Hacker News Reader

Comment by karl11 | Hacker News Reader

The thing about abortion that most people seem not to understand is that the debate is fundamentally about answering "when does human life start?". One side believes it starts at conception, which equates any abortion with murder. The other side believes it starts at some point after that, which makes abortion up to that point a women's health / rights issue. Irreconcilable, but also toxic when the two sides never talk about what they actually disagree on, but instead call each other murderers or anti-women's rights or whatever.

View on HN

There is no answer of "when life begins". It's a game of semantics. Like Diogenes bringing a chicken to Plato, any set of traits you can give me to define life, I can find an exception that destroys your definition.

Therefore the question should be "when is it ethical to terminate a fetus". Pro-choice voters have different answers for this question. The problem is pro-life hardliners who refuse to play ball whatsoever. They believe life begins at conception with no basis other than religion.

> The problem is pro-life hardliners [...]

No. Most people agree that abortion is acceptable early on (e.g. < 12 weeks). It's hardliners on both sides who are doing the most fighting because they either think that it's okay to abort up to the point of birth or that terminating a bunch of cells is murder.

> They believe life begins at conception with no basis other than religion.

It's not religion, it's science. A new human life (complete how it looks, what gender it's assigned, etc) begins at conception. It's not a full human, but it's slowly becoming one. The question is when it's too human to terminate.

I'm about to bring you a chicken, do you consider HeLa cells to be a human life? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

> It's hardliners on both sides who are doing the most fighting because they either think that it's okay to abort up to the point of birth or that terminating a bunch of cells is murder.

The pro-life hardliners are the ones currently overturning super-precedents and creating trigger laws in red states. This isn't hypothetical, it's going to cause real harm to poor women and poor children.

Again, all these decisions are being made by pro-life hardliners aren't even willing to have a discussion AT ALL, many even believe that contraceptives are "killing babies". There's no basis behind their beliefs other than the bible. Most couldn't even tell you the stages of fetal development.

> There's no basis behind their beliefs other than the bible

That is a bit unfair. An ultrasound is pretty compelling evidence.

Can the state compel you to get an ultrasound to prove you are pregnant? No, that would be an invasion of privacy. That was the underlying logic of the Roe V. Wade ruling.

Also, I could show you an ultrasound of a mouse or a dolphin at 6 weeks and tell you it's a human fetus and you'd believe it. "Well the human fetus has human DNA" ok, does that have any meaning at that stage of development when their features are all the same? At that point the distinctive trait that allows for abortion of a Dolphin but not a Human is the DNA, or that it's inside of a human mother. It's all arbitrary distinctions. You can have a real discussion about it but pro-lifers start and end at the Bible.

> There is no answer of "when life begins".

Tell that to a right-leaning Christian pastor, or their congregation. Most of modern Christianity specifically teaches that, in some places, things are most definitely black and white and some basic questions do indeed have easy answers. "Murdering babies", as a family member of mine likes to phrase it, is to them one of the most straightforward and simple of them all.

Absence of a correct answer doesn't mean that all answers are equally wrong. All we have to do is to become less wrong over time.

What you are describing is science. The scientists can determine when life begins, but when life begins is ultimately irrelevant. The state already has no issue killing violent criminals, so even if scientists agree and say "a fetus is equivalent to a fully-developed human at 12 weeks", the question will still be "is it ethical to allow the mother to terminate that human beings life?". At which point you start comparing the value of an unborn human life to the cost that raising a child imposes on society. Again, pro-lifers wont engage with any of this discourse. The blame lies with them.

> At which point you start comparing the value of an unborn human life to the cost that raising a child imposes on society

Only if you're an utilitarian. There's perfectly good reasons not to subscribe to this moral philosophy.

Again, religious pro-lifers refuse to have any ethical or philosophical discussion whatsoever. They are absolutists who are unwilling to entertain a utilitarian viewpoint or any other justifications for abortion. There is no "middle ground" with them.

> Again, religious pro-lifers

And why have you chosen to portray the most radical and unreasonable of all your numerous opponents? It's not exactly "straw-men" because these people exist, but looks pretty similar to it.

