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

‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#31

Post by Ekaros »

trasz wrote: post #28
dane-pgp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deciding about one’s own body is. But deciding about an unborn child's body isn't. I really don't think your position is as incontrovertible as you're suggesting, which is why this issue doesn't have any easy answers.

Abortion isn’t deciding about fetus body, same way refusing to donate an organ for life-saving transplant isn’t deciding about transplant receiver body.

I would think fair compromise is to ban destructive abortions. That means it would have to be natural of c-section to remove the fetus. Then it is up to fetus to survive outside.

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#32

Post by trasz »

scantis wrote: post #29
trasz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’d be ok if SCOTUS declared that the lawmakers need to reconsider anti-slavery laws?

Seems to me anti-slavery is an amendment to the constitution. So it is a right not a law. It doesn't dangle from a previous SCOTUS decision and half assed legislation.

Freedom to decide about one’s own body - the right to abortion is a direct consequence of - isn’t written in constitution?

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#33

Post by trasz »

Ekaros wrote: post #31
trasz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortion isn’t deciding about fetus body, same way refusing to donate an organ for life-saving transplant isn’t deciding about transplant receiver body.

I would think fair compromise is to ban destructive abortions. That means it would have to be natural of c-section to remove the fetus. Then it is up to fetus to survive outside.

Would forcing people to donate only some non-critical parts of their body to save somebody else be a fair compromise to you?

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#34

Post by scantis »

trasz wrote: post #32
scantis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me anti-slavery is an amendment to the constitution. So it is a right not a law. It doesn't dangle from a previous SCOTUS decision and half assed legislation.

Freedom to decide about one’s own body - the right to abortion is a direct consequence of - isn’t written in constitution?

Yes, it isn't, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#35

Post by trasz »

scantis wrote: post #34
trasz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom to decide about one’s own body - the right to abortion is a direct consequence of - isn’t written in constitution?

Yes, it isn't, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

Wait, US constitution doesn’t grant people basic human rights? That would explain quite a few things…

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#36

Post by PolygonSheep »

scantis wrote: post #29
trasz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’d be ok if SCOTUS declared that the lawmakers need to reconsider anti-slavery laws?

Seems to me anti-slavery is an amendment to the constitution. So it is a right not a law. It doesn't dangle from a previous SCOTUS decision and half assed legislation.

> Seems to me anti-slavery is an amendment to the constitution. So it is a right not a law.

Amendments themselves can be struck down by later amendments (see 18th vs 21st amendment).

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#37

Post by dane-pgp »

trasz wrote: post #28
dane-pgp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deciding about one’s own body is. But deciding about an unborn child's body isn't. I really don't think your position is as incontrovertible as you're suggesting, which is why this issue doesn't have any easy answers.

Abortion isn’t deciding about fetus body, same way refusing to donate an organ for life-saving transplant isn’t deciding about transplant receiver body.

There's a big difference between allowing someone with an illness to naturally die by not donating your organ to them, and deliberately carrying out an abortion with the intent to kill a developing child.

The law (and the field of ethics) has always distinguished between acts of commission and acts of omission, and also taken into account the intent of the actor. If a stranger's house is broken into and their TV stolen, and you could have prevented that by sleeping over at their house, that doesn't mean you are an accomplice by sleeping in your own house.

Anyway, I'm glad you're thinking about this, because it's a complicated issue and it needs multiple perspectives to sharpen our thinking.

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#38

Post by trasz »

Ekaros wrote: post #30
krapp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Southern states will never agree to a Constitutional Convention for anything other than an Amendment banning abortion unconditionally, and because a Convention can't occur without those states, and other states wouldn't approve of such a ban, any such Convention is existentially impossible. Even if that weren't the case, the South will never allow a Constitutional Convention for the simple reason that it allows the r…

So democracy working is bad? Both seem to have it work exactly like it should, voting majority get what they want.

Following that reasoning, the South should be allowed to keep slaves, because that’s “democracy working”.

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#39

Post by trasz »

dane-pgp wrote: post #37
trasz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortion isn’t deciding about fetus body, same way refusing to donate an organ for life-saving transplant isn’t deciding about transplant receiver body.

There's a big difference between allowing someone with an illness to naturally die by not donating your organ to them, and deliberately carrying out an abortion with the intent to kill a developing child. The law (and the field of ethics) has always distinguished between acts of commission and acts of omission, and also taken into account the intent of the actor. If a stranger's house is broken into and their TV stol…

In other words, if somebody is violating your bodily freedom, you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them?

Abortion isn’t a complicated issue. It’s a typical science/ethics vs alt right stupidity issue. The only thing complicated about it is the prevailing political correctness towards religion.

Re: ‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion

#40

Post by dane-pgp »

trasz wrote: post #39
dane-pgp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between allowing someone with an illness to naturally die by not donating your organ to them, and deliberately carrying out an abortion with the intent to kill a developing child. The law (and the field of ethics) has always distinguished between acts of commission and acts of omission, and also taken into account the intent of the actor. If a stranger's house is broken into and their TV stol…

In other words, if somebody is violating your bodily freedom, you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them? Abortion isn’t a complicated issue. It’s a typical science/ethics vs alt right stupidity issue. The only thing complicated about it is the prevailing political correctness towards religion.

> you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them?

If that's your strawman interpretation of what I said, then let me turn it around and infer your position: People's rights should be based on their ability to do harm to those trying to violate their bodily freedom.

I don't think that actually is your position, but it is at least consistent with your view that vulnerable children should have no rights at all.

Post reply on HN