4 ms·

But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection? I think it is convenient to point to the importance of the lives of unborn children bu

by voisin 4y ago

But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection? I think it is convenient to point to the importance of the lives of unborn children but until the same protection is applied to children post-birth it seems like a convenient cover for controlling women.

leereeves 4y ago
> But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection? > ... until the same protection is applied to children post-birth ... The same protection is applied to children post-birth. It's still illegal to kill those children after they're born. --- Edit to respond to comments, because I'm "posting too fast": Yes, the conservative position on social programs seems inconsistent with being pro-life to someone who believes that government benefit programs are not only helpful, but are the primary mechanism to help the needy. But not to people who believe, like Reagan, that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" They don't look to the government for help for themselves and they don't see it as a mechanism for helping others. For that, they prefer family, church, charity, and community. They also generally believe, contrary to some extreme positions that have been exaggerated by their opponents, that: "we would not consider it immoral for a woman to accept treatment that is necessary to save her life, but which may end the life of her preborn child." https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/abortion-and-health-of-the-mother/ https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/abortion-and-heal...
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  Sure, but the (conservative) states pushing the new anti-abortion laws are also cutting back social programs, especially ones aimed at single mothers. "Just get a job, freeloader!" One can't claim to be pro-life and then refuse to provide support for those new lives.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - criddell 4y ago
    I don't think they want to support fetuses (through prenatal care) either. I think it's just about protecting the "life". Pro-life people don't see a difference between killing a 3 month old baby and destroying a fetus at 3 months. Anyway, I think that's mostly irrelevant. Say conservatives decided that abortion would be banned nationwide but there would be comprehensive social programs to care for pregnant women and children. The banning of abortion would still be a terrible idea.
- cogman10 4y ago
  Starve a child, deny them education, deny them healthcare, freeze them in the winter, allow other children to purchase AK47s and shoot them, deny them housing and all the sudden it becomes a fiscal matter and not one of religion or fundamental rights. The law may protect kids from being directly killed consequence free. However, indirectly, these good Christians support everything right up to that (spare the rod, spoil the child). Edit: To respond to your edit, since you don't want to take the time to actually respond. Reagan was good with the short quips, yet hardly someone you should look to for a "pro-life" attitude. He actively impeded AIDs research because "ewe, gay people". He has blood on his hands and invoking him in an argument about the sanctity of life is ridiculous. Further, saying "Oh, let the churches feed the hungry". What would you do for the child of an atheist parent? What would you do if the church (like many of them do!) imposes strict morality clauses before aid is given. What if there is no church giving such aid in a community? Why do you think there is child starvation in the united states? Because not enough kids know about their local churches and community centers? It's also laughable that the same people who cheer on dumping 800 billion dollars into the most powerful military in the world are somehow afraid of the consequences of what happens when that money goes into a program to feed children. So what, the government is only scary when the money DOESN'T go towards guns? What kind of backwards thinking is that?
- typon 4y ago
  Generally this argument holds very little water beyond making a gotcha-style bad-faith argument. People understand that murder is illegal - but life isn't just two states. Alive or Dead. If we were living in 20,000 BCE then maybe we could be forgiven for thinking this way, but we live in an advanced, modern, (presumably) ethical civilization where life is about flourishing and giving everyone opportunities to thrive. Focusing on the fetus's rights, yet condemning children to a life that's designed from the start to prevent flourishing is the conundrum people are referring to and pointing out the hypocrisy of.
- rswail 4y ago
  But it is legal to kill women suffering sepsis from having to keep a fetus that has died without getting a D&C. It's legal to force a raped child to carry a pregnancy to term even if they will suffer lifetime damage or fatal injuries. It's legal to force a raped child or woman to carry to term a child that is the result of incest and may suffer a lifetime of genetic damage and disability. It's a nonsense argument that is premised of the falsity that a fertilized ovum is somehow a "child". It is not.
