Hacker News Reader

Comment by notpresident | Hacker News Reader

Tangentially related and I expect a 50% chance to be punished for this but it is really interesting and I think it deserves some thought:

It always surprises me how a number of HNers worries about killing insects, even for science - all while supporting the killing of unborn children.

View on HN

> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Perhaps I can answer your question. I catch flies and bring them outside when they are in my home. I also regularly go for walks outside. In doing so, I will step on ants, caterpillars, various plants, etc. Some of them surely die. In other words, I will show kindness to animals, but only to the point where it doesn't completely impede my life or my ability to find happiness.

When I think of abortion, I don't think of it as killing babies. I think of it as killing a collection of cells that some day perhaps might be a child. But it is not one. I don't see how one can say that a clump of 64 cells is a child, given that it has the potential to be one, but not also take issue with their sperm not fertilizing an egg. Isn't every sperm a potential child as well? On what point of the scale to you draw the line and say "this is now a child" vs "this is a collection of biological material that may become a child if proper conditions are met?"

I think the first trimester is a fairly decent cutoff.

I don't see how one can say that a clump of 64 cells is a child, given that it has the potential to be one

Thats not what I'm talking about (although I admit I'm generally against.)

See "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" and "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" to get an idea.

Edit:

I think the first trimester is a fairly decent cutoff.

As far as I am aware this is not a general cutoff in the US.

This is a ridiculous oversimplification of the issues and a guaranteed way of hijacking this for a completely unproductive argument.

To be fair, this thread started with someone describing the killing of maggots as "disturbing". It was never going to be a productive argument.

GP does have a point. A 4 month old or whatever is the latest you can perform an abortion is certainly bigger than a fly, or even many mammals.

I am pro-choice by the way.

>unborn children

The Orwellianness of this turn-of-phrase never ceases to amaze.

What's Orwellian about it? You have to admit that at some point during the natal development cycle, there is a completely viable child in there capable of growing independent of the womb.

How is that not an unborn child?

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed well before this point is reached.

Thank you for demonstrating the Orwellian nature of this phrasing.

The problem is that you are arguing like all of them are.

By unconditionally accepting this you are defending some really really questionable practices. The fact that the laws I mentioned above (or below) even had to be made in the first place says something about this.

Can you point out individuals who hold both positions, or do you just expect the entire community to be consistent for some reason?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com