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

201–210 of 211 posts

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

#201

Post by threatofrain »

yucky wrote: post #171
threatofrain wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 so…

The Supreme Court's draft decision is all about states like Texas. I'm talking about the consequences which are to follow from their projected ruling.

The question I pose is whether an individual ought be able to seek medical services which are mainstream across the west in consultation with their doctor. In accordance with the projected SCOTUS ruling, the answer for states like Texas is . And the debate will not be along the lines of mainstream medical empiricism.

As a democratic plurality, we ought demand that such state medical decisions be anchored on secular & empirical reasoning which groups from various religious backgrounds can understand, but this will not happen in states like Texas. What we do see in Texas is movement further away from the mainstream medical consensus and ethical standards of our western peers.

As for a constitutional basis for the right to privacy, I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I do not pretend to be fluent with constitutional law, especially not enough to denigrate arguments as being emotional and illogical on the merits of the law. If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials.

I am also not a medical professional. That is why I rely on my doctor to consult with professional bodies of science and medicine to deploy treatment in accordance with mainstream practice.

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

#202

Post by xdennis »

gilbetron wrote: post #169
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.

Until the baby is born and then those people so concerned the woman needed to carry it to term are suddenly no where to be found.

The argument that antiabortionists make is that it's murder. You can be against something without personally caring about the victim. If Bill kills average Joe down the street, I may not care about Joe personally, but I am concerned about him getting killed.

Abortionists and antiabortionists make arguments that work in their echo chambers , without ever understanding what the other side thinks.

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

#203

Post by yucky »

threatofrain wrote: post #201
yucky wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

The Supreme Court's draft decision is all about states like Texas. I'm talking about the consequences which are to follow from their projected ruling. The question I pose is whether an individual ought be able to seek medical services which are mainstream across the west in consultation with their doctor. In accordance with the projected SCOTUS ruling, the answer for states like Texas is . And the debate will not be…

> If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials.

We can both save time by reading the draft opinion, which was created by the foremost Constitutional experts in the world.

In it, you'll see relying on a 50 year old decision that was loosely predicated on an unrelated right to dictate national abortion laws, is outmoded. Privacy doesn't cover the sentience of a 39 week old fetus for instance..

I actually think most people are in agreement on the issue, they just don't realize it. A tiny percentage of people support no regulations at all on abortion (ie even an elective abortion at 39 weeks with no medical necessity would be legal), and an equally tiny percentage on the other side who would even be against Plan B or abortions in the first few weeks. The problem though is then that means you have to draw a line somewhere on non-medically necessary abortions (8 weeks? 24 weeks? Something else) and that isn't something that the Roe decision is able to address, so we have to look to legislatures (state and Congress) to do their jobs.

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

#204

Post by threatofrain »

yucky wrote: post #203
threatofrain wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court's draft decision is all about states like Texas. I'm talking about the consequences which are to follow from their projected ruling. The question I pose is whether an individual ought be able to seek medical services which are mainstream across the west in consultation with their doctor. In accordance with the projected SCOTUS ruling, the answer for states like Texas is . And the debate will not be…

> If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials. We can both save time by reading the draft opinion, which was created by the foremost Constitutional experts in the world. In it, you'll see relying on a 50 year old decision that was loosely predicated on an unrelated right to dictate national abortion laws, is outmoded. Privacy doesn't cover…

From the beginning I have only been talking about how states will conduct themselves, and I have never pretended to have fluency in constitutional law. I follow Supreme Court opinions for the issues I care about, but that does not translate into an arrogance of denigrating the arguments of others as emotional and illogical. In accordance with that, I do not speak on whether SCOTUS is right or wrong.

You talk about "reading" things, but this is my original post:

> 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.

I have talked only on the consequences which are to follow in states like TX and how state medical policy ought be conducted — in accordance with mainstream medical practice as developed by national and western consensus among professional medical and scientific bodies. This is precisely the sort of state-level debate that you allege to support, and yet are completely ignoring.

