[sumy23]

> I’ve thought a lot about this, and it does make sense for it to be up to each individual state.

Many believe, myself included, that women should have the right to control their own bodies, and access to abortions is part of that right. You don't leave rights up to the states. Rights are supposed to be guaranteed at all levels of government.

[rich_sasha]

I'd welcome a debate on rights of mothers vs. rights of unborn humans. I feel like both sides take their argument for granted, or preach to the converted.

I can see how, if you are absolutely convinced that the unborn human is a human just the same as anyone walking on the street, you'd mirror the argument you made and say, you don't leave it up to the states to protect the lives of the unborn humans, and ban abortions.

I'm not taking a side here btw. I feel like the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument is low on arguments targeting the opposite side, only more and more rallying its own supporters.

[sumy23]

I don't see why you'd debate that. You could debate what the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the unborn baby are until you're blue in the face and you'd be unlikely to convince the other side that they're wrong. What matters is that a large group of people think the abortion is an acceptable procedure and those that disagree aren't directly impacted by the decision. That alone should be enough to enshrine it as a right. We're a free country after all, which generally means people can do as they please so long as it doesn't negatively impact others.

[rich_sasha]

I disagree, without taking a side in the debate. If someone truly and really believes a fetus is a human then they do have an interest in protecting them.

Its like being against slavery. You could say, what's that to anyone, if you're against slavery then dont own slaves but don't stop others. And yet it's reasonable to be against other people enslaving others.

Your comment suggests you think abortion is "obviously" ok and perhaps you'd agree that slavery is "obviously wrong and different". Perhaps because enslaved people are "obviously" humans with rights and fetuses are "obviously" not. I don't know of course but it seems like a reasonable guess.

But so long as the debate is about what people hold as obvious and naturally correct, all you get is more polarisation.

[sumy23]

Again, there is no debate to be had. Those who are against abortion are saying the the fetus has rights. That is unfalsifiable. There is no point in arguing about it.

If you question whether or not a slave is a person, then I don't know what to tell you.

[mgh2]

Steve Jobs: “I wanted to meet [her] mostly to see if she was OK and to thank her, because I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion”

https://www.liveaction.org/news/steve-jobs-adoption-connecte...

[sumy23]

Have you heard of the butterfly effect? You can't predict what would happen if you go back in time and change something. Maybe Apple wouldn't exist, or maybe it would exist and would be even better. Or some other company would exist in its place and would be better / worse. Or maybe Apple wouldn't exist, but because it didn't exist, TSMC would never rise to prominence, which would make Taiwan less of a powder keg, which would avoid WW3 when China inevitably takes control of Taiwan. Or maybe...

[mgh2]

Yes, people's imagination can run wild and hypothetical scenarios are limitless

It is the same argument used to justify any opinion without proof

[1] "Multiverse" vs. fine tuned universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

[2] "Choice" vs. responsibility: https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...

Our minds can justify anything

[3] "Interpreter" mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31737462

[sumy23]

> It is the same argument used to justify any opinion without proof

You offered an opinion without proof, which is that Apple wouldn't exist. This is why these "debates" are so unproductive. Both sides have unfalsifiable positions.

[ghufran_syed]

Maybe some people believe women (and men) who are alive but haven’t been born yet have the right to control their bodies and not be killed, so they can exercise their autonomy one day. They would probably agree with you that “you don't leave rights up to the states. Rights are supposed to be guaranteed at all levels of government.”

Seems strange that most pro-abortion advocates would probably be in favor of tenants rights to protect them from being evicted from a rented house but are fine with a living human being lethally evicted from a womb as long as the “owner” says so.

In both cases there are two humans, both of which have rights and whose interests have to be balanced - I don’t think it’s helpful to pretend otherwise. One might also want to consider other situations where humans have decided other people are “not really” human in order to justify doing terrible things to them, including killing them. In every situation I can think of, that thinking was wrong - seems unlikely that abortion is an exception somehow.

[sumy23]

First of all, people aren’t pro-abortion. They’re pro-choice.

Second, why start defining someone a human at conception? Isn’t birth control depriving a possible person of their rights too?

[maratc]

> Many believe, myself included, that women should have the right to control their own bodies, and access to abortions is part of that right.

I won't argue with your belief, but please share your opinion (if you don't mind, of course) on this: whether a homicide of a woman and a homicide of a pregnant woman should receive the same punishment?

[sumy23]

What does that have to do with control of one's body?

[maratc]

I didn't say it has something to do with that. It's a tangential question.