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

I kinda think that the salient point is that the law can and often does provide outs to respect the fact that life is complicated.

Post 32 week abortions are debate within a debate because people aren't really talking about the same thing, much more than other parts of the abortion debates. Many on the pro-forced-birth side would have you believe that this is a common occurrence. The pro-choice side would say that abortion is a difficult decision in and of itself and if someone is choosing abortion after 32 weeks, it must be an exceptional case, and we should respect the parent-doctor relationship to make that decision.

Being in a situation where I'm at the 32 week mark with my wife, I can't imagine many people choose to knowingly wait this long, and then just have an abortion for "funsies". Pew Research suggests it is less than 1% after 21 weeks (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-da...).



I agree with you about the debate within a debate thing. It's genuinely hard to have a conversation about late-term abortion law in the current US context, where the really important laws being made are criminalizing abortions at the very earliest stages, and even possibly some forms of pre-implantation birth control.

But I also think it's helpful to cede some ground to the moderate pro-lifers. If we can acknowledge that 32 week fetuses are empathetically "infants in a difficult locale", to me it's clear that there is some legal burden there. I don't think the opinion of one woman and that of any one doctor she can find willing to agree with her are sufficient grounds for killing a fetus at that stage. Not all people make good choices, and thinking things deserve protection from bad choices.

I'll also add that the criminalization of late-term abortions rests heavily on

1. Guaranteed access to early-term abortions regardless of circumstances

2. Mid-term abortions under specific circumstances.

3. Affirmative defense for late-term abortion given even narrower circumstances, i.e. bodily risk to mother.

With those guarantees, and only with those guarantees, I think the argument can be made that a mother with a late-term pregnancy has willingly undertaken the responsibility to carry that pregnancy to term, and therefor aborting that late-term pregnancy may be treated similarly to a parent harming an infant. But I'll reiterate: only with those guarnatees. And, of course, lots of places don't have those guarnatees right now, which is why this is a "debate within a debate", as you say. And this is the smaller and less impactful of the debates.




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

Search: