Hacker News Reader

Comment by mixdup | Hacker News Reader

>The question is where that ends. Terminating due to a susceptibility to aggressive cancer? Maybe. Due to lower intelligence? Perhaps. Lower physical strength? Probability of autism? Unsymmetrical facial features (e.g. 'ugliness')?

Why/how a pregnancy started (consensually or not for example) or the motivation behind making that choice (just don't want a kid, some genetic diagnosis, etc) are irrelevant. If abortion is bad, it shouldn't be done at all. If it's not bad the reasons behind it should not matter

Always breaks my brain when people argue abortions in case of rape or incest are OK but otherwise a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, as if it matters to the potential child in the end. Either you're killing a person or not. I'm pro-choice, so it's my opinion that you're not, but the wishy-washy middle ground position is untenable to me.

View on HN

I am pro-choice, but really I'm hoping there is enough advancement in medicine to "fix" genetic issues and the sorts of things people would terminate after a positive test result.

If that is actually possible someday, legitimately, I am switching to pro-life.

With only rape/incest or mother's certain death as reasons for termination.

I realise this is a weird and nuanced take, but I was adopted and it was back when they forced the mother to keep the kid for 6 months before they'd place tbe kid. Puritanical nonsense?

Make it so accidental pregnancy is 0.0001% (a thousand times less likely than perfect condom and pill/IUD use;) and the above "can fix", and what reason would there be to terminate?

I am anti-death penalty too.

If you feel that abortion is killing an otherwise viable human being, then you should be pro-life now. Especially if you're anti-death penalty and feel that no one should die for any reason. On the other hand if there are any reasons why abortion would be ok, why aren't all reasons ok? Either it's wrong or it's not, and if you are on the pro-life side why should a child be punished because of how it was conceived? On the other hand, if you believe that a non-viable fetus is not a live human being, the decision to stop before it gets to that point is independent of any reasoning

Having conditions on abortion are completely nonsensical and irrational. I don't get it

Well the reasons for a choice do matter, don’t they? They matter in today’s law in many places.

Is aborting because of an LLM „likelihood“ of some genetic issue (that might lead or not lead to an short or unhappy life) the same as aborting after rape for you?

Biggest problem in fact is that people take genetic markers as deterministic and assume the worst outcome. Lots of false abortions happen. That does not happen with rape.

>Is aborting because of an LLM „likelihood“ of some genetic issue (that might lead or not lead to an short or unhappy life) the same as aborting after rape for you?

Yes. Because if you think it's wrong to end a pregnancy, what does it matter how it started or why you want to end it? The rationale behind being "pro-life" is that you feel abortion is killing a child. I happen to believe that a non-viable fetus is not a child, so I am supportive of a woman's right to manage her reproductive system as she so chooses, and therefore it doesn't matter why a woman wants to end a pregnancy--from rape or incest, doesn't want to have a child right now, doesn't want a child with a genetic deformity, or doesn't want a child with blonde hair--it doesn't matter.

On the other hand, if you felt that it was "murder" why would there be any reason good enough to justify murder? The only justifiable reason to kill another human being is in self-defense. A woman who was raped won't be "un-raped" because she is no longer carrying the baby. That sounds harsh, but of course I think it is BS because the whole anti-abortion argument is largely BS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com