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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#141

Post by foodforthots »

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.

This is an accurate viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of states permit abortion and are not going to backtrack. The federal government has not banned abortion, and their legal ability to do so would be Constitutionally sketchy at best. There is a clear democratic path to settling the abortion issue in the states.

The news here isn’t a Supreme Court overriding voters, but devolving the decision of abortion rights to voters in the states and their elected representatives.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#142

Post by 0xB31B1B »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #108
qalmakka wrote: post #64

This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…

> while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention In his defense, Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish it, as directly stated by himself. The old law has the 5th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortion (Psalm 139 being one reason why) and Jesus, by not speaking against this interpretation (unlike other interpretations),…

You are incorrect. The bible does not support fetal personhood. The bible clearly gives fetuses a lower moral valence than a living person and discusses that an accident that results in a stillbirth is not equivalent to "killing a person". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#143

Post by haubey »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #108
qalmakka wrote: post #64

This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…

> while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention In his defense, Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish it, as directly stated by himself. The old law has the 5th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortion (Psalm 139 being one reason why) and Jesus, by not speaking against this interpretation (unlike other interpretations),…

>unanimously interpreted to cover abortion

Exodus 21:22-23 recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in homicides.

Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren't considered persons under Jewish law.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#144

Post by ncallaway »

windows2020 wrote: post #78
dimator wrote: post #62

The real question is, what kind of draconian laws will they start hatching to make abortion tourism (flying to a state where it's legal, then coming back) illegal. How do you legislate that? Are people still free to go to another state if they want? Are they getting arrested as soon as they come back? The next case they'll hear is about Mississippi v Some Nonprofit That Pays For Abortion Flights.

You don't legislate that. That's the point of states.

And if they do legislate it? Since they are already trying?

What then?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#146

Post by dorfsmay »

voisin wrote: post #88
qalmakka wrote: post #64

This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…

> I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I'd like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention, he was quite vocal about the fact that greed was not compatible with salvation. I'd like to see Evangelicals and other Christians being as vocal for social justice as they were for abortions and same sex marriage, but I guess they do care more about puttin…

> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control.

Power and control is what organized religions have always been about.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#147

Post by voisin »

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

So doesn’t this simply create two Americas, those with regressive laws and those with progressive laws, and people can choose between them and the market will show which laws attract people that create economic value?

I see half of the US becoming economically fallow as a result of this decline into dystopia.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#148

Post by jimbob45 »

luckystarr wrote: post #58

The mid 2030s and 2040s will be the years of crime. That's when all the unwanted kids will "grow up" without affection.

The study you’re speaking of (abortion lowering crime rates by preventing unwanted children from terrorizing the streets) remains unproven at best, despite oft being cited as settled research[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#149

Post by [deleted] »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #108
qalmakka wrote: post #64

This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…

> while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention In his defense, Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish it, as directly stated by himself. The old law has the 5th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortion (Psalm 139 being one reason why) and Jesus, by not speaking against this interpretation (unlike other interpretations),…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#150

Post by rhinoceraptor »

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…

The issue there is the reactionaries who claim to be 'textualists' and 'originalists' have all but decided the ninth amendment is meaningless.

Scalia said, "the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people".

Of course, anyone with a brain can see that Scalia was the first to abandon textualism or the reactionary idea that judges should not engage in 'judicial activism' whenever they came in conflict with conservative policy.

Post reply on HN