Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by consteval 612 days ago
> wanting to kill an unborn child and wanting to protect it

As I've already stated, a pro-life position doesn't actually save any lives in the long run. It actually costs them. The so-called "unborn children" will die no matter what. Abortions happen all around the world, including in undeveloped countries where they're extremely dangerous. Banning abortions just means the "unborn children" still die, but now also some women die who wouldn't have before.

As such there does not exist such "pro-life" position. Rather it is made up for moral leverage. The reality is such a position, if anything, costs more lives. The correct terms are anti-choice and pro-choice. The "life" or "protection" arguments are emotional and moral manipulation.

> You missed the point

No, YOU missed the point. If you don't understand what a chilling effect is than take a class on law and come back. Again, 100% intentional, 100% predictable. Should not be shocking, unless you aren't aware of those affects.

> solve rape

Grand idea, right after all the homeless people get homes and all the murderers become saints. Don't be stupid. We need real solutions, not whatever delusions you're talking about. I know you know that what you're suggesting is not possible - so why be dishonest and suggest it? I have very little patience for those who choose to play stupid.

Rape will exist so long as humanity will exist. The solution to solving rape is nuclear warfare. We both know this to be the case, so don't bullshit me.

> you’re conflating an anti abortion stance with religion which is flawed

Once again with the playing stupid. You do yourself no favors with such arguments.

I'm not "conflating" anything - I'm correlating them. Because they ARE correlated. I don't think a soul in America could possibly argue otherwise. But, surprise surprise, the brigade of "know nothing" type argumentative amateurs will pull up and pretend we live in an alternate reality where this is not the case.

1 comments

All you’ve done here is dismiss a moral perspective. It does not even honor a response.
The only arguments against abortion are ones of morality. They lean heavily into religion, and when they don't, they focus on "saving lives".

By dismantling the moral perspective as incorrect, because it is, I dismantle the entire anti-choice landscape. Which is really the trouble with moral arguments to begin with.

There CAN be other arguments here. Arguments of personhood. But nobody does those, because those require more thinking. The supreme court certainly didn't. Fetuses aren't considered people, and yet they are granted one (1) right purely to satisfy the anti-choice crowd.