Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

It’s because the Supreme Court has imposed for 50 years an extremely liberal abortion regime on an extremely conservative country. Roe guarantees elective abortions up to viability, which is around 22-24 weeks. But by 13-14 weeks, the fetus looks like a baby—it has hands and feet and a face. It can suck its thumb and kick. Most of Europe draws a line for elective abortions (absent exceptions) around that timeframe: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-t.... The UK is an outlier in this by the way, in drawing the line at 24 weeks. That’s the longest in Europe.

Meanwhile, the US is vastly more religious than Western Europe. In terms of people who pray every day, it’s up there with Poland and Iran (both countries where abortion is illegal). On the religiosity front, the United States is more like the rest of the Americans (minus Canada) than like Western Europe.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this.

The reason it’s not an issue in Europe is because opposing sides all get a say in this and arrive at a compromise, namely abortion allowed up to 12 weeks which is fairly standard in most European countries.

But because row v wade basically said abortion has to be allowed in the US, the issue has had no real democratic debate just massively polarized arguing.

I’d argue the current situation will be better for almost everyone a few years down the line. Democracy works in resolving these issues. And why not have stricter laws in more Christian states? And free for all in California, if that’s what democracy decides?

> I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born

By the same token, wouldn't it be unethical to not have as many kids as possible all the time? After all, those kids will be glad that they were born.

The comment you’re replying to describes a bait and switch “counseling clinic”. Cf. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pregnancy-clinics-...

The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Those in support of this behavior, have more deep ethical challenges, and I sincerely hope and believe are not the majority of pro-life voters..

(Using “pro-life” reluctantly here, to avoid distractions)

Edit to add: my intent by this comment is to depolarize. It’s frustrating to see child comments from the pro-choice side that don’t take my hint :/ Let’s not engage with the extreme on either side folks, if we want to better understand the opposing points of view. Yes, the loudest voices are often the most extreme, and no the moderates don’t denounce (on both sides!), but we can try to do better on our beloved HN.

It’s a divisive issue because it represents fundamentally different world views. As an asian, the idea that the government can’t regulate abortion, which is prevalent among a large minority of Democrats these days, is remarkable. Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality. It’s illustrative to compare to Japan or Germany, which have “liberal” abortion regimes insofar as it’s widely available. But in both countries it’s still technically illegal. The state has the power to regulate, but simply tolerates abortion under certain conditions.

When people deny that power altogether, you’re dealing with fundamentally different notions of how society works, and that predictably produces conflict. And people perceive that conflict as involving more fundamental issues than what the marginal income tax rate should be.

And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?” Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016. They got a million and a half more votes than Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They’re on pace to do it again this year. They’re also a couple of points ahead in the generic Congressional ballot.

It’s an error to rely on the Presidential popular vote. Because it doesn’t count nobody is trying to win it. It’s easy for Democrats to campaign in big cities in red states, but the GOP has no incentive to spend resources in rural areas of blue states. But they can and do field Congressional candidates in those areas, which is reflected in the Congressional popular vote.