Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Fine, then that other body can survive without the first, and be the ward of the state, paid for by tax dollars.

The entire disagreement is a made up political wedge that is held by a minority of a particular religion which for the most part is actually against their very own holy book. A book that is full of actual "baby" killing and not just lumps of unborn cells which actually weren't recognized by any religions as a "baby" until someone decided to apply their "go forth and multiply" attitude which also bans all forms of birth control, as well as sex for any purpose other than reproduction.

And in the end, its terrible policy, and will do nothing to reduce actual abortions. Given it only slightly inconveniences those with means, and likely results in an even worse maternal death rates as women are pushed to the point of mortal jeopardy before being provided health care (and if you don't think a large number of the terminations are due to either failures of fetus to develop properly/etc then your living in a larger fantasy) as is happening in TX now. A place where there are actual legislators suggesting that women having abortions should now be given the death penalty.




OP isn't arguing for or against abortions, he is arguing about these soundbites that get banded around in lieu of more nuanced debate.

Calling the anti-abortion croud a 'minority of a particular religion' I think is also an understatement - according to polling c40% of Americans would consider themselves 'Pro-Life' (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). IMHO it's better to 'strong-man' the other sides arguments (I think you are over simplifying the pro-life viewpoint and are too quick to dismiss their views - let's remember that neither side has an absolute moral truth, and that it's possible to be educated, rational and pro-life).

I personally absolutely support a woman's right to get an abortion, and am from the UK, but looking from afar at the debate in the USA it seems more like a war of slogans than a rational discussion.


But 58% of Americans didn't want Roe v. Wade overturned, while only 35% did, which widens the decision's unpopularity even more (again, according to a Gallup poll):

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393275/steady-americans-not-roe...


Like with any culture war issue anywhere, it reaches the point where, whether actively or due to escalation, rational discussion does not survive in an environment where the stakes become personalized. It's wishful to lament how people aren't talking about this rationally but because of escalation the only way to get your message out effectively is to, unfortunately, distill it as hard as you can. I don't think anyone knows how to effectively defuse this situation, so it's just a horrible catch-22.

The UK is, of course, not immune to this on its own culture war issues.


I find the wording of "pro life" and "pro choice" in polls problematic and doesn't necessarily correlate with view points on roe vs wade. In particular "pro life" doesn't directly address if abortion should be legal.

I know several people that are "pro life" in the sense that they would not get an abortion themselves. They call themselves "pro life". But they also don't try to restrict the choices of others and don't think abortions should be illegal.


Also you could agree with the supreme court overturning Roe vs Wade but also firmly believe that women should have the right to have an abortion.

(i.e. You could support women getting abortions, but also believe that this should be determined democratically at the level of the state)

This is why things are much more nuanced than simple soundbites can manage to handle!


Yea agree. It's at least a 2x2x2 matrix:

- Do you agree with having abortions?

- Do you think abortions should be regulated at the federal level?

- Do you think abortions should be legal?

probably many other dimensions.


Yes, and to add a 2x2x2x2 addition:

- Do you think abortions should be determined by legislature rather than the judiciary?

(i.e. Roe vs Wade was tenuous from a legal perspective, and IMO a supreme court shouldn't be able to make it's own laws up which I think this veered into, even though I 100% agree with a woman's right to abortions!).


They're carrying water for the oppressor. Maybe they're "arguing against abortions," or maybe they're just being a "useful idiot."


40% is a minority, and those are people who consider themselves "pro-life" which isn't exactly the same as the number that think abortions are bad, but should remain legal. I'm to lazy to look that up (and the numbers are nuanced) but its was a lot closer to 25% thought it should be illegal.

AKA there are plenty of "conservatives" who are horrified by the decision.


It's also possible to be pro-choice and agree with Roe vs Wade being overturned.

The whole point from OP though is just that nuanced debate isn't possible in a world where soundbites rule.


How many of that 40% know pro life means the abolition of abortion?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: