Hacker News Reader

Comment by enumjorge | Hacker News Reader

It’s a surface level protection. Forcing someone to bring an unwanted child into this world is not enlightened. There’s a reason why women and couples opt for abortion. They’re often not ready for that responsibility, and it’s the kid who suffers most.

Life for the sake of life feels like virtue signaling, especially since those who espouse it have no interest in providing social programs to help these mothers and couples raise the kid they were forced to have. That’s pretty barbaric.

Congratulations. You saved a life you almost immediately stop giving a shit about.

View on HN

One could argue that every living human — all of us — are a product of generations of rape and unwanted children whose lives no one cared about, who survived to have their own. Civilized humans who enjoyed enforced women’s rights are a laughably short segment of all human history.

If anything, reflecting on the stress and violence of our collective ancestors should only further strengthen the desire to do better by supporting things like "enforced women’s rights". Was that your point?

The only point I have is that I’m incredibly happy to exist.

We're also the product of generations of people dying prematurely of diseases like polio; our lives would be quite a bit different if infant/child mortality had been 0% for the last 100k years.

Should we not wipe out polio because our ancestors couldn't?

> Forcing someone to bring an unwanted child into this world is not enlightened. > They’re often not ready for that responsibility

So they could have used condoms, the man could have avoided ejaculating where it could cause pregnancy, or they could also just not have sex or the woman could take pills or an IUD. Unless it was rape, nobody forced them to have a child.

I do agree that there should be programs that help the parents more.

How do you feel about rape victims who are unable to prove they were raped in court and are forced to co-parent the rest of their life with their rapist?

Or what about rape cases which take longer than 9 months to reach a conviction?

Rape is hard to prove and it doesn't necessarily mean co-parenting with the rapist, I think it's even more likely that he avoids responsibility and escapes than become a parent.

And the second issue seems to be an issue of bureaucracy and it's slowness.

Those cases are both valid where I think most people would argue it's not as clear cut but I think they are mostly the exception, not the rule.

So are you saying it doesn’t matter if innocent people are tortured by a law, as long as it’s “rare”?

Like… your opinion is that corner cases don’t matter in law?

Clarence Thomas said we should reconsider contraception as a right, which according to your logic essentially means we should reconsider sex except for having a child as a right. You can't advocate for personal responsibility and then take away all mechanisms to conduct it.

I don't even know who Clarence Thomas is. It sounds like he is religious to me which as far as I know allows sex for procreation only, not for pleasure. Maybe I am wrong tho. Whoever he is, I can agree with some of his views while disagreeing with others.

He sits on the U.S. Supreme Court and is one of those responsible for this ruling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com