Hacker News Reader

Comment by sdegutis | Hacker News Reader

"A child who grows up in that sort of circumstance is not kept safe, may succumb to disease, may spread disease, will not be educated, and will have difficulty providing for themselves."

A person's life is far more than just how they start out. Many people have started in situations like this and have gone on to have wonderful lives. Many have even changed the world. This alone isn't enough to convince me that we should give in to short-sightedness by allowing people to prevent or destroy future human lives.

"In any case, if people can choose whether they want to have a child or not, then contraception just helps them make that choice."

In the same way that it's smart to invest money long-term, I think it's smart to invest in long-term human potential. I think that's really our greatest resource.

EDIT: added a little tact

View on HN

It seems that many people are intent at proving your original point, which is sad, but not entirely unexpected I guess.

Regardless, I agree 100% with this comment of yours. I can't extend the rational to not supporting contraceptives, however. To me it doesn't connect.

Allowing a young couple to increase their earnings/career potential by delaying childbirth directly relates to making the smart investment over the long term, as you relate. I should know, as I've done this myself. My children are much better off now and in the long term with a solid roof over their heads and two loving parents in a committed marriage than they ever would have been with a 20 year old father who was in the army and dating a woman that really wasn't good for him at all.

Your intentions don't seem to connect with the methods you are suggesting; I don't see any issue with your intentions however.

Welp, my brain is shutting down, so I can't respond to half the stuff you just said.

But I wanted to thank you for being so courteous and kind in your responses. Turns out you and I disagree, but somehow we figured it out in a positive and constructive way. That's pretty awesome.

Indeed, and I've found HN is (for the interwebs at least) pretty tolerant of unpopular opinions, provided there is substance behind them.

Regardless I hope you never feel burdened at sharing your opinions again. You and I are very different in our experiences and backgrounds, that much I can deduct easily. It's a respectful difference of opinion though that allows each of us to grow.

>> This alone isn't enough to convince me that we should give in to short-sightedness by allowing people to prevent or destroy future human lives.

Is it not destroying the life of the parent(s) by giving them a child they do not want and cannot reasonably care for?

I have confidence in the malleability of human nature. We can adapt to new situations and still thrive. Change isn't always bad nor does it "destroy" life, even if it seems painful at first.

You have clearly never lived a remotely shit life to make such claims. Do you understand what absolute poverty is?

I don't. My life is pretty great by probably all standards. You're right. But we're all entitled to form our own views of how the world works best, and to discuss it peaceably with others. I think that's kind of the spirit of HN (except usually it's applied towards more technological things).

You're entitled to your opinion. Not fabricating facts.

Your statements and views exhibit a gross misunderstanding of resources, potential, complexity, and systems dynamics.

Preventing the creation of a life is not the same as destroying it. Many Christian groups conflate contraceptives with abortion in order to further their cause. Pay attention to this.

I have been married for about 20 years now (with a little hiatus between marriages). Had we not used any contraceptive methods, I'd have about 20 children. While it could be argued that propagating my genes would be in the best interest of mankind, I think that 20 kids would be way too much. Of the various contraceptive methods we used, every one of them prevented fecundation and, therefore, not a single life was lost to them. This is not destruction of life, but the means to prevent its creation.

People are entitled their own religious ideas, but nobody has the right to impose those values on someone else. If giving access to contraceptives to someone who wants them will make lives better, I'm in favor.

Having a larger number of humans disregarding our ability to feed and educate them is cruelty, pure and simple. It's not investing in human potential unless you are able to ensure all of them live to their fullest potential.

"People are entitled their own religious ideas, but nobody has the right to impose those values on someone else."

Actually we do in most democracies, just in the form of a vote. The reason behind our votes are almost always "religious", even if they aren't explicitly so. For example, the statement: "If giving access to contraceptives to someone who wants them will make lives better, I'm in favor." That's based on a belief that you hold, that you can't prove one way or another.

Why would that be wrong outside a specific set of religious values? It's not atheists (or the defenders of a secular state) that should prove a religion wrong. It's the participants in that religion that should prove their deity exists and its moral code should be applied to everyone regardless of their opinion.

I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying that in a democracy, individuals vote based on their world-views. Sometimes that world-view is informed by a religion, sometimes it's informed by "spirituality", or sometimes by something else. But whatever it may be, a person's world-view is always informed by ideals that can't be proven one way or another.

I have to disagree. Ideals informed from religions cannot be proven (they could, actually, if the deities cooperated, but, while they don't, there can't be proof) but decisions informed by scientific knowledge can and that's a very important difference.

That's unrelated to my point. I'm not talking about science or religion. I'm saying that everyone holds some unprovable views about how society works best, and they cast their votes based on these ideals, whether they're religious or not.

I'm telling you your statement is false. Some people do have provable opinions.

You're really not understanding what I'm saying. And that's okay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com