Comment by leereeves | Hacker News Reader

Comment by leereeves | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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-heal...

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?

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.

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-wom...

[2] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimest...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com