Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluecalm | Hacker News Reader

If significant % of the population doesn't think it's problematic it should be allowed as long as it doesn't influence lives of the other part. You can easily opt out of any stem cells based research or treatment, we can make it not state funded. Opposing that is the kind of self-righteous aggressive morality I despise. It's the same with abortion: about half the population thinks it's ok to let a woman decide. It doesn't influence you, your family or your community if you opt out. If you still think your feelings should dictate how others then you're the problem and the reason there are so many conflicts and so much violence caused by "I want to dictate how others live and I don't accept if they disagree".

View on HN

Just one example of how abortion affects everybody: Sex selective abortions leave millions without somebody to marry and live with.

That's what robot lovers are for silly goose!

Not a problem in a Western culture. If it's a problem in yours then there are many other ways to fix things to make raising girls better for the parents than forcing them to have children so you are provided with a bride. I mean, seriously that's a sense of entitlement right there: "Not only you will have children even if you don't want to but you will have them so they are spouses for others".

Wouldn't we still have slavery if we did things the way you suggest?

That would very clearly negatively affect the opposing party.

You first have to define the opposing party. Are you speaking of the slaves or of the other humans who oppose slavery? Because remember, part of the justification is that slaves and unborn babies are not fully human, and thus cannot be the opposing party.

If you have slavery, obviously you're not going to care much whether the slaves oppose it.

Slavery kinda influences lives of slaves. Maybe.

But slaves don't get to vote, so it's a moot point.

To phrase this more succinctly, you're saying that society should never intercede on behalf of the victims of moral injustice as long as the perpetrators are sufficiently numerous.

I'm sure you would disagree, of course, because you probably only see this principle applying to certain moral issues--namely, the ones you've already carved out as exceptions because you don't perceive them as injustices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com