Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

We had a whole civil war and enacted several amendments to address the unique situation of a majority in a state enslaving or discriminating against a discrete minority.

That has nothing to do with a majority of people imposing restrictions on themselves. 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion, including the majority of women. There is no need for California or New York to parachute in and tell them otherwise.

View on HN

> That has nothing to do with a majority of people imposing restrictions on themselves. 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion, including the majority of women. There is no need for California or New York to parachute in and tell them otherwise.

You could also argue that if 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion there's no need to make it illegal. No one will ever force that 59% to start having abortions.

The 59% could simply _choose_ not to have an abortion.

By that logic, there’s no need to ban beating your dog because you can simply _choose_ not to beat your dog.

We give the benefit of a safe life to dogs because beating them offers no benefit (and I should note that we _do_ allow putting them down when they're causing excessive harm).

The same doesn't hold for aborting a fetus, because that can be key to the mother's wellbeing. Whether the scale tips toward that of the mother or that of the fetus is the debate, and since it's not cut and dry, individual choice makes sense.

They are not imposing restrictions on themselves. Anyone who doesn't want an abortion can just not have an abortion. They are imposing restrictions on other people. Being a majority doesn't give you the right to impose restrictions on the minority. Bodily autonomy is an individual right. I don't care if you vote 99% to 1%, that 1% still have the right to control their own body.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com