9 ms·

>"It's humbling to read about his life and the many major figures in the abolitionist movement. Those men and women really deserve respect for how visionary and

>"It's humbling to read about his life and the many major figures in the abolitionist movement. Those men and women really deserve respect for how visionary and open minded they were in a world of close mindedness." In 150 years people may well be saying the same thing about the major figures in today's anti-abortion movements.

rsynnott 8y ago
No, probably not.
- barking 8y ago
  Two classes of human beings, slaves and fetuses, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice.
  - cinquemb 8y ago
    Well, at least with slavery, slave owners to some degree or another had to at least mitigate against the risk of revolt or uprising throughout history. I suspect fetuses might be held in higher regard if they could exert their sovereignty inside their parents womb to any sufficient degree before/during/after an abortion.
    - barking 8y ago
      They're hidden away and disposed of in secret. It got so bad in the recent referendum campaign in Ireland that even to show an ultrasound image of a normal in-utero fetus was regarded as hurtful and offensive.
      - isolli 8y ago
        Source?
        barking 8y ago
        https://lovindublin.com/dublin/abortion-posters-maternity-hospital https://lovindublin.com/dublin/abortion-posters-maternity-ho...
  - kaybe 8y ago
    When a fetus does not need somebody to spend their time and pain hosting them and risk their health and life doing it, then we can talk about this. Even if it was not a fetus but an adult with a fully formed conciousness and personality, this would be a hard demand to make, and our laws reflect that.
    - barking 8y ago
      Euthanasia for dependent adults is legal now?
      - kaybe 8y ago
        You are required to help people in need, but not at the expense of your own safety. Calling 112 is enough. Abortion is not about killing, it's about not having a being in your body, potentially wrecking it and killing you. In the same vein, you can stop supporting dependent adults, as an individual (doing that as a society is a different matter). You can just stop. It won't kill them in that case, but that is not what this is about. If pregnancy was nothing for your body, no stress at all, then carrying to term and giving it up for adoption would be a lot more common. This dimension is often overlooked by people, especially men, I feel. Pregnancy can be insanely hard and dangerous.
        yostrovs 8y ago
        Seems like your view of fetuses is that of parasites, not even subhuman as slaveowners had of their slaves. It's an odd, counterproductive defense of abortion.
        kaybe 8y ago
        What would a productive defense be?
        yostrovs 8y ago
        I'm not in the business of defending abortion, actually very much agnostic on this topic and don't think it should receive the attention that it does. But man-oh-man, calling fetuses parasites is simply wrong and makes one look heartless. Parasites are of a different species, invade rather than being seeded by the host, and create misery for the host. Fetuses, on the other hand, are usually awaited with excitement, welcomed by the family, and bring joy and happiness to parents. To call them parasites really is Orwellian. The only thing they have in common with parasites is that they live inside another's body. Even our gut bacteria is not parasitic.
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    Now replace abortion with anti-abortion and I could equally say: Two classes of human beings, slaves and women, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice. Unless you wish to argue that bodily integrity [1] is not a human right. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
    - patrickg_zill 8y ago
      Is the DNA of the fetus, exactly the same as the woman's? If not then why not?
      - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        So you maintain "1 dna code = 1 person" ? That is easily disproven. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-... It can also lead to someone being of 2 blood types - so that they are compatible with both.
        patrickg_zill 8y ago
        That's not the exact question I asked.
        crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        You're right it's not the "question [you] asked". It's the underlying implication that question has loaded in it. The implication, stated roughly is the following: "A person can do what they want to their own body. And their body is defined by the DNA signature. Whereas a fetus has a different DNA structure than the body it is in, and therefore harming it is depriving it of human rights, because it has different DNA." I proved this implication wrong. If you feel that this implied statement is not indicative of your intent, please post your implication as a statement rather than engage in obfuscated writings.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    Fetuses are not human. They don't look human, they don't act human, absolutely none of them can survive as independent creatures (as most humans can). If anything, they're kinda weird little monsters that invade women's bodies that could potentially become human, but human they are not. Rather than call them human (which they're not), or a class of people (which they're not), call them fetuses and then the sophistry around controlling women's access to health care wears away a little.
wpietri 8y ago
Probably not. Strong anti-abortion views are mostly religious in nature, and only for specific religious subgroups: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/ http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-abou... The evangelical absolutism around abortion is historically new. Before 1980, plenty of evangelical Christians had nuanced views on the topic: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-bibl... Even some evangelical writers see this as mainly about a wedge issues used for political power, not morality: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/07/03/the-con-game-of-anti-abortion-partisanship-that-replaced-christianity-has-been-so-successful-that-we-forget-how-recently-it-was-invented/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/07/03/the-con-... So I think it's no coincidence that at the same time extreme anti-abortion views came to prominence on the US right, the US right became steadily more extreme, with centrists disappearing from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress: https://xkcd.com/1127/large/ https://xkcd.com/1127/large/ My expectation is that this, like all positive feedback loops, will eventually break, and Christians will return to historical norms. And I'd further guess that this will be aided technological advances that make extreme antiabortion views untenable. Look, for example at the question that goes something like, "In a clinic fire, would you save a five year old or a tank with 1,000 embryos?". [1] Advances in medicine, AI, copying minds, and animal uplift would provide many more examples, forcing a debate around what really makes something a legally protected person. If an AI, a human mind moved to silicon, and a dog with a 140 IQ all get citizenship, it'll harder to explain why a nonsentient fertilized human egg gets those protections. [1] https://www.quora.com/In-the-abortion-debate-isnt-the-5-year-old-versus-1-000-frozen-embryos-analogy-just-an-emotional-appeal-and-therefore-useless-in-determining-fetal-personhood https://www.quora.com/In-the-abortion-debate-isnt-the-5-year...
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  > Christians will return to historical norms. Abortion is condemned in the Didache (late 1st century/early 2nd century CE). There were already rigorously set penalties under canon law for abortion in the 1st millennium. It may be that American Evangelical Christians will return to the moderate views about the issue that they held several decades ago, but it is entire possible that the "historical norms" that any Christian community might return to are the ones even further back in time.
bryanrasmussen 8y ago
When a fetus gives a rousing speech in front of a room of major political figures I for one will certainly take notice.
- rtx 8y ago
  Crying in pain is not far off.
dang 8y ago
This comment badly broke the HN guideline against introducing generic flamebait into threads. The last thing we need is flamewars about abortion. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rsynnott 8y ago

