is a value judgement.

No of course it isn't nobody suggested it was.

The value judgement is saying the changes you want are worth doing because they might reduce it. Social and personal choices are weighed all the time that include risks to lives, suggesting something that might reduce risk does not end the debate.

We would generally want to prevent people dying in horrible aviation disasters too, we could do that by ceasing non essential air travel.

> We would generally want to prevent people dying in horrible aviation disasters too, we could do that by ceasing non essential air travel.

Equating educating girls to an aviation disaster has to be a new low.

This inflammatory comparison does nothing to improve the level of civil dialog on HN.

Argument by absurdity is a well known and to some well regarded rhetorical technique.

It makes you at least agree that there is a line somewhere, and then you can go on to decide where to draw it.

> Equating educating girls to an aviation disaster

To be clear, that is an unfounded accusation that you just now fabricated.

> This inflammatory comparison does nothing to improve the level of civil dialog on HN.

Your disgusting lies and fake pearl clutching are the problem here.

Death being bad is a value judgement.

I take your meaning but I don't agree it is only a value judgement. It is also an evolutionary and social force.

If the value that the “other side” is espousing is that “it’s okay for girls to die giving birth”, well, we can safely discount that as a valid position to hold in modern society.

Some things are just absolutely bad.

I believe nothing is *absolutely bad* in modern society.

For example, the best way to stop pregnancy-related deaths is to forcely termination any high-risk pregnancy regardless of the pregnant woman's own wishes. But seems no one would agree.

Karma 1 account posting very inflammatory content?