  - mildmotive 4y ago
    The reality is that the vast majority of abortions are not done because of rape or incest. > smaller proportions of women in 2004 than in 1987 said that having a baby would interfere with their job or career (38% vs. 50%), that they were not mature enough (22% vs. 27%), that their husband or partner wanted them to have an abortion (14% vs. 24%), and that they and their partner could not or did not want to get married (12% vs. 30%). In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest. [1] The large number of unborn children that have been killed because of them being perceived as an economical burden, or other personal reasons cannot be ignored. But you ignore all this injustice and make it seem like abortion is all about dealing with rape and incest, while these in reality only account for ca 1% of all abortion cases. I’m saying killed because we still have a large portion of abortions happening in the second (10-15% worldwide [2]) and third trimesters. The point here is that a woman’s freedom does not override her child’s right to live. But you seem to think otherwise. [1] https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-wom... [2] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimester-pregnancy-termination/print https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimest...
  - trashtester 4y ago
    The positions above are extreme. Now I'm pro choice to begin with, but I imagine that MOST people on the right, even a lot of normally Pro Life people, think that it's not fair to deny abortions in situations as above. (Even if they do think the fetus is "somewhat" a child.) If the Pro Choice movement starts a campaign aimed specifically at changing federal law to allow abortions in the situations above, I believe they have a fair chance of getting 60% within 1-2 election cycles.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > they prefer family, church, charity, and community. So where is the child who is raped and impregnated by her uncle, priest, or coach supposed to turn?
  - rhino369 4y ago
    They would say to two of three that didn't rape them. Is the government really doing all that much for those victims? Our justice and foster care systems are pretty badly run. Democrats want to throw more money at the broken systems. Republicans want to tear them down. I'd support reforming them, but that is much easier said than done.
- overrun11 4y ago
  The substance of this argument is essentially "If you don't support every social policy I do then you do not have any basis to object to what you believe to be murder." Obviously absurd and far beneath the level of rigor I'd expect on HN.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    Nope, the substance of the argument is "You aren't doing this to protect life, you are doing this to punish women for having sex". Because, if protecting life was truly the goal you are after, then you'd do a whole lot more to actually, you know, protect life, long after the child is born.
WillPostForFood 4y ago
But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection? This is a straw man argument. No one is arguing children need no societal protection. Look at the push for Head Start under Bush, for example. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/earlychildhood.html https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/earlychi...
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  Who cares what you’re arguing? It’s about what you’re doing, and the only thing that conservatives get out of bed for is restricting abortion. Where’s the massive conservative push for easing the burdens of child care through social support?
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    Their stance is that abortion is killing babies. If that’s what you believe, it’s easier to get out of bed to stop baby murder than to help make child care more affordable.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    Because most conservatives believe that charity is a private, not government matter. This is could be a reason that religious folks and conservatives donate much more to charity, even though their income is less [1]. For cases like childcare, they believe that burdened families are best served by a close community coming together to help each other, rather than government programs. [1] https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/ https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/statistics-o...
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > and the only thing that conservatives get out of bed for is restricting abortion. They get out of bed for denying care that empirically has a massive effect of reducing suicide for trans people, too.
  - nmz 4y ago
    That's the trap of America, All of the third world knows the type of logic America is founded on. Keep the servants weak so you can rule over them. They make the rules, and they make the loopholes. This sets the culture, which in turn creates morality. Unfortunately for them, we know their law is not based on ethics. Legal basis? With enough mastery, it can be whatever you want it to be.
