It's clear to you but that's still a value judgement. It's not as clear if you discount female autonomy.
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.
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.
It makes you at least agree that there is a line somewhere, and then you can go on to decide where to draw it.
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.
Some things are just absolutely bad.
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.