Because they are the base that the republican party answers to. They are the Supreme Court justices who are members of the Federalist Society who have been playing the long game to overturn Roe and other decisions. I'm portraying those who have actually been doing the mechanisms of overturning Roe. This isn't some hypothetical debate, these are organized groups mobilizing to enact change.

is there a destroying exception to the conception line of thinking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

Also even if there weren't tons of holes to poke in the philosophical argument of "what is a human life? / what makes human life valuable?", life isn't sacred. We kill prisoners, send soldiers overseas, or let people die as a result of preventable diseases (COVID).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States

The question for a utilitarian is when is it ethical to terminate a fetus? Weighing the costs of an unwanted child on society, the cost of life if the mother dies, the cost of preventing back-alley abortions, the cost of her future as a mother if she suffers reproductive damage and cant have kids in the future even if she wants to, etc.

I think weighing human lives on the basis of "cost to society" will lead to undesirable or rather deteriorated ends. I hardly need to come up with examples.

I agree but this is what our government currently does and I'm trying to explain this in the framework of how we currently make decisions in the US. A spherical cow model of Government I guess.

Life is also the wrong indicator, tardigrades and ants are alive. But what defines a human is its cognitive abilities. This is why its OK to terminate a coma patient. Fetuses and coma patients are exactly the same, without the host/machine to keep them alive, they will die on their own.

I also don't really agree with this definition either. This train of logic leads to the justification of euthanizing less intelligent humans. It also doesn't adequately address why a human with microcephaly or no frontal lobe has rights, but a dolphin or octopus or killer whale does not. It also allows for the justification of cruelty against animals who can feel pain but aren't intelligent enough to pass some arbitrary test of intelligence. To be clear, I don't know the answer, I am hesitant to label anything as "innately valuable". I think that there is however a sliding scale of what is "ethical".

> I also don't really agree with this definition either. This train of logic leads to the justification of euthanizing less intelligent humans.

How so? less intelligent humans have cognitive ability so they have rights.

> It also doesn't adequately address why a human with microcephaly or no frontal lobe has rights, but a dolphin or octopus or killer whale does not.

The question is not why the law is the way it is but the way that it should be. As it is now, It has rights because it is a human, we make our laws for ourselves and sometimes for other species, and I would definitely say that animals should have protections/rights (and they do). A law is also a custom or an enforced custom and certainly animals have customs. At least in america, many families take the toll of taking care of their family members with many deformities. the state should not enforce termination of these, but it should be optional for those that do take this unfortunate toll in their hands. (criminalization != decriminalization)

> It also allows for the justification of cruelty against animals who can feel pain but aren't intelligent enough to pass some arbitrary test of intelligence.

On the contrary, as a cognitive animal capable of pain. it indicates that you should not do so, I would say the capability of pain is the most important aspect to life. given that it is usually an indicator of the will to live.

> To be clear, I don't know the answer, I am hesitant to label anything as "innately valuable". I think that there is however a sliding scale of what is "ethical".

Neither do I. Abortion is euthanasia, and it certainly has merit. both economically speaking and in the sense of well being for humans. Given that human childbirth is probably one of the worst around on the animal kingdom.

It would be nice if we just relegated pregnancies to artificial wombs, but until the technology is there. I guess we'll be having this abortion "debate" forever.

This is a very intelligent and thoughtful response, I don't have the energy right now to respond to every point, but I think that these types of arguments about intelligence are typically used to deprive "lesser beings" of rights. When I think that the opposite conclusion should be reached, that being intelligent should ensure some baseline of humane treatment. I understand with and agree with your sentiment, but typically in pop-philosophy hierarchies of intelligence are used to justify the mistreatment of others.

Thank you, I have found some flaws in my own argument but I will leave that to you. Its a scary and realistic slippery slope, funny considering how difficult to accurately measure intelligence is, even worse with an improper education.

I know this is a hypothesis, but I'm sure simplifications like blyss symbolics or toki pona or https://www.plainlanguage.gov/ would "augment" intelligence as well. I've also heard dyslexia is non-existant in other languages. Which indicates that the complexity helps no one and at this rate, in due time, humans will be mentally incapable of handling the complexities of the world itself.

But that's off topic. sort of.

I don't think this is the right question. The better question is one of bodily autonomy: whether someone should be compelled to keep another human being alive at the cost of their own health and safety. This avoids the whole "when does life start" debate, which has been a moving goalpost for the history of abortion related law.

