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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#331

Post by AlexandrB »

karl11 wrote: post #275

The thing about abortion that most people seem not to understand is that the debate is fundamentally about answering "when does human life start?". One side believes it starts at conception, which equates any abortion with murder. The other side believes it starts at some point after that, which makes abortion up to that point a women's health / rights issue. Irreconcilable, but also toxic when the two sides never ta…

I don't think this is the right question. The better question is one of bodily autonomy: whether someone should be compelled to keep another human being alive at the cost of their own health and safety. This avoids the whole "when does life start" debate, which has been a moving goalpost for the history of abortion related law.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#332

Post by redeux »

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…

There’s neither scientific fact nor biblical teaching to support this position though. I often see “Thou shall not murder” as a defense for antiabortion policies, but it takes an unsupported leap to call it murder to begin with. Genesis says that life begins at first breath, which is far after most societies consider abortions legal and moral.

There’s also no indication that people even used to think that life began in utero, and that anything less than a fully formed infant was alive and capable of surviving.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#333

Post by pxc »

tablespoon wrote: post #285
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…

The very same paragraphs talk about it being comparable among early Christians to such 'grave sins as contraception and sterilization'. How should this inform the relative weight of the use of condoms and murder, for contemporary Christians?

This doesn't at all support the notion that Christianity has always been concerned with abortion as a corrolary to murder, which is at the center of contemporary conservative religious discourse on the issue.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#335

Post by helloooooooo »

indymike wrote: post #185
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…

> Regarding abortion, what aspect of the constitution would cover it? The US Constitution does not contain the word abortion, and so decisions by the Court on abortion either way are only indirectly guided by applying other parts of the Constitution.

The Constitution also doesn’t say I am allowed to bear an Ak47, but apparently it’s a constitutionally protected right. You have a right to bear arms, but if you are going by the strictest interpretation, those arms should be a firearm built using 1776 technology. Fuck originality interpretation. We all know exactly what SCOTUS is going to overturn next and it is going to backslide America into a further shithole

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#336

Post by dwater »

motive wrote: post #223
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…

Regarding guns, the dissent argues that “well-regulated” and “militia” are key components of the text. The applicants for concealed carry were not part of a militia, and the current court doesn’t seem to acknowledge the “well-regulated” piece exists at all. With regard to abortion, the constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, which is closely linked to bodily autonomy. The argument being that there is constitut…

> There is an interesting ideological reversal here with regard to the recent vaccine debate with liberals arguing the government should be able to compel vaccination, and the conservatives against.

My interpretation of that ideology is that liberals want the government to protect public health by restricting personal freedom of participation in certain aspects of the public sphere by those who choose not to be vaccinated, and conservatives want to put their own personal choices above the public health by allowing them to do without restriction all the things they did before the pandemic regardless of their vaccination status. There was never serious debate about blanket compelling of vaccination.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#337

Post by LudwigNagasena »

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct.

If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be democratic.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#338

Post by toyg »

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…

Not disagreeing, but this comes from further back than a decade. It goes all the way at the very least to Gingrich, when Republicans locked on the religious vote by attacking the "immoral conduct" of Bill Clinton. It worked so well that they've made it a structural element of their strategies. You can see the traces of this even in the political allegory of clintonism that is The West Wing - this episode was filmed in year 2000: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3VHK1NXIBw

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#339

Post by dfxm12 »

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 don't think it's right to place blame totally on evangelicals and other Christians. The Republican platform is reactionary top to bottom. This is further reflected in Republican politician's votes.

What I'm saying is, this happens even without fervent support from the religious right.

This also likely isn't the final chapter, as the opinion also gives thoughts to overturning rulings related to contraception and same sex marriage.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#340

Post by helloooooooo »

mdavis6890 wrote: post #259
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…

Article the twelfth (AKA the 10th amendment) of the Bill of Rights from the US Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So the current argument might be that since the constitution does not give the federal government the power to regular abortions (or to prevent states from regulat…

And these justifications from previous decisions (Obergefell, Loving etc… ) can be overturned with the current SCOTUS’s interpretation. In-fact, in the leaked draft, these were also on the docket to be targeted by the court. In todays assent, only Obergefell is being targeted. I wonder why that is? (Cough, Clarence Thomas)
Post reply on HN