No, probably not.

barking 8y ago
Two classes of human beings, slaves and fetuses, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice.
- cinquemb 8y ago
  Well, at least with slavery, slave owners to some degree or another had to at least mitigate against the risk of revolt or uprising throughout history. I suspect fetuses might be held in higher regard if they could exert their sovereignty inside their parents womb to any sufficient degree before/during/after an abortion.
  - barking 8y ago
    They're hidden away and disposed of in secret. It got so bad in the recent referendum campaign in Ireland that even to show an ultrasound image of a normal in-utero fetus was regarded as hurtful and offensive.
    - isolli 8y ago
      Source?
      - barking 8y ago
        https://lovindublin.com/dublin/abortion-posters-maternity-hospital https://lovindublin.com/dublin/abortion-posters-maternity-ho...
- kaybe 8y ago
  When a fetus does not need somebody to spend their time and pain hosting them and risk their health and life doing it, then we can talk about this. Even if it was not a fetus but an adult with a fully formed conciousness and personality, this would be a hard demand to make, and our laws reflect that.
  - barking 8y ago
    Euthanasia for dependent adults is legal now?
    - kaybe 8y ago
      You are required to help people in need, but not at the expense of your own safety. Calling 112 is enough. Abortion is not about killing, it's about not having a being in your body, potentially wrecking it and killing you. In the same vein, you can stop supporting dependent adults, as an individual (doing that as a society is a different matter). You can just stop. It won't kill them in that case, but that is not what this is about. If pregnancy was nothing for your body, no stress at all, then carrying to term and giving it up for adoption would be a lot more common. This dimension is often overlooked by people, especially men, I feel. Pregnancy can be insanely hard and dangerous.
      - yostrovs 8y ago
        Seems like your view of fetuses is that of parasites, not even subhuman as slaveowners had of their slaves. It's an odd, counterproductive defense of abortion.
        kaybe 8y ago
        What would a productive defense be?
        yostrovs 8y ago
        I'm not in the business of defending abortion, actually very much agnostic on this topic and don't think it should receive the attention that it does. But man-oh-man, calling fetuses parasites is simply wrong and makes one look heartless. Parasites are of a different species, invade rather than being seeded by the host, and create misery for the host. Fetuses, on the other hand, are usually awaited with excitement, welcomed by the family, and bring joy and happiness to parents. To call them parasites really is Orwellian. The only thing they have in common with parasites is that they live inside another's body. Even our gut bacteria is not parasitic.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  Now replace abortion with anti-abortion and I could equally say: Two classes of human beings, slaves and women, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice. Unless you wish to argue that bodily integrity [1] is not a human right. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    Is the DNA of the fetus, exactly the same as the woman's? If not then why not?
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      So you maintain "1 dna code = 1 person" ? That is easily disproven. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-... It can also lead to someone being of 2 blood types - so that they are compatible with both.
      - patrickg_zill 8y ago
        That's not the exact question I asked.
        crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        You're right it's not the "question [you] asked". It's the underlying implication that question has loaded in it. The implication, stated roughly is the following: "A person can do what they want to their own body. And their body is defined by the DNA signature. Whereas a fetus has a different DNA structure than the body it is in, and therefore harming it is depriving it of human rights, because it has different DNA." I proved this implication wrong. If you feel that this implied statement is not indicative of your intent, please post your implication as a statement rather than engage in obfuscated writings.
- Frondo 8y ago
  Fetuses are not human. They don't look human, they don't act human, absolutely none of them can survive as independent creatures (as most humans can). If anything, they're kinda weird little monsters that invade women's bodies that could potentially become human, but human they are not. Rather than call them human (which they're not), or a class of people (which they're not), call them fetuses and then the sophistry around controlling women's access to health care wears away a little.

wpietri 8y ago

Probably not. Strong anti-abortion views are mostly religious in nature, and only for specific religious subgroups: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/ http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-abou... The evangelical absolutism around abortion is historically new. Before 1980, plenty of evangelical Christians had nuanced views on the topic: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-bibl... Even some evangelical writers see this as mainly about a wedge issues used for political power, not morality: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/07/03/the-con-game-of-anti-abortion-partisanship-that-replaced-christianity-has-been-so-successful-that-we-forget-how-recently-it-was-invented/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/07/03/the-con-... So I think it's no coincidence that at the same time extreme anti-abortion views came to prominence on the US right, the US right became steadily more extreme, with centrists disappearing from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress: https://xkcd.com/1127/large/ https://xkcd.com/1127/large/ My expectation is that this, like all positive feedback loops, will eventually break, and Christians will return to historical norms. And I'd further guess that this will be aided technological advances that make extreme antiabortion views untenable. Look, for example at the question that goes something like, "In a clinic fire, would you save a five year old or a tank with 1,000 embryos?". [1] Advances in medicine, AI, copying minds, and animal uplift would provide many more examples, forcing a debate around what really makes something a legally protected person. If an AI, a human mind moved to silicon, and a dog with a 140 IQ all get citizenship, it'll harder to explain why a nonsentient fertilized human egg gets those protections. [1] https://www.quora.com/In-the-abortion-debate-isnt-the-5-year-old-versus-1-000-frozen-embryos-analogy-just-an-emotional-appeal-and-therefore-useless-in-determining-fetal-personhood https://www.quora.com/In-the-abortion-debate-isnt-the-5-year...

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
> Christians will return to historical norms. Abortion is condemned in the Didache (late 1st century/early 2nd century CE). There were already rigorously set penalties under canon law for abortion in the 1st millennium. It may be that American Evangelical Christians will return to the moderate views about the issue that they held several decades ago, but it is entire possible that the "historical norms" that any Christian community might return to are the ones even further back in time.

bryanrasmussen 8y ago

When a fetus gives a rousing speech in front of a room of major political figures I for one will certainly take notice.

rtx 8y ago
Crying in pain is not far off.

dang 8y ago

This comment badly broke the HN guideline against introducing generic flamebait into threads. The last thing we need is flamewars about abortion. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html