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

#205

Post by em-bee »

5678909787 wrote: post #178
em-bee wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

if it was consensual then the case is the same. both parents are responsible for the child they conceived. there is no option to change their mind later.

but if the father was raped, it gets more tricky. i haven't thought this through, but effectively the burden of whatever choice is made is carried by the mother, which means, if there is doubt then the mother should be allowed to keep the child because we should choose what has the least negative consequences for everyone involved.

but if the father can prove that he was raped then the mother should loose the right to her child.

the only remaining challenge is if the father was raped but neither wants the child. based on the above, abortion should not be allowed because the mother consented to get pregnant.

the mother could of course claim that she was raped, but assuming she doesn't, then what? i don't know...

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

#206

Post by yucky »

threatofrain wrote: post #204
yucky wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials. We can both save time by reading the draft opinion, which was created by the foremost Constitutional experts in the world. In it, you'll see relying on a 50 year old decision that was loosely predicated on an unrelated right to dictate national abortion laws, is outmoded. Privacy doesn't cover…

From the beginning I have only been talking about how states will conduct themselves, and I have never pretended to have fluency in constitutional law. I follow Supreme Court opinions for the issues I care about, but that does not translate into an arrogance of denigrating the arguments of others as emotional and illogical. In accordance with that, I do not speak on whether SCOTUS is right or wrong. You talk about "r…

>This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.

This isn't the consensus though. For instance, at 39 weeks very few people consider the baby irrelevant in the "private decision between mom and doctor" any more than they would that of a 1 week old baby. By that point in the pregnancy, the baby has to be considered. It is no longer just the mother and doctor. If you think it is, then what magically happens in the birth canal to convey sentience?

Are we pretending there is no difference in a 3 week old zygote and a 39 week old fully viable child that has yet to exit the birth canal? Now do you see the issue? At some point, there are more than 2 beings (mom and doctor) involved in and affected by the decision..

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

#207

Post by yucky »

donarb wrote: post #200
yucky wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We know that's false though, just through polling. The majority of Americans support abortion with restrictions. Very few people support non-medically necessary abortions at 39 weeks for instance. So to prevent that, you need regulations to draw the line somewhere, wherever that line is being up for debate.

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

#208

Post by klyrs »

yucky wrote: post #199
klyrs wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

You're still missing the very important context of the original comment you replied to, so I'll self-quote:

> 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.

You're ignoring this, and going straight back to debating minutae, and using a completely ludicrous case that (a) nobody wants to be legal and (b) is already totally illegal without any kind of abortion law.

> I guess to understand the position I would need to understand what reasoning would justify an abortion at 39 weeks

See, you keep claiming that I'm in support of an abortion at 39 weeks. I didn't take that position, did I? Look to Canada, whose Supreme Court ruled that this is a matter between doctor and patient. But, doctors are highly regulated with regards to their behavior and ethics, and gosh, they aren't running around murdering babies like the example you keep trotting out, are they?

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

#209

Post by yucky »

klyrs wrote: post #208
yucky wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Nobody seems to want to answer the question, which is quite telling actually. You're still missing the very important context of the original comment you replied to, so I'll self-quote: > 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. You're ignoring this, and going straight ba…

>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.

Again you falsely claim a supermajorty who don't support any regulations on abortion. That's false. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx.

68% of Americans support some level of restrictions on abortions.

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

#210

Post by autoexec »

Auracle wrote: post #183
autoexec wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

Even being born a few weeks early leads to significantly worse outcomes - the birthing ward at the hospital where my daughter was born had posters up warning of it. I thought that was weird because...you know, you're already there, but apparently it used to be fairly common for doctors to schedule induced labor earlier than they should have and for people to try to deliver earlier as it'd be easier on them. When you…

Any time you bring an unwanted child into the world there are going to be higher risks of the baby's life being ruined. Either the parents keep it, which is clearly going to lead to bad outcomes or it goes into foster care which increases the odds the child will be abused, be arrested, have mental/developmental issues, and become homeless, while also being less likely to complete high school, far less likely to have postsecondary education, less likely to be successful in their careers, etc.

Still, some people feel its better for a child to be born into suffering than to never be born at all.

Post reply on HN