4 ms·

The main argument behind pro-choice is that a fetus isn't a person. Otherwise abortion would mean killing people. If you really believe your analogy of firing

by bsza 5y ago

The main argument behind pro-choice is that a fetus isn't a person. Otherwise abortion would mean killing people. If you really believe your analogy of firing people is a good one, then you have already recognized the aborted fetus as a person.

alasdair_ 5y ago
The main argument behind pro-choice is that women own their own bodies, not society at large.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  It's a large enough issue that you can't really sum up “the main argument” in a pithy Hacker News comment; most anyone with a reasoned opinion has thought about it enough to fill several essays, and to get the “main argument” requires considering a lot of people's reasoning.
  - nautilius 5y ago
    You really can, though. This discussion is considered “solved” in most of the so-called civilized world. Your argument could be equally applied to other topics that were once debated hotly but now are mostly considered “solved”, such as “is it good to have slaves”, or “should women be allowed to vote”.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      “Solved” ≠ “simple”. There's a consensus on the right answer, but that doesn't make the reasoning trivial. • “Is it good to have slaves”: they're people, so they shouldn't be enslaved. (Almost axiomic, with the same reasoning in consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethical systems.) • “Should women be allowed to vote?”: they're people who are affected by policy, so yes, they should be able to decide it. (See: the whole justification for democracy in the first place; it just falls out. … Should children be allowed to vote?) I don't think you can come up with something so simple for abortion, unless it's one of the axioms of your ethical system. That's more a function of our (relative) lack of understanding, rather than the problem being intrinsically complex… probably.
      - nautilius 5y ago
        Oh, it obviously isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't have taken so long to abolish slavery and let women vote, I couldn't agree more. But imagine stepping out from your time machine to 1860 Richmond, VA, I don't think many people would agree with your first point, that now seems so obvious. It's a sign of the immense cultural progress we made that you can now state your two points as truisms. Let's not forget that there was a whole war fought about whether your point one holds value or not - more than 600,000 people were killed trying to find an answer to this question (almost as many as died due to COVID in this country so far). Our cultural values will continue to evolve, things that are heavily debated today will seem as plain as the two points you raise are for us today.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > Oh, it obviously isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't have taken so long to abolish slavery and let women vote, I couldn't agree more. Slavery didn't carry on so long because people “weren't sure whether it was okay”. It carried on because the powerful wanted slaves. The history of slavery discourse is the history of people inventing new reasons that it's actually a good thing – but the reasons it's a bad thing stay the same, and were even known and remarked upon in Ancient Greece. Women had the vote in 1264, when the House of Commons was first formed in England, and they had the vote in 1295 when the then-King officially declared the House of Commons part of parliament. In fact, England had universal suffrage (albeit hampered by the lack of secret ballot) until 1430, when it was restricted to forty-shilling freeholders. Are you really saying these are hard problems? These are problems that were introduced as a means of enabling the concentration of power. The ethics of abortion is a problem introduced by our biology; why would you even expect it to be so easy?
        nautilius 5y ago
        So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Everyone always agreed and of course still does that all humans are created equal and deserve the same rights, regardless of religion, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, but the powerful elite overruled the peace loving and embracing populace? How convenient! That’s a steep argument that I will not even engage with. You throw around numbers, but it looks like there’s quite a bit of history and current events for you to read up on. The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, that some groups are simply fundamentally, biologically, inferior. It leaves me completely speechless and disgusted that you come forward and deny that.
- bsza 5y ago
  Precisely. Therefore, society at large should have no business in the reason a woman wants to remove part of her body. By this logic, why should wanting to remove a fetus with a specific genital be considered any more sexist than wanting to undergo a gender change operation? In both cases, you don't like the reproductive organ in your body and want to get rid of it.
  - antattack 5y ago
    Woman cannot tell the gender without a help of technology. Technology can amplify good or bad results of person's actions . Therefore I would argue it requires debate and establishment of norms that are outside of natural laws.
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    Society is allowed to have an opinion. It’s when that opinion turns into law that it becomes a problem. Personally I think women who smoke while pregnant are horrible, and I don’t mind saying something to them about it. I don’t think my opinion should have the force of law however.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by bsza 5y ago

