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

They Think It's Murder

richarddawkins.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 170 posts

Re: They Think It's Murder

#91

Post by danaris »

chungy wrote: post #44
LocalH wrote: post #16

My only issue with the staunch anti-abortion stance is that there have been women who have died because the doctors couldn't decide quickly enough whether an abortion was medically necessary, or outright refused anyway. There have been politicians who have espoused the opinion that ectopic pregnancies also have a "right to life" even though it is physically impossible for them to be viable, and cannot be implanted in…

> It also opens the possibility that women who have a legitimate miscarriage may be scrutinized as if they were criminals, adding to their trauma. That has literally never been a thing considered by anyone outside the pro-abortion circles. Miscarriages are clearly not the intention of anybody. It may be ending a life, but without the intent and without any act of killing it, it definitionally cannot be murder (the de…

This is untrue.

There are women in prison right now because they had miscarriages that they could not "prove" were not their fault.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#92

Post by Bud »

Nrnfkfnrn wrote: post #29
Bud wrote: post #15

Dawkins says that we "need to persuade" them. But he's wrong. We're the majority. They managed to change the law, even though they are a minority. This cannot stand. If they want to change the law, then THEY need to persuade US. That's supposed to be how it works.

A law that was created out of thin air by six unelected judges?

Roe was decided 7-2, actually. What other parts of this history have you missed out on?

Re: They Think It's Murder

#93

Post by AstralStorm »

Balgair wrote: post #85
maratc wrote: post #7

Not only "They" think it's murder, we as a society tend to think it's murder too. Here's my argument: in most jurisdictions, a killing of a pregnant woman brings harsher sentence than a killing of non-pregnant woman. In some, it just doubles the crime (double homicide, double manslaughter, etc.) Judging from this, we as a society see at least some value in the life of a foetus. The issue is a complicated one. We seem…

I'm going to wade in on this against my better interests. To me, the debate seems to have a paradox that can't be resolved using the logic we've inherited from the Enlightenment (mostly). Namely: People have rights to their bodies. Yes, it's super-duper more complicated than just that, I know. But, to my brain, it seems to boil mostly down to that. We have to define rights, people, bodies, what 'have' means, etc. Sur…

Unfortunately the same people use the same argument against use of synthetic wombs for humans.

At some point, when they're fully developed to sustain animals, we'll have to move on to human experimentation there.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#94

Post by AstralStorm »

eloff wrote: post #76
gonzo41 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the meantime, whilst there's debate on legislation, women will die from ectopic pregnancies and other women's health issues that require the termination of a non viable pregnancy. It's very grim.

Ectopic pregnancies and other medical emergencies are usually excluded from abortion laws. Law makers could always do something dumb though, there's lots of precedent for that.

Except apparently in Ohio, which now has a law that forces reimplantation of an ectopic pregnancy, a medical procedure that does not exist.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#95

Post by cortic »

If you really want to convince pro-life people that you don't think ending the life of a 27 week old fetus is murder; Allow it. Legalize infanticide under (28? 30?) weeks from conception.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#96

Post by Calavar »

chungy wrote: post #44
LocalH wrote: post #16

My only issue with the staunch anti-abortion stance is that there have been women who have died because the doctors couldn't decide quickly enough whether an abortion was medically necessary, or outright refused anyway. There have been politicians who have espoused the opinion that ectopic pregnancies also have a "right to life" even though it is physically impossible for them to be viable, and cannot be implanted in…

> It also opens the possibility that women who have a legitimate miscarriage may be scrutinized as if they were criminals, adding to their trauma. That has literally never been a thing considered by anyone outside the pro-abortion circles. Miscarriages are clearly not the intention of anybody. It may be ending a life, but without the intent and without any act of killing it, it definitionally cannot be murder (the de…

They were talking about being scrutinized as a criminal. You seem to be talking about being tried as a criminal under the law, which is a very different thing.

People with miscarriages are already scrutinized as potential criminals.

Some examples:

* Several pharmacies in Texas refused to fill misoprostol prescriptions because they weren't sure whethet it was being prescribed for a legal abortion or an illegal one. You may think that sounds rational, but how often does a pharmacist reduse to fill, say, oxycodone, even though it is a drug that is often used illegally. How often are people who pick up oxycodone asked about what they plan do do with it? There is seems to be a different standard being applied here.

* There is at least one pharmacy in Texas that has refused to fill misoprostol for ectopic pregnancies as a matter of policy.

* Even in states where elective abortions are still legal, just go go to any planned parenthood. The protestors outside won't ask if you're there for a completion D&C before they shout "baby killer" at you.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#97

Post by jzackpete »

dsr_ wrote: post #43

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 wa…

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.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#98

Post by AstralStorm »

Nrnfkfnrn wrote: post #46
Beltalowda wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that point of view, but I think you need to distinguish between "life" and a "human being". "Life" in general is notoriously tricky to define precisely. It is, for example, perfectly possible to amputate someone's hand an keep it alive by feeding it some type of artificial blood; not sure if it's currently possible with the state of technology, but there is nothing stopping this in principle. I think it…

The source does mention the beginning of a "human being" "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

The argument is made easier by the way we consider the end of human being. Which is why we tend to not keep former people without higher brain functions alive with technology forever/until end of natural lifespan.

Applying the same rule to beginning of human life arrives at the standard in Roe v Wade of around 12 weeks, which is to the best of our knowledge when higher brain functions can appear in a fetus, becoming potentially sentient human being.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#99

Post by sparrish »

lapcat wrote: post #79
Beltalowda wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main argument that Dawkins wanted to make is that many pro-choice arguments are completely missing the point and don't engage with the pro-life arguments at all, rather than try to engage with all pro-life arguments, and do a full exploration of them.

> I think the main argument that Dawkins wanted to make is that many pro-choice arguments are completely missing the point and don't engage with the pro-life arguments at all I agree, but I think Dawkins fell prey to the exact same problem. He ignored the religion behind the pro-life movement and tried to break it down into biological terms. Is that really engaging?

He knows that as an evolutionary atheist, he has no attack against the "soul" or "man is made in the image of God" argument that would be persuasive to a believer so he avoids it.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#100

Post by [deleted] »

LocalH wrote: post #16

My only issue with the staunch anti-abortion stance is that there have been women who have died because the doctors couldn't decide quickly enough whether an abortion was medically necessary, or outright refused anyway. There have been politicians who have espoused the opinion that ectopic pregnancies also have a "right to life" even though it is physically impossible for them to be viable, and cannot be implanted in…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN