Live data from Hacker News

Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case

arstechnica.com

21–22 of 22 posts

Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being forced to donate a kidney is different. We should always allow people to decide to be left alone and for nature to take its course. Allowing a child to grow naturally inside his or her mother's body is the natural course of events. Pregnancies terminate naturally at birth. Brutally murdering your own child and taking away many decades of life from that child to avoid a few months of inconvenience is an unfair t…

> Allowing a child to grow naturally inside his or her mother's body is the natural course of events. Pregnancies terminate naturally at birth. Kind of. The "natural" course of events you describe depends on the pregnant person to interact differently with society. A pregnant person eats more (and hence has to go out of their way to buy more food), pays more for healthcare products/services, and has to worry about ma…

> Additionally, the less capable the childbearer is of childcare, the more inconvenience the born child will have.

So we should just terminate the baby to prevent any possible inconvenience she might experience? That is some twisted logic.

Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authority over other people's bodies is the basis of all law. For example, if I use my body to shoot up a school, society has a right to stop me and hold me to account for the consequences of the actions I took with said body. More generally, my unlimited rights over my own body end when the actions I perform with that body affect other people. And an unborn child is "other people."

>an unborn child is "other people." That's a matter of significant debate in the medical community. And in religious[0] communities as well. You appear to be mistaking your trained-in prejudices for the laws of nature. I assure you, they are not the latter, only the former. As I mentioned, you do not appear to be a "reasonable" person with whom I can disagree. And so I'll say it one, last time: mind your own fucking…

> trained-in prejudices

I was raised agnostic (and still am), and for most of my life I vaguely believed that abortion should be legal up to ~12-16 weeks—this was typical view in Europe, and I had never thought to question it. Until I came across the following (WARNING GRAPHIC): https://www.liveaction.org/news/infant-bodies-infanticide-at.... My "trained-in prejudices" were overcome in an instant, and I acquired my present view of the issue.

Post reply on HN