And please remember that even a “normal” pregnancy can exact a heavy toll on the mother, physical and financial.

My back hurts constantly, but even worse when I pick up my much-desired child. He’s over 25 lbs now, and I dread what the next years until he’s able to climb up into an acceptable car seat on his own are going to be like.

I work part-time, and thank heavens Germany made my pre-pregnancy employer give me that option. One of the major factors in MLM prevalence in the US are the absolutely abysmal job prospects for anyone who can’t work full time - that is, many mothers of young children. My friends with preschool age kids who work full time only manage it because they have expensive daycare open from 7am - 6pm, pay nannies, and/or have spouses with less-intense (or no) jobs. This, of course, is only realistic for women with well-paid jobs.

And if one of you wants to respond, “adoption,” please remember the aforementioned physical wreckage, plus work-related difficulties. Germany encouraged my employer to let me stay home the six weeks before my due date and insisted I do so the right weeks after the birth, all at just about my previous net pay.

I don’t think that “slavery” is too strong a word for forcing someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, but others can call it “indentured servitude” if that makes them feel better.

> I don’t think that “slavery” is too strong a word for forcing someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy,

Whereas enslaved men were often forced to work fields in America, enslaved women were forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies. Forced birth and slavery go hand in hand.

Fitting now that the New Confederate States of America (read: Gilead) can be distinguished by how eager legislatures are to force women to give birth to their rapists’ babies.

And like the Old Confederacy, the New Confederacy also sees nothing wrong with forcing women to give birth only to take the baby away. Oh, sure, giving the baby up for adoption is “voluntary,” but how voluntary can it be in a country that doesn’t pay maternity leave and doesn’t effectively subsidize daycare? I, a married and well-paid IT worker, got 1800 EUR/mo for a year away from work and pay a bit over 400 EUR/mo for daycare from 7am-4pm (not quite enough to really work full time, but that’s another discussion).

Until the US is at least there, adoption is not really a free, uncompelled choice in forced-birth states like Texas.

I have a dear childhood friend whose birth mother was a college student who went through with the results of a foolish accident. I’m glad she did, because I love my friend, but I’m also glad that it was her choice to make; in late 70s Austin, she could have easily gotten an abortion. She was able to choose the adoptive parents, and got what she wanted for her baby: a well-off but childless Catholic family just far enough away to be unlikely to accidentally meet.

Seems like a side issue to me. If I forcibly put someone under my control, it should be my responsibility not to kill them. Airplane pilots have the same responsibility. Imagine if pilots forced us to fly with them, and then decided they didn’t want to carry our weight anymore! There’s good reason that is illegal.

> Seems like a side issue to me. If I forcibly put someone under my control, it should be my responsibility not to kill them.

That's the trouble though - unwanted pregnancies are either accidental, forced on the mother (in cases of rape), or too dangerous to continue due to unforeseen complications. That's more like waking up and finding you're medically tethered to a person that now depends on your body for survival and less like the pilot example.

What's really damning of the "pro-life" movement here is their general opposition to contraceptives - sometimes including condoms. It's pretty clear that the main goal is to control sex, not preserve life.

Apart from rape, pregnancy is never forced on anyone.

In the case of the trolly problem, the law has always favored self preservation. It’s a non issue.

For accidental pregnancy, It’s widely accepted that the other party (males) can only reliably choose whether or not to have sex. They have no choice in the matter post-pregnancy.

I see no reason women can’t be held to that same standard.

I say this all as someone that is pro-choice. But I always prefer to be principaled in my reasoning.

> “Apart from rape”

The problem with this is that now the burden to prove rape is on the mother. Before she could just get the abortion, no matter the reason. What a women considers rape and what the government considers provable rape is vastly different, to the point where proving rape in court is neigh impossible (I’ve seen the process up close) unless there is damning evidence like video and a confession.

So relying on rape as some sort of exception really means that women who were raped will never be able to prove to the government’s satisfaction to that fact, and will be forced to carry their rapists baby to term. He said she said doesn’t rise to a preponderance of the evidence, let alone “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

I guess we should thank the GOP for just sidestepping that issue and going straight for the most extreme position possible of banning abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. Makes these questions a little more straightforward.

