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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#191

Post by ceilingcorner »

kryogen1c wrote: post #132

What a disappointing showing from HN. 120 comments and so little substantive discussion or truth-searching. Everyone rushing to share their feelings and no one trying listen. I have thoughts I'd like to discuss, but apparently this isn't the place to do it.

Yes frankly this website is not capable of entertaining certain contrarian ideas. Which of course are only contrarian in the narrow societal bubbles they occupy.

I blame the downvote mechanism for rewarding echo chambers and punishing outlier opinions.

/Shrug.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#192

Post by monocasa »

usrn wrote: post #6

This doesn't ban abortion, it leaves it up to the states. IMO that's the best since people simply aren't going to agree on it. EDIT: Abortion is not in the Constitution in any way, it's not a right.

It leaves it up to the states now because there is no meaningful federal code on the matter. The underpinnings of the decision allow for a federal ban since it's just saying that there's no inherent constitutional protection.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#193

Post by bambax »

blinkingled wrote: post #151

Biggest thing to me is the message this sends - that there is no settled law really - I think the notion that nothing is legally set in stone and change is only a relatively easy matter of installing supreme court justices siding with your beliefs - that's gotta have some chilling consequences down the line for the country as a whole. Greater progress requires building upon smaller progress, a settled foundation. If…

Yes, I think that's true. The Justices should stop imvoking the constitution in long legal ramblings and just say: "Our predecessors thought one way. We're different people and we think another way. Also, if you don't like it you can fuck off."

It would be so much more honest.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#194

Post by 0xfeba »

voisin wrote: post #147
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.

Well, poor people are less likely to be able to travel to get abortions where it's legal. So higher infant mortality, higher maternal mortality, and more kids in the foster system, putting a strain on a likely already small (because red state) budget.

But otherwise, I agree, this will just further the red states' economic bankruptcy.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#196

Post by RHSeeger »

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…

> Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention

That is misrepresenting the argument. There's a lot of people that believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. And killing another human being is, most definitely, on the list of "bad things" for every flavor of Christianity. For a lot of them, killing one human being (not in self defense) to save another is still on that list; because only God is allowed to end life.

You may not agree that an unborn child is a human life, but the people that are against abortion for actual Catholic religious reasons do believe it. And do believe it is against their religion, and against any reasonable set of morals.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#197

Post by lesstyzing »

fhkatari wrote: post #59

I work for a company, headquartered in the Mid West, that has been very public in their support of LGBTQ rights, among other things. Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights? Will tech companies continue to flock to Texas, in what will become a very difficult environment for abortion?

While I am pro-legalised abortion I think this is a separate kind of issue to LGBT rights, racial equality etc. LGBT rights/racial equality is about treating everybody equally. Almost no 'good' people are opposed to those things. There are plenty of good people who literally believe abortion is the murder of a baby. I disagree but I don't agree that it's an unreasonable opinion. Given that, I think companies taking a stance on it would cause a lot more division than when they take a stance on more clear cut social issues.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#200

Post by enragedcacti »

areoform wrote: post #120

Scientists have shirked their responsibility around abortion. The vacuum and silence around this topic helped push towards this day. The "viability" debate, or the re-branded "when does this ball of cells become a person" debate, has been monopolized by philosophers and religious people. And as a result many women will die due to botched abortions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerri_Santoro or the inability to get on…

None of this matters because the majority (probably overwhelming majority) of pro-life people also don't believe settled science like evolution or that the earth is more than 6000 years old. If we can't reach consensus on those things, how is telling someone that believes a zygote has a human soul that its okay because it isn't conscious?

Keep in mind that the protections provided by Roe and PP v. Casey only extended to 24 weeks. If scientists gave an answer to the question anywhere past 24 weeks then I don't see how it would move the debate even the tiniest smidge.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210820111042.h...

https://www.illuminateourworld.org/single-post/40-percent-of...

Post reply on HN