Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#281

Post by gadflyinyoureye » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:36 PM UTC

vbtemp wrote: post #205

lesstyzing wrote: post #154

Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…

> ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think was this was meant to mean was: Any citizen has the right to join their local/state militia, and keep their service rifle and uniform with them at home.

The constitution the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". So who owns the right? Is it the Feds? No. Is it the States? No. It's the peoples'.

While the first part of the sentence says why should care, the explicit right is owned by the people.

What people don't often consider is that one can infer that rights might be infringed. The second amendment just says, "We can't fringe this right".

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#282

Post by manuelabeledo » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:36 PM UTC

This is a good occasion to remember that most people in the US thinks that abortion should be legal [0], thus this decision purely appeals the white evangelical minority.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#283

Post by InTheArena » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:36 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #155

The fact that the same institution (SCOTUS), reading the same text (US Constitution) could conclude that abortion is a right, then isn't, tells us much of what we need to know about said institution, text... and certainly "historicism" as well. It's all arbitrary; clever and well-read people spending a lot of time justifying and rationalizing their predjudice.

Which is why I think that making this decision should be done via a legislative branch instead, rather then unelected partisan, unaccountable, lifetime appointed judges.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#284

Post by _ph_ » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:36 PM UTC

theandrewbailey wrote: post #131

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?

> Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights? Some companies have even gone so far as paying for abortions. That's disgusting. It reveals that The Man doesn't want women's productivity to go down and would rather work them to the bone instead. Out of the kitchen and into the office? That might be a bad deal.

While I think that these kind of things shouldn't require a company to take any action in, this isn't "going so far as" in a country where medical care is basically tied to your job. If your company guarantees medical care, why is paying for an abortion anyhow different? But indeed I prefer a system of public health insurances which keep these matters independent of your employer.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#285

Post by tablespoon » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:36 PM UTC

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.

Maybe so, but apparently it's been condemned from the earliest times in Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_o....

I don't really know the Bible, but I'm guessing Jesus probably didn't spend a lot of time condemning literal murder either, so it's probably not safe to assume that means he thought preventing greed is more important than preventing murder.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#286

Post by laverya » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:36 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #210

lesstyzing wrote: post #154

Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…

> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." > I know this can be interpreted differently but to me it reads that nobody should be restricted from arming themselves. Sure was interpreted differently when black people started carrying in public! [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Which was wrong, and will ideally be overturned. "Racists supported gun control in the past, therefore we should keep gun control now" is perhaps not the strongest argument one can make.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#287

Post by mjh2539 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:36 PM UTC

onychomys wrote: post #139

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…

Sure, blame the biologists instead of the religious goofballs who think that something becomes human at the instant of gametic fusion.

I mean it's got to be something; if it's not (a) human, then what could it possibly be?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#288

Post by InTheArena » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:37 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #215

Supreme Court has shoot itself in the foot. It they can overturn their own decisions based on political schemes, then we can overturn EVERYTHING they do, including this decision itself.

One can argue that the original Roe V. Wade had exactly this problem, and this is them fixing it.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#289

Post by mythrwy » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:38 PM UTC

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.

Don't worry, we will have full pre-crime surveillance by then and you won't be able even think about farting without it being noted.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#290

Post by LocalH » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:38 PM UTC

RHSeeger wrote: post #196

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…

"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."

Horseshit, or the religious conservatives would also abolish the death penalty federally. Instead, the more Republican states tend to be the ones who wish to expand the death penalty. Look at the history of the death penalty in Texas, and who has historically been "eligible" for it.

It's all about control. These people believe America to be a "Christian" nation first and foremost. Their ultimate goal is to push America into that direction.

I believe within the lifetime of my generation's kids, we will see a push to repeal the First Amendment, at least the religious part of it. Although knowing how American Christians have historically handled freedom of speech, more than likely they'll try to gut the whole thing.