Hacker News Reader

Comment by shiven | Hacker News Reader

"Irreversible" life choices, in no particular order:

* Getting convicted for an offense with "mandatory minimum" jail time - e.g. dealing drugs to minors.

* Driving drunk, crashing and getting fully paralyzed - 'coz "driving drunk" is a choice.

* Having unprotected sex and living with HIV - for the rest of your days.

* Getting college/higher education, on a student loan, in a field that does not/will not pay at a high enough rate to payback the loan - good luck discharging that.

* Doing any high-risk physical activity with a >50% chance of serious bodily harm/injury. (Death is OK, by this metric!)

... logically refute all of the above and I'll give you the remaining 7 :P

View on HN

I don't think this list comes anywhere close to having a baby. None of the items have a 100% probability of causing irreversible life choices. For example, the choice of performing a crime may not end up in conviction, the choice of drunk driving may not end up in a crash, one may not get HIV even after having unprotected sex, one may be able to repay the student loan even after choosing an unoptimal field, etc.

But having a baby has a 100% probability of altering one's schedule for the rest of the life!

But having a baby has a 100% probability of altering one's schedule for the rest of the life!

Sure, but you can put your kid up for adoption if you are so deeply affected. I mean, Steve Job's biological mother did, so it is not really a 100% thing.

Let us take it case by case.

Case 1: Have a child. Take care of the child until the child is an adult. It has an irreversible effect on one's lifestyle and schedule. Even after the child has grown up, the parent and the child are still emotionally bonded to varying degree.

Case 2: Have a child. Put the child up for adoption. Once the child is adopted, two cases emerge.

Case 2.1: The adoption lasts life long, thus being irreversible by definition.

Case 2.2: The adoption is reversed, thus bringing the biological parent back to Case 1 and thus facing the irreversible effects of Case 1.

Thus, in all cases, having a child has 100% probability of having life long effects.

I am honestly unable to understand if you are arguing for argument's sake or if you are genuinely trying to make a point. I think most people would agree that issues like having a child or putting a child up for adoption has a 100% probability of serious irreversible effect on one's schedule, lifestyle and emotions than something like high-risk physical activity which has less than 100% of probability of such an irreversible effect.

I think I've made my point :-)

All of the choices you mention are considered as harmful by society; in contrast to having children which is considered good.

The criteria was "reversibility", not societal acceptance.

Also, "having children" is not "considered good" by society in 100% of cases. We'd never have Roe v Wade if that were the case. I think you are building a bit of a straw man there.

I don't see how Roe v Wade contradicts the claim that "having children" is "considered good". Roe v Wade is about abortion, i.e. a situation that applies to unwanted pregnancy, something we are not discussing in this thread. When we say "having children", I thought it is understood that we are talking about planned/wanted pregnancy with planned parenthood.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com