koheripbal 4y ago
...said no one ever. This is just a dishonest argument.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  - aftbit 4y ago
    Why? Guns kill (order of magnitude) about 4,000 children each year[1] in the USA. There are (order of magnitude) about 800,000 abortions each year[2] in the USA. If you are one of the people who believes that unborn child lives are worth the same as adult lives, then you should be 200 times more concerned about abortion than gun violence. 1: https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-reports https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-reports 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States#/media/File:U.S._abortions_and_abortion_ratios,_1973-2017,_Guttmacher_Institute.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_Uni... Here's how to set up WISQARS for that report: 2020, United States Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 18 ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24, Y35.0,\*U01.4
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      Guns outpaced accidents for the first time as the leading cause of death for children in 2020. Now that abortion is illegal in half the country, will those same conservative abortion crusaders direct their attention to saving kids from guns? Somehow I don’t think so, but I guess we will see…
      - bmelton 4y ago
        Abortion is not now "illegal in half the country" -- it may become so, but it isn't that today and this decision didn't make it that today Moreover, guns may have outpaced automotive deaths, but they have not outpaced "accidents" writ large.
josephcsible 4y ago
There are zero places where abortion is banned but post-birth infanticide is legal, and nobody wants to make that the case anywhere.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/states-set-to-ban-abortion-after-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/states-set-to-ban-abortion-a...
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    None of those states want to make post-birth infanticide legal.
- kdtsh 4y ago
  This argument is obtuse. The contradiction is that it is considered a matter of personal responsibility as soon as a newly born infant suffers from abuse, malnourishment, poverty, and/or neglect, but before birth it is a matter of moral principle that the child, however unwanted, is born.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    But child abuse and neglect are already illegal, and we already have programs like WIC.
    - kdtsh 4y ago
      Where did I say anything about the legality of child abuse and neglect?
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        If that's not what you meant, then I don't understand what contradiction you're trying to point out.
tomjen3 4y ago
If I object to you murdering a homeless person, should I be obligated to help him get a good life? That is essentially the same argument, just applied to somebody who is very much human. I don't support this ruling, but I don't believe that argument is any good.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  You don’t support this ruling, but the only thing you have to say about it is in its defense. Fascinating
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    There is still a few of us left that care about truth above signalling.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    I'm in the same boat. I am not going to defend an invalid justification for a position just because I agree with that position, and furthermore when people spread misinformation in support of my position, I will work to refute it. If anything, it's more important to me that I refute misinformation in support of things I believe as opposed to argue against positions I disagree with.
- trashtester 4y ago
  This. Kudos for pointing out irrational arguments from "your" side. Too many political arguments end up in tribalism, where all that matters is loyalty-signalling. Btw, I agree with you. I believe women should be free to choose until the fetus is able to live independently of the mom. This is because I don't think a 3 month old fetus is equivalent to a person. But IF you agree with the premise that a fetus is a person, it follows that they should have the same negative rights as other people (freedom from being killed, for instance), that does NOT mean that the person has to think that every person should have a large set of positive rights (ie rights imply that tax-payers should provide welfare for all people).
  - 4y ago
l33t2328 4y ago
No pro-lifers think infants deserve no societal protection. I’ve never heard this stance put forward.
- delecti 4y ago
  They may not actively think infants deserve no societal protection, but they sure are passive about actively enforcing any protection.
biohacker85 4y ago
The argument "you only care about people before they are born" is what you find on reddit and is made in bad faith. This argument compares what is perceived as murder with minimizing government assistance after birth. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as they believe their position before and after birth to be for the benefit of the child and therefore "pro-life". edit: fixed typo
splitstud 4y ago

