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

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#121

Post by showerst »

major505 wrote: post #75

I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. So it`s not the end of the word for pro-choise people.

The problem is that it just exacerbates an already major problem in America: access to healthcare is based on where you live and how wealthy your parents are.

Wealthy republicans can just fly their teenage daughters to a blue state, while poor people will inevitably end up getting back-alley abortions.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#122

Post by curiousllama »

major505 wrote: post #75

I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. So it`s not the end of the word for pro-choise people.

>Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment, in its entirety.

In other words: there is an entire Amendment specifically dedicated to refuting this argument. People have rights, even if they're not specifically written in the Constitution.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#123

Post by enumjorge »

typeofhuman wrote: post #72
lawn wrote: post #52

There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral. But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.

It’s a surface level protection. Forcing someone to bring an unwanted child into this world is not enlightened. There’s a reason why women and couples opt for abortion. They’re often not ready for that responsibility, and it’s the kid who suffers most.

Life for the sake of life feels like virtue signaling, especially since those who espouse it have no interest in providing social programs to help these mothers and couples raise the kid they were forced to have. That’s pretty barbaric.

Congratulations. You saved a life you almost immediately stop giving a shit about.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#124

Post by rob74 »

Vvector wrote: post #84
uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

Thomas - "...in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. ... we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents" Griswold - contraceptives Lawrence - same-sex sexual relations Obergefell - same-sex marriage

I hope all current Republican voters who are in a same-sex relationship or are using contraceptives remember this when they vote in November...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#125

Post by pluc »

cm277 wrote: post #106

It hurts me to say this, but American democracy is broken. Checks and balances have been twisted to subvert true democratic rule. We should stop worshipping the Founders and their intent, and aim for a Second American Republic, built around the tested and true practices of mature European republics (that have done a lot more revisions than our 1.0.33 release...): - Parliamentary democracy, two chambered if need be, w…

No abortion rights and a shooting every other day. Good luck attracting talent if you keep this up. You're gonna run yourselves right out of the game.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#126

Post by lawn »

typeofhuman wrote: post #72
lawn wrote: post #52

There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral. But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.

The direction they're going includes removing the right for contraception and same-sex marriage.

That's not an enlightened or moral direction.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#127

Post by newaccount2021 »

invokestatic wrote: post #96
major505 wrote: post #75

I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. So it`s not the end of the word for pro-choise people.

It's actually written in the Constitution that we as Americans enjoy many rights that aren't explicitly written in the text. It's in the 9th amendment and 14th amendment due process clause. The 14th, to me, encompasses everything that it means to be American: self-autonomy. The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#128

Post by qalmakka »

typeofhuman wrote: post #72
lawn wrote: post #52

There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral. But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.

Come on. Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. The fundamental Christians only care about seeing the rights of women being repelled, there are zero concerns about the life of children, otherwise they would be pushing for free childcare, support for mothers, parental leave, ....

It's all a matter of punishing women for their own desire to be emancipated, it's a punishment for those women who have sinned by thinking they could act like a man and have sex whenever they wanted. If they truly cared about the unborn, they would

1. care about the already born, first, and 2. push for the widespread availability of contraception.

Given that contraception is bad for them, too, it's clear this is not an ethical question, but a moral one: sex outside of marriage, or for pleasure really, should not be allowed, and it must always carry consequences, no matter if it vastly more impacts women than it does men. You know, a man can always run from their responsibilities, while a woman cannot run away from her womb.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#129

Post by krnlpnc »

It's depressing to watch the USA continually fail to keep up with the progress of other first world countries. Often times even taking steps backwards like this.

There are so many actual issues deserving of this attention. In what universe is removing rights a priority?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#130

Post by prpl »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #56
YPPH wrote: post #23

As an Australian, a few things about the SCOTUS absolutely shock me, aside from the obvious issue of politicisation. I've only skimmed the judgment, but Roberts CJ convincingly points out that there was no need for the court to completely overturn Roe. It would suffice to jettison the viability standard. Going further was completely unnecessary to decide the case. On the other hand, Thomas J took the occasion, withou…

In my opinion, It's up to the federal government to make federal laws, not the supreme court. Democrats had _plenty_ of time to put the right for abortion into a law and pass it. Now, they have a platform on which to run for the next election, convenient... Politicians delegate too many decisions to the SCOTUS because they don't want to govern, well the SCOTUS isn't supposed to govern in their place. If nothing can g…

Laws like that would only be possible in certain years where there’s a majority across all 3 branches (e.g. 2008) and neutered when the other branch is in power.

Arguably a supreme court decision is more stable.

A constitutional amendment would be most stable but we will never get to that level of state support

Post reply on HN