Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by yucky » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:00 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #166

yucky wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>on the basis of religious ideology Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally. Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown…

> Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. Then I would ask that you trust people to read a whole sentence. > 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. Have you read the GOP platform for T…

The Texas GOP has nothing to do with this Supreme Court decision though. Nobody disputes that religious people tend to be against abortion, but a lot of non-religious people are as well, just from a logical standpoint.

There is no scientific basis to support the idea that a 38 week old fetus isn't viable or that it somehow only gains sentience once it passes through the birth canal. So then you have to draw a line somewhere, a line which will likely change over time as medical advancements occur - and so that is a matter for legislatures to handle.

There just isn't a constitutional basis for Roe, and all defenses of it are based on emotion not logic.

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

#172

Post by yucky » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

donarb wrote: post #165

yucky wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>on the basis of religious ideology Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally. Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown…

Of course it didn't spell out religious ideology, just as people claim the civil war wasn't about slavery. If you can cloak your argument in neutral language, it's easier to dismiss the views of the opposition and not be branded a zealot.

So where should the line be drawn? Should abortions at 39 weeks be legal? If not, what restrictions should be placed on them?

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

#173

Post by encryptluks2 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

cato_the_elder wrote: post #158

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what about the dignity of the innocent victims of US bombs?

What makes you think that I (or generally people who are against late-stage abortion) support that?

Both major parties are guilty of it and people keep electing the divisive politicians that use issues like abortion to create division but that routinely get involved in proxy wars that result in the deaths of innocent children.

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

#174

Post by klyrs » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #150

autoexec wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that "logic" birth control does too.

Not saying I agree with the OP, but your conclusion does not follow. Birth control does not "kill" a developing human life, it prevents one from forming in the same way that sex while not ovulating does.

Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization.

Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.

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

#175

Post by yucky » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #174

yucky wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying I agree with the OP, but your conclusion does not follow. Birth control does not "kill" a developing human life, it prevents one from forming in the same way that sex while not ovulating does.

Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization. Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between pati…

>and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.

If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it not?

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

#176

Post by 5678909787 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:48 PM UTC

tamaharbor wrote: post #86

I don’t think any man should mandate any woman what to do with her body.

I don’t think any person should mandate any person what to do with their body. This would not have been any less wrong if it was done entirely by women. Women don't have any more right to control other women's bodies than men do.

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

#177

Post by klyrs » Tue, May 03, 2022, 5:04 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #175

klyrs wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization. Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between pati…

>and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor. If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it…

No. We don't need to draw the line. Doctors and their patients do.

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

#178

Post by 5678909787 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #164

autoexec wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

that situation should not exist. if the father wants a child that the mother does not then it was rape and the father should not get the child either.

That makes no sense at all. People can have consensual sex without wanting a child and they can change their mind about wanting a child after having consensual sex. I'm curious if you apply the same argument when the mother wants a child and the father does not. What should happen to the child in that situation?

The abortion debate should not have anything to do with whether a child will be born or not. The right to an abortion is part of the right to fully control your own body. That right should be absolute and inalienable unless waived voluntarily.

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

#179

Post by yucky » Tue, May 03, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #177

yucky wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor. If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it…

No. We don't need to draw the line. Doctors and their patients do.

But see that is where you lose the support of most people. Do you really think the majority of people would support abortions at 39 weeks if the mothers life isn't in danger?

You started off with an appeal to the majority, and then took a position not supported by the majority.

I understand this is an emotional issue for many people, but laws can't work off of emotion.

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

#180

Post by klyrs » Tue, May 03, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #179

klyrs wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. We don't need to draw the line. Doctors and their patients do.

But see that is where you lose the support of most people. Do you really think the majority of people would support abortions at 39 weeks if the mothers life isn't in danger? You started off with an appeal to the majority, and then took a position not supported by the majority. I understand this is an emotional issue for many people, but laws can't work off of emotion.

You're ignoring my point in favor of what you consider to be a scissor statement. You can flog to continue a highly polarized, politically intractable conversation, but it's not getting us anywhere good. I didn't take any position other than: I don't think that legislators should be making blanket policies on an issue that should be a joint decision of doctor and patient. What happened is that you ignored my position, and claimed that I took the position you hate. I did not take your hated position. I maintain that such decisions should be between doctor and patient.