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

Might is the critical word here, and I appreciate that you chose to use it. All of these things are possible, but as the original commenter suggested, I suspect most if not all of your fears will prove unfounded. I very much doubt much will change for Muslims in our country, or that deportations will change much (aren't they actually higher under Obama than previous administrations?), or that diabetics will not be able to afford their medication, etc. You may be right that limits may be placed on when an abortion can be obtained, but there's no way gay marriage will be reversed.

In short, I agree that in all likelihood the most disappointed voters will be those who voted for Trump expecting him to do all those things you're afraid he'll do. They wanted someone to really shake things up, and he'll give them modest tweaks and proposals with great branding.



"You may be right that limits may be placed on when an abortion can be obtained."

For the women in my life, abortion rights are important rights. Having the government restrict their access to this safe, legal medical procedure is a scary invasion of state power into the doctor-patient relationship.

I care about the women in my life, so when they care about access to abortion, I care about it in sympathy.

"... diabetics will not be able to afford their medication, etc."

Before the ACA, I was uninsurable, thanks to having had my gallbladder out several years prior. "Pre-existing condition." The ACA allowed me to buy health insurance again.

If they repeal that, I'm likely to lose access to the U.S. health care system.

That scares me, personally.

Lots of things about this are scary, because they affect my life and the lives of people I care about.


> For the women in my life

How many aborted fetuses do you know and care about? The right to life shouldn't depend on who you know.

> to this safe, legal medical procedure is a scary invasion of state power into the doctor-patient

safe for who? You say "doctor-patient relationship", but they aren't the only ones with a stake.


A fetus isn't a person.

Abortion is a safe, legal medical procedure. Access to abortion is every woman's right. The SCOTUS has affirmed that the US constitution guarantees this.

"Safe for who?" For the woman, who is the person getting the procedure.


> A fetus isn't a person.

This is a point of dispute. When does it become a person?

> Access to abortion is every woman's right

Says who? What if it conflicts with a right to life?


Some may dispute that point.

The law does not.

The governing bodies of the US have repeatedly affirmed that access to abortion is a woman's right.

The medical view of abortion is that it is a safe, legal medical procedure.

Whatever you believe--and you are free to believe anything--about fetuses changes neither the legal view nor the medical view of abortion.


Since we're discussing what the law should be, what the law currently is is moot.

You didn't mention the law when talking about "the women in my life".

> The medical view of abortion is that it is a safe, legal medical procedure

Why do you keep saying this? Who is disputing how safe it is for women?


People who argue from the fringe view that "life begins at conception" and "a fetus is a human being" often bring in a lot of other fictions about abortion, like that it isn't safe for women, that it's murder, whatever.

It isn't.

It's also none of your business what other women do with their bodies or with their doctors. Wishing that it was your business (or telling fantasy stories based on your fringe views) does not make it so.


> People who argue from the fringe view...

So mention this when you argue with such a person, or someone who specifically argues these points.

I did not argue that "life begins at conception". As for "a fetus is a human being":

A fetus is: "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception"

Hence, a fetus is not "at conception", but at least 8 weeks later. According to Wikipedia on US law: "Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks, approx. 196 days) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks"; In other words, a fetus may be aborted 24-28 weeks after conception; Arguing that a fetus in this range is a human being is not a fringe view among those who look into the issue, or at least that a fetus might be a human being (it's possible that we don't know enough about human development in the womb to decide).

> It's also none of your business what other women do with their bodies

What women do to the bodies of fetuses is the issue here. A woman who murdered her unborn, viable child would be charged with muder despite it concerning "what she did with her body".

> Wishing that it was your business (or telling fantasy stories based on your fringe views)

How about you project on someone else?


Yes, "might" was the most important word in my post and that was intentional. I personally don't fall into any of the groups listed and demographically most of the people reading this probably don't either. We are the lucky ones. We don't personally face the risks of a "might". If you fall into those groups that "might" starts looking awfully scary regardless of the exact odds.




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

Search: