Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 211 posts

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

#71

Post by georgia_peach »

ausbah wrote: post #63
georgia_peach wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have strong opinions about roe or gay marriage. I do have strong opinions against kritarchy. Right or wrong, I don't like the idea of the Yale law school sharia council overriding the will of the electorate. It may have worked for you in recent history, but as they say, " past performance is not indicative of future results ."

eh, there are things that shouldn't be up for debate just because a majority of people wish it to be so. the issue is "what is a right and what isn't"

Elite lawyers may be cleverer than the peasants, but that does not make them righteous or just. As I've already written, just because the court had taken a leftward tack in the recent past does not guarantee that it will continue to do so. Left or right, it would be best not to have that much power in so few hands.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/4694780...

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

#73

Post by version_five »

ausbah wrote: post #39

why is this flagged?

Look at the discussion that happens in response to a story like this. I don't see any novel or "curious" conversation, not to say there are not a lot of valid arguments, but they are old and don't really bring anything to the site. If HN was just this sort of polarizing topic, it would lose its appeal pretty fast.

I don't actually know what the [flagged] tag adds to the story, though I think it's the right policy to let it play out so people can have their say while "burying" it so it doesn't dominate the front page and attract too much attention.

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

#74

Post by autoexec »

allears wrote: post #55

If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Only a woman can truly understand what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, to bring a new life into being. A man might have a possessive, proprietary attitude about it, but it's a removed and intellectual understanding at best. A woman understands it from her gut, from her body. To hear men pontificating about how women should behave is ludicro…

> If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion.

Yeah, no. The roles of men and women in reproduction are different, but that doesn't exclude either one from the conversation.

The real issue is that before being born, the would-be child is literally feeding on the mother like a parasite. No one should be forced to endure that against their will. That needs to be a voluntary act of sacrifice on the part of the mother. I don't think we'll have a real solution to any part of the abortion debate until we have artificial wombs where we can remove the burden from the unwilling mother entirely. That still won't satisfy the religious extremists who will still rage against miscarriages and birth control and 'women doing things we don't like', but it would solve the problem of fathers who want their child to live while mothers refuse to carry it.

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

#75

Post by version_five »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #69
allears wrote: post #55

If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Only a woman can truly understand what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, to bring a new life into being. A man might have a possessive, proprietary attitude about it, but it's a removed and intellectual understanding at best. A woman understands it from her gut, from her body. To hear men pontificating about how women should behave is ludicro…

> If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. That's an egregious argument. It's like saying if you are not a Ukrainian (or Russian), you don't get to have an opinion about the conflict.

It's hard to interpret the root comment as anything but trolling here. Better to just ignore it

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

#76

Post by [deleted] »

glasshug wrote: post #51
ausbah wrote: post #39

why is this flagged?

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. And, to editorialize: news orgs, your favorite political blogs, and even Twitter will have better commentary than HN. Edit: for example, the joking sibling comment.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

#78

Post by subsection1h »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #48
threatofrain wrote: post #3

States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas. This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor. Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

#79

Post by cato_the_elder »

fzeroracer wrote: post #19
xyzzy4747 wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

The constitution also has no right to privacy, but I'm willing to bet given that you're posting on a throwaway account that you believe privacy is rather important. Or would you be okay with the Supreme Court completely eroding all privacy laws because it doesn't exist in the constitution? The right to abortion is something that was ruled as something between a woman and her doctor to decide. Not the federal governme…

> The constitution also has no right to privacy

I think it has that, actually. That's generally how the Fourth Amendment is interpreted. [1] Interestingly, the right to privacy was the main argument in the Roe v. Wade decision. [2]

Also, to your credit, the concept of unenumerated rights [3] supports your argument. Hamilton (the favourite founding father among the left-wingers) actually opposed the Bill of Rights because "he feared it might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had". [4]

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_Unit...

[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights

[4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

Post reply on HN