7 ms·

Rant incoming - this isn't targeted at you, but my observations on this. I've always found it ridiculous that effectively 1 planck-time can be the difference b

Rant incoming - this isn't targeted at you, but my observations on this. I've always found it ridiculous that effectively 1 planck-time can be the difference between a collection of cells and a human and therefore the difference between selfish rights and outraged sorrow. The idea that you can draw the line arbitrarily along a child's development other than the very moment of inception and call one a self-centered right and the other murder is preposterous. The very fact that it is the premeditated interference that prevents the baby from continuing to develop should be the light-bulb moment for most discerning and logical individuals. You literally have to kill the baby to stop it from becoming a fully-formed version of itself - that is literally it. You have to kill it to stop it from getting to a point that you 'begin to feel bad'. It is ridiculous. The fact that, when unimpeded, that baby will grow into an adult individual should be a pretty obvious reminder to people of what they're actually doing. I've been saying this for a little while, but I'm sure a time will come when society collectively looks back on this period and shudders at the horror of it all.

jake_the_third 8y ago
Thank you for saying this. It had always disturbed me how people change the name of what is quite literally ending another human life to something else as a means to soften or discard the moral implication associated with said action. It's disgusting. Truth be told though, this renaming-bad-things-to-make-them-passable phenomenon isn't only limited to killing unborn children, and it has been going on for a long time.
- Canaan 8y ago
  'War'...what is it good for?
praneshp 8y ago
(I'm not sure if I'm giving you the right context, or if you already know about it, etc etc, so blanket apology if required) I understood and didn't take offence at the nitpick mainly due to the fact that foetus vs baby is an important argument in the pro-choice vs pro-life debate in the US; the "women should be allowed to control their bodies" side is usually presented with "should they be allowed to kill a baby to control their body", etc.
- socceroos 8y ago
  No apology required. ;) Yeah, I had read and understood the context and ended up unsure of where to nest my rant so that it was most relevant to being discussed but least intrusive. I think I've missed the mark on that so sorry for the confusion.
heartbreak 8y ago
I’m not about to have an abortion debate on HN. My nitpick was an attempt to clear up any confusion of terms involved. The OP referenced an episode about female foeticide which is, by its definition, different from infanticide. Morality of either is irrelevant. The confusion has since been cleared up, so there’s no need to drag it on.
rabboRubble 8y ago
> The idea that you can draw the line arbitrarily along a child's development other than the very moment of inception and call one a self-centered right and the other murder is preposterous. Not preposterous at all. The line is clear: viability outside the womb. As a woman, I deem legal and safe abortion an exercise of my second amendment rights. If I determine that a separate individual has taken residence inside me contrary to my wishes I have the right to defend my person against that intrusion. Of course I first ask for the person to leave and find suitable accommodation elsewhere. Oh you can't leave on your own? I still don't want you here -- leave, leave now. No? Well I will stand my ground. I really don't see why (mostly) men have no philosophical qualm with defending their home against a fully alive intruder, yet can not understand why a woman might wish to exercise a similar right over her own body.
- socceroos 8y ago
  The below may sound a bit harsh, but I'm trying to be clear - apologies in advance. I've got nothing against you or any circumstances you've been in. > Not preposterous at all. The line is clear: viability outside the womb. That's not an argument that makes any sense at all, nor does it stack up when put under scrutiny. What about the viability of an infant that you arbitrarily decide you wish to eject from the home? You ask them to leave; well they can't walk. You ask them to find suitable accommodation elsewhere; well they can't talk. You tell them to feed themselves. Oh, you can't leave on your own? I still don't want you here -- leave, leave now. No?... What about the viability of a minority group that the government decides they don't want in their country? Lets say it's a bunch of Jews, eh? Follow through with your principle and see where it leads you. So I'd argue that this is an argument of selfishness, lack of responsibility and willful foolishness - traits which are considered highly unhealthy to self and society. Putting that aside, the other issue is that this argument completely skips the point at hand - human life. As a society, we deal with human life carefully for a reason - it's beautiful and important - it's something to be cherished and nurtured. Arguments like these try do deny this fact by looking the other way.
  - rabboRubble 8y ago
    If I do not control what happens to my body, what freedom do I have? I am not advocating that I individually control the expulsion of an entire group of people at a national level. I demand only control over my own reproductive function. Women in these United States of America have no paid maternal leave unlike all other countries except 2 others, we have the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world on par with Sri Lanka, and until Obamacare rolled around did not have automatic pre-natal care in our health insurance plans. Why should I relinquish my right to self determination for a nation that cares so little for my successful motherhood? The US at a policy level has no skin in the game, yet a large group of its citizens want to tell me what do? Screw that... We tolerate all sorts of nonsense in the US that ends people's lives in the name of freedom. Just look to the pro-2A crowd. They take no societal accountability for the lives of people in their policy preferences. Why should I accept any less for myself?
Semirhage 8y ago
You may not want to hear this, but the line isn’t so fine or instant in anything except the law. When dealing with laws and regulations you ultimately have a somewhat arbitrary quality because that’s the nature of a line. Speed X is fine and dandy on the roadway, speed X+1 can get you pulled over and heavily fined. What’s the practical difference in 1 kph? Essentially nothing, except that for reasons beyond that difference of 1, a line had to be drawn. Rational people don’t think that some magical process occurs between one instant and the next as a fetus goes from “ok to abort legally” to “illegal to abort.” The law also isn’t as involved in the spiritual or emotional content of the debate, but the practical implications. As such, law represents a compromise, hopefully a reasonable one. Part of the problem is that some people look at a fetus and think, “small baby” and others see a potential baby. For some there is a moral imperative to support that potential, and for others there isn’t. Yet others look at a newborn and see a person, others see a potential person. The problem is that this debate is ultimately too emotionally charged for the hard biological reality to enter for most. As a result, the law picks viability of the fetus as a line, not because of some magical transformation, but for practical reasons. It does this because outlawing abortion in no way stops abortion, it just drives it underground. The law also recognizes that the mother is a fully viable and developed person with their own rights, and (this is going to sound harsh) playing host to a parasitic organism. Needless to say none of what I’m saying goes over well with people who don’t have a strong background in biology. The idea that the life of the mother might matter more than the life of another potential person doesn’t sit well with some people. The idea that even newborns are less “people” and and more “grub-stage people” tends to be downright offensive to many.
- socceroos 8y ago
  > Needless to say none of what I’m saying goes over well with people who don’t have a strong background in biology. The idea that the life of the mother might matter more than the life of another potential person doesn’t sit well with some people. The idea that even newborns are less “people” and and more “grub-stage people” tends to be downright offensive to many. It doesn't go over well for many people with a strong background in biology either, to be fair. This particular argument tries to skirt the issue by attempting to deny the existence of humanity and, less directly, "real" life by essentially stating that vulnerability removes your right to humanity. If you follow through the principle of the argument this is undeniably its core. For an overwhelming number of obvious reasons, this doesn't stack up either.

