Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsr_ | Hacker News Reader

Let's grant for the sake of this argument and this alone that fertilization signals the beginning of all rights.

You cannot be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else's life: they have no claim on your body. You cannot be forced to donate blood, for the same reason.

You cannot be forced into surgery. You have the right to refuse medicine. And, in general, you have the right to ingest whatever substances you want, even though the substances may be illegal to possess or sell.

Nevertheless, all of the above is useless, because the people who want to ban abortion are not, in general, sincere about saving humans life being their primary desire. Their primary desire is to have a subclass of humans who can be controlled and punished. Arguing with them about this is approximately useless; there are a few who are willing to discuss evidence and logic, but most are only displaying their allegiance to their tribe.

View on HN

> Their primary desire is to have a subclass of humans who can be controlled and punished. Arguing with them about this is approximately useless

If this is truly your belief, then you and the pro-lifer are actually closer to each other than you realize. They tend to believe their arguments are lost on you because they think your primary desire is simply to kill people you feel are undesirable and unworthy of life.

I don’t see any value in demonizing the other side like this, it just increases the chasm

I think for many of them they direct themselves to the subject passionately because it is easy to advicate for an unborn person.

The unborn don't have flaws that make their lives unworthy of advocacy- unlike the unhoused, migrants, felons, etc. whose deaths at the hands of others so-called "pro-life" advocates are silent about.

Notably, I've also heard those who are fervently anti-abortion respond to the issue of women dying from abortion with almost a sense of glee- as though women who die for lack of proper safe options deserved to lose their life.

This is a silly argument that I've only seen made recently. If I invite someone onto my airplane, am I justified in rescinding consent to them being on the plane, and chucking them out at 15000 feet? Of course not. Even in the case of never having given consent in the first place (e.g. stowaway) that would still be considered murder. To me, it all boils down to when a fetus has rights as a human, and this so called "forced" use of someone's body is a red herring.

Someone else said it here, but in the US you can be forced to give up much more - the ultimate sacrifice - with selective service.

So this, too, is a tough rub on logic

Where "you" means specifically males aged 18-25.

Coincidentally, 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was decided, was the last year anyone was drafted into the military.

When in college taking 'Women in History' there were (for obvious reasons) all women, save me and two other men.

Professor asked 'Who thinks men and women should have equal rights?' Everyone raised their hands.

'Who is willing to be drafted to protect those rights?' All 3 men, a handful of women raised their hands.

The women in general didn't seem to think it was 'fair'.

Professor continued- 'What about abortion rights? Should they be equal? Parental rights?'

That set the room off. Made all of us uncomfortable, which was her point.

There are double standards all aground, and we clearly as a society haven't figured these things out.

And to be fair, it's a very difficult position for me- as a man, wanting equality for women but also being raised to be a 'gentleman', put women and children first.

I think we should celebrate our differences, and try to iron out the rest.

>There are double standards all aground, and we clearly as a society haven't figured these things out.

We (or at least most people) cannot _ever_ figure it out, is more accurate. From an evolutionary perspective the genders evolved as a division of labor of sorts. And with that came trade offs, so in the simplistic form equality cannot exist, without equality of responsibility.

>it's a very difficult position for me- as a man, wanting equality for women but also being raised to be a 'gentleman', put women and children first.

We are on the same page. Let start of by taking away the right of women and other imbeciles (which includes most men) to vote, lol.

(sarcasm of course, I believe the whole voting/democracy as is normally practiced is a charade to placate the potentially mobbing nature of the masses)

I think it's completely unremarkable that I can tell you [random HN person] that an argument is useless because people aren't interested in changing their minds, and you attempt to counter the argument.

Friend,

> Nevertheless, all of the above is useless, because the people who want to ban abortion are not, in general, sincere about saving humans life being their primary desire. Their primary desire is to have a subclass of humans who can be controlled and punished. Arguing with them about this is approximately useless; there are a few who are willing to discuss evidence and logic, but most are only displaying their allegiance to their tribe.

All I did was accept your invitation to discuss evidence and logic - there is no value judgement on whether or not these rules are good - I personally don’t care what people do - but I do want people to be kind. The evidence is the selective service requirement - I’m not sure what else you asked for?

Selective service is a direct example, objective to the ultimate degree, of a government using biological sex (go check the transgender section [0]) to make laws about risk of health / life and death decisions.

Perhaps one should think who really is religious and incapable of logic and objectivity.

[0] https://www.sss.gov/register/who-needs-to-register/

> You cannot be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else's life: they have no claim on your body

Hell, even a dead body is not forced to give up a kidney if its previous inhabitant did not sign an organ donor consent form.

In America, women have less right to their body than a corpse.

> women have less right to their body than a corpse.

I don't think it's a fair argument: someone who needs a kidney may receive it from this dead body or from another one, but a fetus cannot be magically transplanted into a different womb. Choice vs. no choice.

Fetuses are utterly incapable of making choices, so your point is not only moot, but absurd.

It also completely misses the important bit: American women have less autonomy over their body than the dead. Justify that, pal.

> Hell, even a dead body is not forced to give up a kidney if its previous inhabitant did not sign an organ donor consent form.

It may be worth discussing why this is the case.

It is certainly possible to convince of a hypothetical society where the bodies of the dead are the property of someone, be they: family, inheritors by testament, society at large, the government, etc.

Why is it that a dead body is effectively it's own owner, at least when it comes to organ donation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com