Comment by cloutchaser | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cloutchaser | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

In my country no politician will bring up the issue because it's so toxic, for all sides. You can't win and you will lose votes.

We have abortions up to 12 weeks.

Honestly, I think this is a good situation. It's a super divisive issue and there is no need to argue about it. Christians here accept that most abortions would take place illegally and endanger the mother if it was banned. It's swept under the rug. Pro abortion people think 12 weeks is ok, I mean you probably know youre pregnant by then.

It works. Everyone stays the fuck away from the issue.

I look at the US and think its fucking insane how this issue is being used politically by everyone. It's a terrible issue to make political. And frankly it is the supreme courts fault, as Ruth Ginsberg herself said. The court allowing abortions full stop meant one side won. No questions, no discussion. That is not how a normal society works. You can't ignore all pro life people and say abortions allowed up to birth. It's ridiculous and undemocratic.

Just to be clear - the elil17's statement that "Similarly, the argument goes, you should have the legal right to have an abortion (or at least induce labor, if viability is possible) at any point during a pregnancy." is not the normal/typical pro-choice position (at least here in the US). In fact, that statement is so far from the normal/typical pro-choice position that I seriously wonder if elil17 is trying to troll us (it's possible they're not, and I can never know what they're really thinking, but if I was trying to divide a group of people using a hot-button issue here in 2022 the way I'd do it is to post something that's like 80% reasonable sounding and then ends with something that'll get "the other side" riled up).

It's worth pointing out that this isn't accurate either: "You can't ignore all pro life people and say abortions allowed up to birth". Wikipedia even says that here in the United States "The [Supreme] Court also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life" (from the 'Roe v. Wade' article) Wikipedia has two citations to support that. I can't decipher the citations myself - I think they might be court cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#cite_note-FOOTNOTE...

Unfortunately roe v Wade made such a reasonable compromise impossible.

Now that it's overturned, we will likely see the us engage in more compromise which will make this less of a divisive issue.

I thought it did, though, since it mainly restricted anti-abortion laws that apply in the first trimester, with it (and later decisions) allowing significant restrictions in the second and, especially, third trimester? It definitely didn't ban abortion restrictions entirely.

Except in most countries, abortion is illegal by the second trimester. Second trimester abortions (so up until 24 weeks) had to be legal under Roe. Only regulations that are about the mother's health were allowed. So you could mandate that second-trimester abortions have to be in a hospital, but you couldn't outlaw a 20 week abortion completely, the way most developed, civilized countries have.

PP v Casey changed that a bit, sure, but that was 30 years ago.

> It works. Everyone stays the fuck away from the issue.

Until they do not.

Legality is a big help for women. In a nod and wink, illegal but permitted regime women's health care is in danger of the political whims of law enforcement disrupting it.

Legality is not perfect protection against the misogynist brigade, but it is definitely a help.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com