Hacker News Reader

> > Is IVF murder of children? Is a twin that consumed a twin in-utero a killer? Should we launch a criminal investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage?

> (1) That’s a silly question.

No, its not, and analysis of the trigger laws passed in anticipation of Roe falling has found that IVF is at risk under many of them (because they define a “pregnancy” as beginning at fertilization, not implantation) [0], and states with fetal homicide laws in place even before Roe have conducted investigations and even made charges in cases of miscarriages not due to procured abortion on various theories.

It is only a silly question to people not paying any attention.

[0] see, e.g., https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/abortion-trigg...

> One of the legislative initiatives that has been undertaken by several states is a statute creating a trigger ban on abortion, wherein the Supreme Court striking down Roe would immediately result in an automatic complete abortion ban statewide.

Good. I think that laws that serve to protect defenseless children should be upheld. I do think that IVF should be reconsidered, but it appears that the intent of the law is to prevent children from dying, not to prevent couples who have trouble conceiving, from conceiving because of complications that may arise. I think those two are separate issues with different outcomes. I think a child that is failed to be conceived or dies during the process of being conceived is a fundamentally different issue to a procedure who's express and deliberate purpose is to end the life of the child.

How can you go from

"Asking whether IVF is under threat is a silly question"

to

"Of course IVF is bad"

in the span of one comment?

You have some serious reading comprehension problems. He asked if it was murder, not "if it was under legal threat". And I never said it was bad. It attempts to conceive children not kill children, that's why it's silly. Can you strawman any harder?

And yet fetuses created one way are entitled to protection and fetuses created the other way are not. Why do you feel this way?

I think both types of children should be protected. Can't you read?

Oh god. the 1 day before birth argument. Cuz that happens.

> the child could simply be delivered What do you think a 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion is?

> Are you saying that the value the life of those children should be hinged on how much they are loved by their parents

Matter of fact it is. Millions of children are abused by their parents, 1900 of them died in 2019 due to direct abuse. Do you think forcing childbirth upon women unfit or unwilling to be mothers will bring this number down?

> I think that women who have sex and conceive children should be held responsible for raising those children.

What about men? Because men get to leave.

And thank you for asking, I do have a uterus. Sorry about your kids though

>. The morality on the pro-life side is pretty cut and dry; any attempt to kill an innocent, healthy, viable human child is wrong.

While innocent is too subjective to argue, the argument is not cut and dry. 1 week old fetuses are not viable and many laws don’t make exceptions on health. In fact isn’t viability one if the leading pro-choice indicators of morality in abortion?

> In fact isn’t viability one if the leading pro-choice indicators of morality in abortion?

No. That's a tactical argument. The leading, fundamental argument from morality is the value of human life. That's probably why many laws don't make exceptions on health. And as a pro-choicer, I kind of agree. I think there's an argument to be made that viability shouldn't even be a factor.

Plan B blocks fertilization. It won't work if you're already pregnant.

Do you think women that have been raped and conceive children as a result should be responsible for raising those children?

>Plan B blocks fertilization.

It can also block implantation. From the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information... I don't personally hold strong opinions on Plan B. I think it should be frowned on because it could kill a conceived child, but I don't think it's as egregious as abortion.

> Do you think women that have been raped and conceive children as a result should be responsible for raising those children?

I think it's a nuanced issue; it's less than 1% of all abortion cases, and any policies crafted on this should be the exception and not the rule. People often want to take this particular marginal case to craft a rule to apply to the non-rape and incest cases.

But to answer your question directly, yes. I think the value of human life is contingent on someone's humanity, not on the circumstances surrounding their birth. Let me explain further. I know someone who was born of a rape and incest. She is an adult now and works as a nurse. To say that her life is somehow less valuable than her co-worker's is, I think, completely antithetical to the idea that all men and women are created equal. I think that being raped is traumatic. I don't think that the solution to that trauma is more trauma by means of abortion. I asked her, and her mother is happy she had her in the end. Having her was the only thing to help her cope. I realize not every woman is like her mother, so I also think that it's understandable if a mother chooses to bring her baby conceived of rape or incest up for adoption.