jake_the_third 8y ago

Thank you for saying this. It had always disturbed me how people change the name of what is quite literally ending another human life to something else as a means to soften or discard the moral implication associated with said action. It's disgusting. Truth be told though, this renaming-bad-things-to-make-them-passable phenomenon isn't only limited to killing unborn children, and it has been going on for a long time.

Canaan 8y ago
'War'...what is it good for?

praneshp 8y ago

(I'm not sure if I'm giving you the right context, or if you already know about it, etc etc, so blanket apology if required) I understood and didn't take offence at the nitpick mainly due to the fact that foetus vs baby is an important argument in the pro-choice vs pro-life debate in the US; the "women should be allowed to control their bodies" side is usually presented with "should they be allowed to kill a baby to control their body", etc.

socceroos 8y ago
No apology required. ;) Yeah, I had read and understood the context and ended up unsure of where to nest my rant so that it was most relevant to being discussed but least intrusive. I think I've missed the mark on that so sorry for the confusion.

heartbreak 8y ago

I’m not about to have an abortion debate on HN. My nitpick was an attempt to clear up any confusion of terms involved. The OP referenced an episode about female foeticide which is, by its definition, different from infanticide. Morality of either is irrelevant. The confusion has since been cleared up, so there’s no need to drag it on.

rabboRubble 8y ago

> The idea that you can draw the line arbitrarily along a child's development other than the very moment of inception and call one a self-centered right and the other murder is preposterous. Not preposterous at all. The line is clear: viability outside the womb. As a woman, I deem legal and safe abortion an exercise of my second amendment rights. If I determine that a separate individual has taken residence inside me contrary to my wishes I have the right to defend my person against that intrusion. Of course I first ask for the person to leave and find suitable accommodation elsewhere. Oh you can't leave on your own? I still don't want you here -- leave, leave now. No? Well I will stand my ground. I really don't see why (mostly) men have no philosophical qualm with defending their home against a fully alive intruder, yet can not understand why a woman might wish to exercise a similar right over her own body.

