Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–174 of 174 posts

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#171

Post by garmaine »

sk5t wrote: post #152
colinmhayes wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's immoral to force someone to support a parasite. Once the child is born(even a bit before that as they can survive outside the womb with modern medicine at some point before birth) the child is longer a parasite since it doesn't need the mothers support to survive.

> it's immoral to force someone to support a parasite Just stop digging this hole deeper, please. You are misusing the term "parasite" and I imagine you may, later in your own life, come back to these remarks with a distinct feeling of shame.

I stopped reading there. I just don't know how to engage morally with a position so disconnected from common societal values.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#172

Post by [deleted] »

ericmay wrote: post #80
collegeburner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could be determined to be solely at fault, and if you're a match, and if there aren't other kidneys available, then I suppose that would make sense. The issue is that the mother (usually) made a choice to help create the fetus, or with the possibility of doing so (note that I am okay with abortions in case of rape for this reason).

I do think abortion is a complicated ethical issue and us discussing it here in a few paragraphs won't do it justice, but if the mother can choose to create it, why can't the mother choose to un-create it? I'm not sure why assigning responsibility to the mother for creating it doesn't come with the benefit of destroying it too. And this is not even getting into well ok fine you make a mother go through with it, now y…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#174

Post by sevilo »

moxzyros wrote: post #107
bambax wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't ma…

Not true. My church and I have no beef with birth-control. It is the issue of whether the unborn are people in the eyes of God that drives conviction. And things aren't so simple. You cannot demonstrate the unborn are sentient anymore than animals. We cannot demonstrate that either. We choose to err on the side of the unborn out of fear if we're wrong.

You are basically saying because some of you believe in God you have the right to force your beliefs on everyone else which is the biggest issue I have with so called pro-lifers. Pushing their religion and worse yet mixing that into policy making.
Post reply on HN