alasdair_ 5y ago

The main argument behind pro-choice is that women own their own bodies, not society at large.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
It's a large enough issue that you can't really sum up “the main argument” in a pithy Hacker News comment; most anyone with a reasoned opinion has thought about it enough to fill several essays, and to get the “main argument” requires considering a lot of people's reasoning.
- nautilius 5y ago
  You really can, though. This discussion is considered “solved” in most of the so-called civilized world. Your argument could be equally applied to other topics that were once debated hotly but now are mostly considered “solved”, such as “is it good to have slaves”, or “should women be allowed to vote”.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    “Solved” ≠ “simple”. There's a consensus on the right answer, but that doesn't make the reasoning trivial. • “Is it good to have slaves”: they're people, so they shouldn't be enslaved. (Almost axiomic, with the same reasoning in consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethical systems.) • “Should women be allowed to vote?”: they're people who are affected by policy, so yes, they should be able to decide it. (See: the whole justification for democracy in the first place; it just falls out. … Should children be allowed to vote?) I don't think you can come up with something so simple for abortion, unless it's one of the axioms of your ethical system. That's more a function of our (relative) lack of understanding, rather than the problem being intrinsically complex… probably.
    - nautilius 5y ago
      Oh, it obviously isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't have taken so long to abolish slavery and let women vote, I couldn't agree more. But imagine stepping out from your time machine to 1860 Richmond, VA, I don't think many people would agree with your first point, that now seems so obvious. It's a sign of the immense cultural progress we made that you can now state your two points as truisms. Let's not forget that there was a whole war fought about whether your point one holds value or not - more than 600,000 people were killed trying to find an answer to this question (almost as many as died due to COVID in this country so far). Our cultural values will continue to evolve, things that are heavily debated today will seem as plain as the two points you raise are for us today.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > Oh, it obviously isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't have taken so long to abolish slavery and let women vote, I couldn't agree more. Slavery didn't carry on so long because people “weren't sure whether it was okay”. It carried on because the powerful wanted slaves. The history of slavery discourse is the history of people inventing new reasons that it's actually a good thing – but the reasons it's a bad thing stay the same, and were even known and remarked upon in Ancient Greece. Women had the vote in 1264, when the House of Commons was first formed in England, and they had the vote in 1295 when the then-King officially declared the House of Commons part of parliament. In fact, England had universal suffrage (albeit hampered by the lack of secret ballot) until 1430, when it was restricted to forty-shilling freeholders. Are you really saying these are hard problems? These are problems that were introduced as a means of enabling the concentration of power. The ethics of abortion is a problem introduced by our biology; why would you even expect it to be so easy?
        nautilius 5y ago
        So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Everyone always agreed and of course still does that all humans are created equal and deserve the same rights, regardless of religion, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, but the powerful elite overruled the peace loving and embracing populace? How convenient! That’s a steep argument that I will not even engage with. You throw around numbers, but it looks like there’s quite a bit of history and current events for you to read up on. The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, that some groups are simply fundamentally, biologically, inferior. It leaves me completely speechless and disgusted that you come forward and deny that.
bsza 5y ago
Precisely. Therefore, society at large should have no business in the reason a woman wants to remove part of her body. By this logic, why should wanting to remove a fetus with a specific genital be considered any more sexist than wanting to undergo a gender change operation? In both cases, you don't like the reproductive organ in your body and want to get rid of it.
- antattack 5y ago
  Woman cannot tell the gender without a help of technology. Technology can amplify good or bad results of person's actions . Therefore I would argue it requires debate and establishment of norms that are outside of natural laws.
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  Society is allowed to have an opinion. It’s when that opinion turns into law that it becomes a problem. Personally I think women who smoke while pregnant are horrible, and I don’t mind saying something to them about it. I don’t think my opinion should have the force of law however.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]