socceroos 8y ago
The below may sound a bit harsh, but I'm trying to be clear - apologies in advance. I've got nothing against you or any circumstances you've been in. > Not preposterous at all. The line is clear: viability outside the womb. That's not an argument that makes any sense at all, nor does it stack up when put under scrutiny. What about the viability of an infant that you arbitrarily decide you wish to eject from the home? You ask them to leave; well they can't walk. You ask them to find suitable accommodation elsewhere; well they can't talk. You tell them to feed themselves. Oh, you can't leave on your own? I still don't want you here -- leave, leave now. No?... What about the viability of a minority group that the government decides they don't want in their country? Lets say it's a bunch of Jews, eh? Follow through with your principle and see where it leads you. So I'd argue that this is an argument of selfishness, lack of responsibility and willful foolishness - traits which are considered highly unhealthy to self and society. Putting that aside, the other issue is that this argument completely skips the point at hand - human life. As a society, we deal with human life carefully for a reason - it's beautiful and important - it's something to be cherished and nurtured. Arguments like these try do deny this fact by looking the other way.
- rabboRubble 8y ago
  If I do not control what happens to my body, what freedom do I have? I am not advocating that I individually control the expulsion of an entire group of people at a national level. I demand only control over my own reproductive function. Women in these United States of America have no paid maternal leave unlike all other countries except 2 others, we have the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world on par with Sri Lanka, and until Obamacare rolled around did not have automatic pre-natal care in our health insurance plans. Why should I relinquish my right to self determination for a nation that cares so little for my successful motherhood? The US at a policy level has no skin in the game, yet a large group of its citizens want to tell me what do? Screw that... We tolerate all sorts of nonsense in the US that ends people's lives in the name of freedom. Just look to the pro-2A crowd. They take no societal accountability for the lives of people in their policy preferences. Why should I accept any less for myself?

Semirhage 8y ago

You may not want to hear this, but the line isn’t so fine or instant in anything except the law. When dealing with laws and regulations you ultimately have a somewhat arbitrary quality because that’s the nature of a line. Speed X is fine and dandy on the roadway, speed X+1 can get you pulled over and heavily fined. What’s the practical difference in 1 kph? Essentially nothing, except that for reasons beyond that difference of 1, a line had to be drawn. Rational people don’t think that some magical process occurs between one instant and the next as a fetus goes from “ok to abort legally” to “illegal to abort.” The law also isn’t as involved in the spiritual or emotional content of the debate, but the practical implications. As such, law represents a compromise, hopefully a reasonable one. Part of the problem is that some people look at a fetus and think, “small baby” and others see a potential baby. For some there is a moral imperative to support that potential, and for others there isn’t. Yet others look at a newborn and see a person, others see a potential person. The problem is that this debate is ultimately too emotionally charged for the hard biological reality to enter for most. As a result, the law picks viability of the fetus as a line, not because of some magical transformation, but for practical reasons. It does this because outlawing abortion in no way stops abortion, it just drives it underground. The law also recognizes that the mother is a fully viable and developed person with their own rights, and (this is going to sound harsh) playing host to a parasitic organism. Needless to say none of what I’m saying goes over well with people who don’t have a strong background in biology. The idea that the life of the mother might matter more than the life of another potential person doesn’t sit well with some people. The idea that even newborns are less “people” and and more “grub-stage people” tends to be downright offensive to many.

socceroos 8y ago
> Needless to say none of what I’m saying goes over well with people who don’t have a strong background in biology. The idea that the life of the mother might matter more than the life of another potential person doesn’t sit well with some people. The idea that even newborns are less “people” and and more “grub-stage people” tends to be downright offensive to many. It doesn't go over well for many people with a strong background in biology either, to be fair. This particular argument tries to skirt the issue by attempting to deny the existence of humanity and, less directly, "real" life by essentially stating that vulnerability removes your right to humanity. If you follow through the principle of the argument this is undeniably its core. For an overwhelming number of obvious reasons, this doesn't stack up either.