Hacker News Reader

If I were to take their words at face value, this group considers abortion to be murder. Because I don’t expect an argument of the form “if you don’t like murder, don’t do it” to have a good outcome, I would instead focus on the fact that in all other regards bodily autonomy is so important that we are not obligated to perform even safe procedures such as donating blood in order to save the lives of others, and indeed this respect for bodily autonomy (in the USA) also extends to organ donation after death being opt-in rather than opt-out.

Not to be harsh, but who cares what they think? Other major religions differ, and flat out contradict these viewpoints. It's a question of someone's religious doctrine, not federal law. We don't favor a particular religious viewpoints in the US - that is explicitly in the Constitution.

And people wonder why decisions can be made and polarization continues to increase.

"Who cares what they think indeed"

They believe they should dictate the behavior of other people, that's fundamentally asymmetrical to the counterpoint. The "other side" is not advocating compulsory abortions, they are advocating individual freedom to make a deeply personal decision. The people that want to ban abortion for all people are taking away rights from people they disagree with. Who cares what they think, indeed.

If I want to disband and illegalize the Southern Baptist Convention because I sincere believe they are heretics, who cares about my sincerely held beliefs about what others should do? I should should just not go to a Southern Baptist church.

This group happens to have enough power that saying "who cares what they think" leads to them doing exactly what you don't want them to do. The only way I know to reduce that power while retaining your system of government is to make an argument which actually convinces them, which requires you to care what they think, both in order to understand their motivations well enough to actually construct an argument with this effect, and as an indicator of how much progress you're making with it.

Their response would be that it isn’t that simple. That baker in Colorado (I think it was Colorado?) who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding was sued. Republicans see this and say that it isn’t as simple as not participating in an action since you will still be forced to do things against your conscience.

Pardon me, you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

"In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality."

What about their minor children? What about their minor children who have been raped (possibly by their parents or relatives)? Sadly, these are not theoretical concerns

> Nothing. There is no equivalency. Rural block voters can go about not getting same-sex marriages and not getting abortions and it won't impact anyone else, just like other people having same sex marriages and getting abortions doesn't impact them, aside from their desire to control how other people live their lives.

That's libertarian BS that misunderstands moral beliefs about collective "how society should be" as individualist "what actions I take." It's also usually hypocritical, as I'm guessing you wouldn't be fine with rural county clerks going about not registering same-sex marriages, since it "doesn't impact you."

> That's libertarian BS that misunderstands moral beliefs about collective "how society should be" as individualist "what actions I take."

This is you dictating how I behave - which I find a much larger pile of BS, personally.

> It's also usually hypocritical, as I'm guessing you wouldn't be fine with rural county clerks going about not registering same-sex marriages, since it "doesn't impact you."

This is not fucking hypocritical - once is a personal moral belief, that a person is welcome to either choose or not (abortion). The other is a clearly defined job you have been hired to do.

It is not hypocritical to insist that you do the job you are being paid to do - even if you disagree with parts of it. If you disagree so strongly that you feel you cannot do the job - Great. Stop fucking doing it.

> This is you dictating how I behave - which I find a much larger pile of BS, personally.

Societies dictate how their members behave in significant ways according to moral beliefs. It's always been that way and it always will be. The libertarian solution is BS in this context, because it appeals to libertarian morals that aren't actually held by the people who are being complained about.

> Societies dictate how their members behave in significant ways according to moral beliefs.

Of course they do - what we're arguing about is how we divide the pie. How much of your time and actions do you owe to society for the privilege of being a member.

I thought, as an American, it was fairly clear that we had decided that I owe you no part of the pie regarding my religion (1st) nor do I owe you any right to unreasonably search my body or possessions (4th).

I actually think we literally wrote those things in the MOST BASIC FUCKING CONTRACT we have that spells out how we expect our society members to behave. We call it the constitution.

Additionally I think that vast majority of the members of this society have decided that not only should we be secure in our right against unreasonable searches of body/home/possessions/mind stemming from religious bullshit, we should also be secure in our right to have confidential conversations with the people we literally trust our lives to: Doctors, Lawyers, Priests.

So when you say that my libertarian solution is BS - I'm a tad confused, where exactly did I get this wrong?

What part of this is not religious bullshit dictating how I behave, in a private setting where we have decided you don't get a fucking say? The only people who get a say are the woman who is dealing with the situation, her doctor, and the tiny pile of cells inside her. Turns out the tiny pile of cells makes a really shite debater, and it's only alive because it's sucking energy out of the lady.

So if, for example - that tiny pile of cells is killing the lady, or is going to die inside the lady either way, or is going to be born and then die shortly after, or fuck it... even if the lady just doesn't feel like letting it stay inside her anymore. I think that's a decision she can make for herself. With her doctors help. And without you nosing in like a fucking asshole.

I'm pretty sure that's the expectation for almost every other case of this. Why is this one different? Where did I misread the contract?