Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The no exceptions clauses includes no exceptions for either rape or incest.

> The real choice was months earlier.

That is a large blanket assumption. Condom breakage, having a specific gene which makes female birth control very unreliable [1], partner reproductive coercion [2]. Among others. Given enough time, moral purity spirals into attacking then punishing the people wronged or having found themselves in an unfortunate situation. In this particular case, condom breakage, an unfortunate gene one didn't know they had, finding out too late you trusted the wrong partner [sneaky birth control sabotage] etc.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448146/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282154/



By modern values, yes those are reasons to allow abortions.

But modern values devalue life in part because they also devalue sex. They treat sex casually, as though it isn't the outward symbol and seal of a lifelong commitment and promise, and the very means by which more human life is created.

There would be no felt need for abortion to exist if sex and human life were both valued as they ought to be - as sacred, as gifts with a particular design not our own, as capable of great glory when used rightly -- and great devastation when used wrongly.

Consider how delicately and carefully we handle matters when the stakes are high - when there's the possibility of gaining or losing much based on our decisions. Sex and marriage and family ought to be held in high regard, because the stakes are so high. They can end so well -- or incredibly badly when handled outside their designed operating parameters.

Abortion to me represents the human collateral and fallout from having abandoned a right view of sex and marriage and family. So much death. Ideas have consequences, indeed.

As a side note, a high view of sex and life also increases the travesty that rape is. It's so much worse, morally speaking, than liberals can say it is given their moral framework.


> the outward symbol and seal of a lifelong commitment and promise

Good god no. That may be fine for you as a personal religious view, but as a pluralistic society I hope we never go there again.


Why is that the thing you disagree with?


We’re certainly not going to agree on this heightened morality you’ve applied to sex. But ignoring that for a minute, I’m sure you’re aware that complications are not exactly rare during pregnancy. The majority of women who undergo abortions are already mothers. You can handle the high stakes carefully, you can want the pregnancy, and still wind up in need of an abortion. To say that without “liberal attitudes” there would be “no need for abortions” is terribly naive.


> You can handle the high stakes carefully, you can want the pregnancy, and still wind up in need of an abortion.

I hear this a lot, and it's currently a popular "wedge scenario" pro-abortion advocates are using to try to convince people that abortion shouldn't be outlawed.

But I think it's largely a red herring. Either the baby is still alive, or it's not. A high view of human life rules out all intentional taking of life, including assisted suicide. It would also rule out these types of abortions, as they are taking life at a time when life would not end naturally.

Valuing human life highly means accepting that while some people are different, we are all equally valuable -- even those who have birth defects or who die as an infant. And people with Down's syndrome are as equally valuable as those who don't.


Who said anything about Down’s syndrome? 1 in 10 clinically recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage (to say nothing of the pregnancies that end in miscarriage before they’re detected). When a wanted pregnancy naturally terminates or is deemed non-viable, doctors must often use abortion to extract the fetus in order to prevent further complications for the mother.

If you’re concerned about people terminating fertilized cells as a means for genetic selection, you should rather turn your attention to IVF.


> doctors must often use abortion to extract the fetus

Which is fine if the baby is dead or there's a complication in which the mother's life is in immediate danger.

> you should rather turn your attention to IVF.

Agreed, that is a serious ethical issue, and yes it's morally equivalent to abortion. However, I'm afraid there aren't enough people who agree with my stance to make a difference (maybe I'm wrong?)


> Which is fine if the baby is dead or there's a complication in which the mother's life is in immediate danger.

As stated in my first comment, the politicians currently running for office in my area do not agree with your viewpoint, as they have insisted that they will ban abortion even in the case of fetal death or to save the life of the mother. This, imo, is the anti-abortion purity spiral.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: