Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonethewiser | Hacker News Reader

>That's not completely true; even if the tiny blob of cells is a person, bodily autonomy matters because there is no other situation where we force one person to use their body to keep another person alive.

Yeah but if it's a person then it's not about bodily autonomy because the abortion denies the baby bodily autonomy.

At that point it's about what we owe other people.

View on HN

The dependent being cannot have autonomy by definition. The woman in the case of an abortion is denying the embryo autonomy, she's refusing to support the dependency.

>At that point it's about what we owe other people.

Who is “we” in this statement? The “owed” amount seems to be entirely paid by considerably less than half the population.

A Kantian framework does not graft onto “women must bring pregnancies to term because they owe it to them,” doubly so when it’s not conclusively a person. You keep asking people to respect that opinion yet leave zero room anywhere for people who think it isn’t a person.

I also don’t appreciate that you are arguing on behalf of a group you are clearly in agreement with yet your phrasing avoids committing to the stance. You present yourself like you’re just giving them due consideration and respect but you only give that side these graces.

By what framework does one grant or deny personhood to any genetically distinct, living human? Should age and location even apply?

Dude I am not debating “is it a person?” with you. It’s clearly not currently settled that it’s a life, it’s literally why there’s a debate at all, and we are not going to solve it or change our stances on it. You believe it is, I do not, and that’s the gulf that makes this whole thing such a 3rd rail issue. Ultimately it’s also not something I have to ever face with my body so I look to those who have to carry it to term for guidance on what is or isn’t violating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com