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

131–140 of 211 posts

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

#131

Post by autoexec »

Auracle wrote: post #129
autoexec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the core of the issue comes down to viability. If a living thing needs to feed directly off of another living thing to survive, consuming their oxygen, nutrients, blood, etc. then it must be with the consent of the person being fed upon. Anything else is morally wrong. It's forcing someone to be host to another life against their will. To me that sets a pretty clear delineation that avoids the questions of wh…

Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not. With additional medical advances that timetable might move back to essentially 0 weeks. Without formula, babies would still absolutely need someone's nutrients to survive until 6 months. The point is, while the law needs it to be binary, I don't think it's the same on moral grounds. And I've heard your last point repeated plenty,…

> Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not.

No need to try and force a binary where it can/should be avoided. The idea would be that if you seek an abortion the doctor will determine if the fetus can be removed alive instead. If it can, you can sign it over to the state, have it removed, and be on your way. The doctors will do their best to keep it alive, but certainly some of them wont make it. That happens all the time to babies who were wanted and who had a natural birth.

If the doctor determines that survival of the fetus isn't likely they can remove it without attempting to keep it alive. Like all medical decisions it would need to be at the discretion of the medical professional taking into account the unique conditions of those under his care. Needing formula isn't an issue since we have formula. Just like we have life support machines, incubators, medications, etc.

As for donating to charity, that's firstly a hugely inefficient way to get help to people, but more importantly it does not provide equal access to help either. It allows people to give primarily to their in-group, or provide aid only to people they want to support, regardless of how many others are in much greater need. Even if the giver isn't deliberately prioritizing anything over the level of need, aid is certain to end up inequality distributed with the charities that can advertise better or that are easier to access getting more funds.

Charitable giving is nice, but it's clearly no substitute for a national system that protects and provides for everyone, everywhere.

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

#132

Post by Bancakes »

xyzzy4747 wrote: post #45
autoexec wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan would do better if birth control was banned? They don't need more unwanted children. If they actually need population, they can increase immigration or incentivize and encourage people to both have and want children. Maybe not work people to death so much so they have time to spend on romance and families.

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes and it's the natural extension of modern lifestyle. The invariant is that for as long as there's kids, they are taken care of, and it still holds true for "jungles". How many humans do you even need?

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

#133

Post by Bancakes »

xyzzy4747 wrote: post #58
philistine wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof. Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?

Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.

How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.

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

#134

Post by monkey_monkey »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #9

If SCOTUS indeed overturns Roe v. Wade, it would be a great day for human dignity and sanctity of innocent lives in the US.

It's a great day for rapists and for people who like seeing young females have illegal abortions and endanger their lives ("oh they deserve it, those ungodly servants of satan").

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

#135

Post by Ancapistani »

autoexec wrote: post #115
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately our nation is founded on a constitution and rule of law so that what "should" and "shouldn't" can be codified appropriately by the people.

> so that what "should" and "shouldn't" can be codified appropriately by the people. Sadly that's been repeatedly shown to be false. What we actually have is a system where the average person has zero influence on policy and a very small number of very wealthy people dictate what "should" and "shouldn't" be. The vast majority of Americans support the right to an abortion and yet here we have a small number of people…

> The vast majority of Americans support the right to an abortion

For any reasonable definition of “right”, this simply isn’t true.

57% of Americans believe abortion “should be legal overall in all or most cases” - and only 23% believe it “should be legal in all cases”

Less than a third - 28% - of Democrats believe abortion should be legal during the third trimester.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/25/majorit...

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

#136

Post by klyrs »

Auracle wrote: post #114
margalabargala wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is in the definition of "unborn human". Many people don't believe that something without a brain is considered to be a living human, in the same sense that people who are braindead but with a beating heart are considered dead. The question is, at what point in the unfertilized egg -> fertilized egg -> clump of cells -> developing fetus -> viable infant spectrum does the being take on "humanity"? Personally…

I’ve always thought it was odd that people feel like it’s a binary condition. It’s fine if the fetus is undelivered, or if it can’t live outside the womb, or ___. I’m pro-choice, but my opinion is that “choice” is always at least a little evil (barring medical or other specific reasons). The longer it goes on, the more evil it gets. To that end I think it’s insane that some states are pushing to have abortion be lega…

I like Canada's approach: it's not under the purview of law, it's a matter between patient and doctor. Which is, ironically enough, what 75% of Americans agree with. But politicians want wedge issues, so here we are, at eachother's throats again.

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

#137

Post by belorn »

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.

As a new basis for ideology, it would be interesting if the law put it clear that reproduction is about personal autonomy with no legal requirements put forth onto any individual, except that all aspects should be based on consent and free will. When ever the outcome of that consent and free will causes social or medical issues, the state ought to provide aid and support so that consenting parents and children get what they need and require.

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

#138

Post by belorn »

mystique wrote: post #90

Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?

Search for "supreme court mask mandate" gives me articles how the court is sending mixed messages and in general has not given a clear guideline about the issue. The non-legal explanation seem to be that they simply don't know if mask mandates are good or bad, and within or outside the scope of the federal government authority. They did reject one federal law that required "large businesses" to have vaccination/mask mandates, but the same ruling allowed a similar federal law to be put on medical care facilities.

They have not said if states can impose such restrictions, nor if large companies can decide for themselves if they want to have such restrictions, and I am unsure under what paragraph the distinction between health care worker and worker of a large businesses is defined. It is possible that health care workers are defined as a "critical role" or something that allows for additional restrictions.

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

#139

Post by belorn »

kccoder wrote: post #53
TheFreim wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, which is what the pro-life side asserts, there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion. Its important to understand where opponents of your view are coming from otherwise there will be a communication disconnect which helps noone.

I'm aware that many pro-life proponents anchor their beliefs in the idea life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, but many (more?) people believe differently. I'm sympathetic to the concept that "abortion is murder" and anyone with that viewpoint should be 100% on board for doing everything we can to reduce the need for abortion, such as robust sex-education starting at an appropriate age (12 or 1…

If we assume there is an underlying intention, maybe we shouldn't assume that the anchor of their beliefs is in the idea that life begins at conception. The question I would ask is what outcomes they want to have and what negative outcomes they want to avoid. A lot of religious views seems to me to be anchor to the old view that children only life support is their family, and thus the most critical aspect is the focus on a core family that guaranties that the child will survive. There also seems to be a bit focus on inheritance and family lines, issues which is not trivial but significant less than when much of those religious text was written.

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

#140

Post by raxxorraxor »

mystique wrote: post #90

Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?

"My body my choice" always was a bad justification because you obviously have to look at the interest of the child too if you count it as human life as many do. If you ask around you don't find too many people that wish they were aborted. The same logic can apply to wearing masks because it can affect other people aside yourself. But many argue here that the responsibility to protect yourself with masks is on those that want this protection but in case of abortions the child cannot defend itself or its rights.

To be honest I believe part of the problem is self-inflicted. Many conservatives had already made their peace with the issue and some media personalities unnecessarily picked up the topic and some people made a fool of themselves in a way so that the opposition only needed to show around their behavior to garner more supporters against abortion. It is probably naive to believe that the argument is about ethics instead of partisanship at this point.

I am for legal abortions and against mandatory masking (most of the time, there are situations where wearing a mask is just sensible), but I don't see these topics intersecting very much. Abortions will happen if they are legal or not. To minimize suffering a legal and medical responsible way is required.

But it is still an ethical question to allow it or not and intrinsic to almost all ethical considerations is that there is no clear right or wrong so I don't see a solution if either a vast majority supports it or not or opposing political factions collaborate on the issue.

Post reply on HN