by voisin 4y ago

leereeves 4y ago

> But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection? > ... until the same protection is applied to children post-birth ... The same protection is applied to children post-birth. It's still illegal to kill those children after they're born. --- Edit to respond to comments, because I'm "posting too fast": Yes, the conservative position on social programs seems inconsistent with being pro-life to someone who believes that government benefit programs are not only helpful, but are the primary mechanism to help the needy. But not to people who believe, like Reagan, that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" They don't look to the government for help for themselves and they don't see it as a mechanism for helping others. For that, they prefer family, church, charity, and community. They also generally believe, contrary to some extreme positions that have been exaggerated by their opponents, that: "we would not consider it immoral for a woman to accept treatment that is necessary to save her life, but which may end the life of her preborn child." https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/abortion-and-health-of-the-mother/ https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/abortion-and-heal...

colejohnson66 4y ago
Sure, but the (conservative) states pushing the new anti-abortion laws are also cutting back social programs, especially ones aimed at single mothers. "Just get a job, freeloader!" One can't claim to be pro-life and then refuse to provide support for those new lives.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 4y ago
  I don't think they want to support fetuses (through prenatal care) either. I think it's just about protecting the "life". Pro-life people don't see a difference between killing a 3 month old baby and destroying a fetus at 3 months. Anyway, I think that's mostly irrelevant. Say conservatives decided that abortion would be banned nationwide but there would be comprehensive social programs to care for pregnant women and children. The banning of abortion would still be a terrible idea.
cogman10 4y ago
Starve a child, deny them education, deny them healthcare, freeze them in the winter, allow other children to purchase AK47s and shoot them, deny them housing and all the sudden it becomes a fiscal matter and not one of religion or fundamental rights. The law may protect kids from being directly killed consequence free. However, indirectly, these good Christians support everything right up to that (spare the rod, spoil the child). Edit: To respond to your edit, since you don't want to take the time to actually respond. Reagan was good with the short quips, yet hardly someone you should look to for a "pro-life" attitude. He actively impeded AIDs research because "ewe, gay people". He has blood on his hands and invoking him in an argument about the sanctity of life is ridiculous. Further, saying "Oh, let the churches feed the hungry". What would you do for the child of an atheist parent? What would you do if the church (like many of them do!) imposes strict morality clauses before aid is given. What if there is no church giving such aid in a community? Why do you think there is child starvation in the united states? Because not enough kids know about their local churches and community centers? It's also laughable that the same people who cheer on dumping 800 billion dollars into the most powerful military in the world are somehow afraid of the consequences of what happens when that money goes into a program to feed children. So what, the government is only scary when the money DOESN'T go towards guns? What kind of backwards thinking is that?
typon 4y ago
Generally this argument holds very little water beyond making a gotcha-style bad-faith argument. People understand that murder is illegal - but life isn't just two states. Alive or Dead. If we were living in 20,000 BCE then maybe we could be forgiven for thinking this way, but we live in an advanced, modern, (presumably) ethical civilization where life is about flourishing and giving everyone opportunities to thrive. Focusing on the fetus's rights, yet condemning children to a life that's designed from the start to prevent flourishing is the conundrum people are referring to and pointing out the hypocrisy of.
rswail 4y ago
But it is legal to kill women suffering sepsis from having to keep a fetus that has died without getting a D&C. It's legal to force a raped child to carry a pregnancy to term even if they will suffer lifetime damage or fatal injuries. It's legal to force a raped child or woman to carry to term a child that is the result of incest and may suffer a lifetime of genetic damage and disability. It's a nonsense argument that is premised of the falsity that a fertilized ovum is somehow a "child". It is not.
- mildmotive 4y ago
  The reality is that the vast majority of abortions are not done because of rape or incest. > smaller proportions of women in 2004 than in 1987 said that having a baby would interfere with their job or career (38% vs. 50%), that they were not mature enough (22% vs. 27%), that their husband or partner wanted them to have an abortion (14% vs. 24%), and that they and their partner could not or did not want to get married (12% vs. 30%). In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest. [1] The large number of unborn children that have been killed because of them being perceived as an economical burden, or other personal reasons cannot be ignored. But you ignore all this injustice and make it seem like abortion is all about dealing with rape and incest, while these in reality only account for ca 1% of all abortion cases. I’m saying killed because we still have a large portion of abortions happening in the second (10-15% worldwide [2]) and third trimesters. The point here is that a woman’s freedom does not override her child’s right to live. But you seem to think otherwise. [1] https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-wom... [2] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimester-pregnancy-termination/print https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimest...
- trashtester 4y ago
  The positions above are extreme. Now I'm pro choice to begin with, but I imagine that MOST people on the right, even a lot of normally Pro Life people, think that it's not fair to deny abortions in situations as above. (Even if they do think the fetus is "somewhat" a child.) If the Pro Choice movement starts a campaign aimed specifically at changing federal law to allow abortions in the situations above, I believe they have a fair chance of getting 60% within 1-2 election cycles.
ModernMech 4y ago
> they prefer family, church, charity, and community. So where is the child who is raped and impregnated by her uncle, priest, or coach supposed to turn?
- rhino369 4y ago
  They would say to two of three that didn't rape them. Is the government really doing all that much for those victims? Our justice and foster care systems are pretty badly run. Democrats want to throw more money at the broken systems. Republicans want to tear them down. I'd support reforming them, but that is much easier said than done.
overrun11 4y ago
The substance of this argument is essentially "If you don't support every social policy I do then you do not have any basis to object to what you believe to be murder." Obviously absurd and far beneath the level of rigor I'd expect on HN.
- cogman10 4y ago
  Nope, the substance of the argument is "You aren't doing this to protect life, you are doing this to punish women for having sex". Because, if protecting life was truly the goal you are after, then you'd do a whole lot more to actually, you know, protect life, long after the child is born.

WillPostForFood 4y ago

But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection? This is a straw man argument. No one is arguing children need no societal protection. Look at the push for Head Start under Bush, for example. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/earlychildhood.html https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/earlychi...

