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

191–200 of 211 posts

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

#191

Post by yucky »

klyrs wrote: post #180
yucky wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You have me mixed up with a different poster I suppose. I don't hate any position on the subject. I'm not religious and I'm not for a complete ban on abortions. I simply pointed out that your original claim that a "super majority of people" support no regulations on abortion, falls apart when you ask if they support elective abortions at 39 weeks. Almost nobody supports that, which means by definition, most people support some regulations on abortions.

So then logically that leaves us needing to draw the line somewhere with regulations. Just because a particular doctor[1] might be more than happy to perform something most people see as grotesque, doesn't mean society should just allow it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

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

#192

Post by yucky »

donarb wrote: post #189
yucky wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The line drawn is the government should not be involved in medical decisions between doctor and patient. Women don't endure pregnancy for almost 9 months and then decide to have an abortion a week short of birth on a whim. Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. If people are personally against abortion, don't have one, but don't force your views on others when you…

>Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother.

Then there should be no problem regulating that to ensure they are only performed that late due to those defined medical problems with the fetus, or if the life of the mother is in danger, right? I think most people would agree with that.

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

#193

Post by laverya »

rizoma_dev wrote: post #163
yucky wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same argument used against gun control.

Come on, there is a qualitative difference between buying an object and a medical procedure

Yeah, it's a lot easier to make the object yourself at home safely.

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

#194

Post by donarb »

yucky wrote: post #192
donarb wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line drawn is the government should not be involved in medical decisions between doctor and patient. Women don't endure pregnancy for almost 9 months and then decide to have an abortion a week short of birth on a whim. Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. If people are personally against abortion, don't have one, but don't force your views on others when you…

>Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. Then there should be no problem regulating that to ensure they are only performed that late due to those defined medical problems with the fetus, or if the life of the mother is in danger, right? I think most people would agree with that.

Doctors are well trained to evaluate what is needed for their patients, no need to get government involved in private personal medical procedures.

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

#195

Post by yucky »

donarb wrote: post #194
yucky wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. Then there should be no problem regulating that to ensure they are only performed that late due to those defined medical problems with the fetus, or if the life of the mother is in danger, right? I think most people would agree with that.

Doctors are well trained to evaluate what is needed for their patients, no need to get government involved in private personal medical procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

We definitely need to regulate it.

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

#197

Post by klyrs »

yucky wrote: post #191
klyrs wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You have me mixed up with a different poster I suppose. I don't hate any position on the subject. I'm not religious and I'm not for a complete ban on abortions. I simply pointed out that your original claim that a "super majority of people" support no regulations on abortion, falls apart when you ask if they support elective abortions at 39 weeks. Almost nobody supports that, which means by definition , most people s…

> Girl age 15, accompanied by relative (1998): said to have told Gosnell she changed her mind about the abortion once inside the practice. Gosnell allegedly got upset, ripped off the patient's clothing and forcibly restrained her. The patient later stated that Gosnell told her: "This is the same care that I would give to my own daughter." She regained consciousness twelve hours later at her aunt's home, the abortion having been completed against her will.

Yeah, we don't need anti-abortion laws to make sure guys like this see justice, as he's guilty of an entire pantheon of medical malpractice.

> Patients given labor- and delivery-inducing drugs during the day, then left waiting until late evening for Gosnell to attend or for surgery.[73] Many gave birth during the day as a result, and employees testified "it was standard procedure for women to deliver fetuses – and viable babies – into toilets" while waiting for his arrival.

> Practice staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them (or ensuring their death).

See, that's not even an abortion by any stretch of the imagination. Those are live births followed up by infanticide. No need for anti-abortion laws.

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

#198

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

donarb wrote: post #194
yucky wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. Then there should be no problem regulating that to ensure they are only performed that late due to those defined medical problems with the fetus, or if the life of the mother is in danger, right? I think most people would agree with that.

Doctors are well trained to evaluate what is needed for their patients, no need to get government involved in private personal medical procedures.

The medical professions are already pretty well regulated in all countries. The other reply re Dr Gosnell is an obvious inflammatory distraction, and existing regulation should already apply. It does not make a logical case for new regulation, it is mere shock value and attempt to start an argument.

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

#199

Post by yucky »

klyrs wrote: post #197
yucky wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have me mixed up with a different poster I suppose. I don't hate any position on the subject. I'm not religious and I'm not for a complete ban on abortions. I simply pointed out that your original claim that a "super majority of people" support no regulations on abortion, falls apart when you ask if they support elective abortions at 39 weeks. Almost nobody supports that, which means by definition , most people s…

> Girl age 15, accompanied by relative (1998): said to have told Gosnell she changed her mind about the abortion once inside the practice. Gosnell allegedly got upset, ripped off the patient's clothing and forcibly restrained her. The patient later stated that Gosnell told her: "This is the same care that I would give to my own daughter." She regained consciousness twelve hours later at her aunt's home, the abortion…

I guess to understand the position I would need to understand what reasoning would justify an abortion at 39 weeks where the life of the mother wasn't in danger and there was no permanent medical issues with the child. I'm specifically referring to regulations on elective abortions that late in term, what is the argument against that?

Nobody seems to want to answer the question, which is quite telling actually.

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

#200

Post by donarb »

yucky wrote: post #195
donarb wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctors are well trained to evaluate what is needed for their patients, no need to get government involved in private personal medical procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell We definitely need to regulate it.

Regulation is another red herring. People who are against abortion are not interested in regulating doctors, they are for 100% outright bans on any form of the procedure.
Post reply on HN