You seem to be lacking some understanding of how IVF works.

10 to 20 eggs are extracted, and then an attempt is made to fertilize them with sperm. 70 to 80 percent of those are successfully fertilized. That's (low) 7 to (high) 16 fertilized eggs. Perhaps 2 to 4 are implanted.

When would you say a child is "conceived"? When the egg is fertilized? When the egg is fertilized but only inside a woman's uterus? After the fertilized egg implants, perhaps?

I don't see how you can say that IVF isn't "murder" of all the fertilized eggs that aren't implanted - unless you try to say that suspending the process by freezing them is okay? - but if it's not "when fertilized" that you claim that "a child is conceived" then we start talking about the actual issue: potential and actual.

An egg has the potential to become a human, if fertilized. It isn't one. A fertilized egg has the potential to become a human, if it implants correctly. It still isn't one. An implanted egg that's divided 100 times, and is now 200 cells, has the potential to become a human, if it's fed and nurtured. It isn't one.

"Viability outside the womb" was picked for a reason, but even that permits other people to play the game of "force a woman to provide her body to continue to be used to feed and develop the viable-outside-the-womb baby" or "cut the woman open to remove the viable-outside-the-womb baby" if she doesn't want to continue to feed and develop it.

There's certainly a difference between "legal" and "moral"; a woman who knows she doesn't want to have a child and fails to act to prevent that "potential" from turning into "viable" must still have a legal right to terminate that pregnancy/viable human, but her actions are morally indefensible. By the same token, removing an implanted grouping of 200 cells can't be seen as anything other than cutting off the potential, and doing so as soon as one is aware of the potential and knows that one lacks the desire to end up with a baby is laudable.

> I think that women who have sex and conceive children should be held responsible for raising those children.

The misery in situations where consensual decision-making isn’t the fact of the matter is IMHO tragically under-explored in this framing and in Alito’s opinion. Without respect to the legal and political status of Roe, I still think it was morally right where it limited government intrusion and authority.

Will you feel responsible for this kind of outcome when it occurs in America, as it has in the past and does in the world?

> The morality on the pro-life side is pretty cut and dry; any attempt to kill an innocent, healthy, viable human child is wrong.

For anyone who honestly feels this way, it would seem that the most obvious next step is to enact very strong laws that prevent that now-born perfectly viable human child from being murdered at school. I can respect such a consistent position.

I've yet to meet anyone who takes this "pro-life" position a single moment beyond birth though. Why is that?

> For anyone who honestly feels this way, it would seem that the most obvious next step is to enact very strong laws that prevent that now-born perfectly viable human child from being murdered at school. I can respect such a consistent position.

I'm pretty sure there are already pretty strong laws against violence in schools, let alone murder. I think what you're insinuating on are gun laws? Well, sure. I think that every teacher should be armed and trained in the event of a school shooter because they have the responsibility to protect those children.

>"No, not like that!"

Haha. We tried it your way. Turns out criminals don't respect laws. Most gun deaths occur in gun-free zones. But those cities that are most armed also tend to be most polite and least violent. Think carefully about why that is.

> I've yet to meet anyone who takes this "pro-life" position a single moment beyond birth though. Why is that?

Again, pretty strong laws on the books against murder. I think what you're insinuating here is why aren't there government programs to raise children? Well, it's quite simple. The murdering of children is a completely separate issue. One dwells on preventing murder, and the other hinges on who's responsibility it is to raise it. I think it should be illegal to kill the homeless. To have you then turn around on me and tell me I'm obligated to take care of that homeless man is disingenuous. These are two, completely separate issues. I think that in general children are obligated to be taken care of by their parents, and I'm pretty sure we have laws on the books for that too. So, what's your issue with conservatives, really?

> I'm pretty sure there are already pretty strong laws against violence in schools, let alone murder.

That's why I said laws that prevent, not just words on a book.

> they have the responsibility to protect those children

They most certainly don't. Teachers have responsibility to teach and mentor children and they're fairly overworked on those roles already. Pretending they'll moonlight in SWAT school is hardly realistic on any level.

The question was how come nobody who believes in the sanctity of a child's life before birth actually believes in any protection to that child's life post-birth?