philosopher1234 4y ago
Who cares what you’re arguing? It’s about what you’re doing, and the only thing that conservatives get out of bed for is restricting abortion. Where’s the massive conservative push for easing the burdens of child care through social support?
- l33t2328 4y ago
  Their stance is that abortion is killing babies. If that’s what you believe, it’s easier to get out of bed to stop baby murder than to help make child care more affordable.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Because most conservatives believe that charity is a private, not government matter. This is could be a reason that religious folks and conservatives donate much more to charity, even though their income is less [1]. For cases like childcare, they believe that burdened families are best served by a close community coming together to help each other, rather than government programs. [1] https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/ https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/statistics-o...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > and the only thing that conservatives get out of bed for is restricting abortion. They get out of bed for denying care that empirically has a massive effect of reducing suicide for trans people, too.
- nmz 4y ago
  That's the trap of America, All of the third world knows the type of logic America is founded on. Keep the servants weak so you can rule over them. They make the rules, and they make the loopholes. This sets the culture, which in turn creates morality. Unfortunately for them, we know their law is not based on ethics. Legal basis? With enough mastery, it can be whatever you want it to be.

koheripbal 4y ago

...said no one ever. This is just a dishonest argument.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
- aftbit 4y ago
  Why? Guns kill (order of magnitude) about 4,000 children each year[1] in the USA. There are (order of magnitude) about 800,000 abortions each year[2] in the USA. If you are one of the people who believes that unborn child lives are worth the same as adult lives, then you should be 200 times more concerned about abortion than gun violence. 1: https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-reports https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-reports 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States#/media/File:U.S._abortions_and_abortion_ratios,_1973-2017,_Guttmacher_Institute.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_Uni... Here's how to set up WISQARS for that report: 2020, United States Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 18 ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24, Y35.0,\*U01.4
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Guns outpaced accidents for the first time as the leading cause of death for children in 2020. Now that abortion is illegal in half the country, will those same conservative abortion crusaders direct their attention to saving kids from guns? Somehow I don’t think so, but I guess we will see…
    - bmelton 4y ago
      Abortion is not now "illegal in half the country" -- it may become so, but it isn't that today and this decision didn't make it that today Moreover, guns may have outpaced automotive deaths, but they have not outpaced "accidents" writ large.

josephcsible 4y ago

There are zero places where abortion is banned but post-birth infanticide is legal, and nobody wants to make that the case anywhere.

seanp2k2 4y ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/states-set-to-ban-abortion-after-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/states-set-to-ban-abortion-a...
- josephcsible 4y ago
  None of those states want to make post-birth infanticide legal.
kdtsh 4y ago
This argument is obtuse. The contradiction is that it is considered a matter of personal responsibility as soon as a newly born infant suffers from abuse, malnourishment, poverty, and/or neglect, but before birth it is a matter of moral principle that the child, however unwanted, is born.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  But child abuse and neglect are already illegal, and we already have programs like WIC.
  - kdtsh 4y ago
    Where did I say anything about the legality of child abuse and neglect?
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      If that's not what you meant, then I don't understand what contradiction you're trying to point out.

tomjen3 4y ago

If I object to you murdering a homeless person, should I be obligated to help him get a good life? That is essentially the same argument, just applied to somebody who is very much human. I don't support this ruling, but I don't believe that argument is any good.

philosopher1234 4y ago
You don’t support this ruling, but the only thing you have to say about it is in its defense. Fascinating
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  There is still a few of us left that care about truth above signalling.
- Kranar 4y ago
  I'm in the same boat. I am not going to defend an invalid justification for a position just because I agree with that position, and furthermore when people spread misinformation in support of my position, I will work to refute it. If anything, it's more important to me that I refute misinformation in support of things I believe as opposed to argue against positions I disagree with.
trashtester 4y ago
This. Kudos for pointing out irrational arguments from "your" side. Too many political arguments end up in tribalism, where all that matters is loyalty-signalling. Btw, I agree with you. I believe women should be free to choose until the fetus is able to live independently of the mom. This is because I don't think a 3 month old fetus is equivalent to a person. But IF you agree with the premise that a fetus is a person, it follows that they should have the same negative rights as other people (freedom from being killed, for instance), that does NOT mean that the person has to think that every person should have a large set of positive rights (ie rights imply that tax-payers should provide welfare for all people).
- 4y ago

l33t2328 4y ago

No pro-lifers think infants deserve no societal protection. I’ve never heard this stance put forward.

delecti 4y ago
They may not actively think infants deserve no societal protection, but they sure are passive about actively enforcing any protection.

biohacker85 4y ago

The argument "you only care about people before they are born" is what you find on reddit and is made in bad faith. This argument compares what is perceived as murder with minimizing government assistance after birth. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as they believe their position before and after birth to be for the benefit of the child and therefore "pro-life". edit: fixed typo

splitstud 4y ago