A person that firmly believes that personhood starts at conception, would not want a rape exception for abortion. Carrying an unwanted child to term is the far lesser evil of murder. There’s no ambiguity there.

That said, my position is more nuanced. Personhood starts handful of months after conception as far as I’m concerned.

Carrying an unwanted child to term sounds a lot like slavery, which sounds like the opposite of personhood. But I guess you’ve built a straw man you don’t believe in so it doesn’t make sense for me to push too much against that.

I guess what I would say in general is that we’re talking a lot about when personhood begins, but I don’t think we’re talking enough about when personhood ends. To me, personhood ends when the government forces you to do something with your body that you don’t want to do. In that moment you are not a person but in fact owned by the government.

IMO: There's a discussion to be had about rape, you didn't consent to pregnancy by having sex then and the child is effectively an intruder. Whether or not you're justified in killing the child is complicated there and I don't have the answer.

So parents should be forced to donate blood and organs to their children if needed?

So if we had artificial womb technology, should a woman have the choice to terminate the fetus if the fetus could be safely moved to an artificial womb? If so, doesn't that go beyond the scope of your post of abortion being purely about bodily autonomy? If not, whose responsibly is it to raise the child?

I think this is an interesting hypothetical, and in such a universe I suspect many women would choose the artificial womb even for children they want to keep themselves.

But let me counter with another hypothetical: if we had a contraceptive device that could safely and reliably turn a woman's reproductive system on/off at the flip of a switch would "pro-life" advocates support it or oppose it?

Its an interesting hypothetical explored in the (excellent) Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold - I highly recommend it!

Probably state or child itself. Though reasonably the child should have rights to at least mother's estate.

I think that's the right lens. Suppose you had a rare blood type that can prevent the death of somebody else; could the state compel you to donate blood? Or suppose we are at war and badly in need of blood donors of all types; same question.

Furthermore what about organs? There is lot of people with two functional kidneys and they don't necessarily need both... Should we start forcibly removing them and transplanting to people in need? Also other such operations like bone marrow...

Exactly. Who cares about the fetus? It's not like any one of us is doing anything about the shitty stuff that people (conscious ones!) are going through right now in third world countries. So the whole "you're killing a human" angle is complete nonsense, life is not sacred and it is silly to act like it is.

The only thing that matters here is what the mother wants.

> the debate is fundamentally about answering "when does human life start?"

I disagree.

I think the more important question is, who should have the power of imprisoning people, on the basis of their interpretations of when life starts.

I don’t think the criminal justice system is equipped to make that determination, and therefore I think all abortion should be blanket legalized.

The law needs plainly interoperable rules, and I don’t see a rule that works other than “you are a person at birth”.

The difference is, there is no universal answer, everyone has their own beliefs and answers. Making the right to an abortion an individual decision allows everyone to decide for themselves.

Banning that ability is the government deciding for you.

This is a loss of individuality for everyone regardless if you can or ever have an abortion.

This is how individual rights begin to erode.

An interesting aside is that when sperm were discovered, it was hypothesized that each sperm carried a complete, miniature person, a "homunculus." The person became a fully formed human life when God attached a pre-existing Soul. The Soul contained those things which separated us from the animals, such as moral and reasoning capacity if male. It was God's intervention that marked the start of life.

"Every sperm is sacred."

For me it's not about when life begins, but more about how to prevent most of the suffering.

Nope. You completely misunderstand the pro-choice argument. You can believe life begins at conception and still believe it's wrong to force a woman to carry a fetus to term.

thats the thing, we dont even know what sentient life means. we arbitrarily define it as human and nothing else (hence we are okay with killing billions of animals for food yearly, not debating that just making a point). so if we are not sure when the life begins indeed we should be more considerate of other factors/right that we may be impacting like womens right to bodily autonomy or even just safety.

None of that matters to these zealots. taking a step back, if you look at it with your real world glasses (i.e.. not lawyer ones) you'll realize this is just a bunch of religious crowd trying to backdoor their religion into law. I mean realistically how much of self doubt and introspection Trump crowd you think has had about this issue? How many of them do you think would even be participating in these debates except to 'trigger the libs'?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com