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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#511

Post by the_solenoid »

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…

I thought we have inalienable rights, and the constitution is there to carve out where we DONT have them.

http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-r...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#512

Post by wollsmoth »

screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

I do hope that this will motivate us to get some amendments passed to codify some of the rights that we've gained from court rulings. I hope this turns into blowback against the Republicans but I think there's a long road. I guess people just don't believe things will get "that bad" and now we'll see.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#513

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

kdtsh wrote: post #426
screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

> I'll be the begrudging devils advocate There are plenty of devils out there, they can advocate for themselves. This ruling can be as technically correct as anyone likes, but it is disastrous in every conceivable way. All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Edit: there are a lot of people who are clearly very c…

He that knows only his side of the case, doesn't even know that. -John Stewart Mill

If you can’t steelman any topic, you don’t understand the topic.

I don’t pick begrudge Republicans that actually believe and really feel the abortion has been terminating a human life unfairly.

I’m more begrudge Democrats that refuse to understand this is a nonfalsifiable issue. That we will never understand truly the point of which a thing becomes a human.

There will never be agreement. You need understand and accept that.

So given the choice between federally legal and federally illegal, where there will always be conflict, you could do worse than 50 state rules.

For all the rage that “some number of weeks abortion bans” in the certain state received, that is Germany’s every day. They have a 12 week ban with mandatory counseling. I have difficulty understanding how the same pitched here would get red eyed outrage from most Pro-Choice but Germans seem to be getting along.

I don’t think the issue is abortion, I think it’s just like everything else hyper-polarization.

I think it’s absolutely stupid that if I see you still wearing a mask in a store, that I can pretty much determine your views on abortion. We’re being played.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#514

Post by ryanbrunner »

screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#515

Post by unethical_ban »

screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

FIRST: If SCOTUS should stay out of big, divisive cultural decisions, then they should do it point-forward and not by hopping right back in the fray.

SECOND: Abortion is seen as a fundamental right for womens' health, and there are many documented reasons for getting abortion that are not merely "convenience". There are things which should not be prohibited by the democratic process, since they are human rights.

THIRD: There is no scientific basis for restricting abortion; I would place a large bet that more than 95% of people who are against abortion rights base their opinion on faith-based teachings.

FOURTH: We need to abolish the two party system via *ballot reform* and move to Ranked-Choice or approval voting. This will weaken the two parties, allow citizens to vote /for/ someone rather than against, and will be a more accurate gauge of popular sentiment.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#516

Post by gonehome »

screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

While I personally have strong pro-choice views I think this was correctly decided for the reasons you state.

Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagreement among the public and at its core exists a genuine moral question. Most partisans talk past each other, but the core of it is about the rights of the unborn and at which point that becomes relevant.

It's different because of this from gay rights and contraception which don't have this other element in question (for contraception specifically those against abortion because of rights of the fetus should be in favor of easier access). It's also why European laws around this are more strict, Denmark allows abortion without cause up to 12 weeks and with cause after.[0]

It's better for these questions to be decided by states and democratic process than SCOTUS - the latter which we've seen cause extreme polarization. If you hold the view that the fetus at some point is a life with rights than the political activism here is consistent. Where this occurs I think is a legitimate question (big difference between zygote and day before birth).

There is a lot of bad faith, sloppy reasoning, and motivated reasoning arguing here from partisans across the board.

There are also real tradeoffs and young women will be the most harmed in states with bans because they have the least autonomy, but I can at least understand the strongest arguments from the other side [1]. Something like the laws in Denmark being passed at the congressional level is probably the desirable compromise outcome. At the moment at least SCOTUS thinks states cannot ban the ability to travel to a different state for abortions, the ability to exit is important.

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

[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/s/3ELrPerFTSo75WnrH/p/PeSzc9JTBxha...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#517

Post by ausbah »

rich_sasha wrote: post #484

I'm asking in good faith, and ask for answers in the same: in a pro-choice framework, why do in-womb Homo Sapiens Sapiens have no rights to be considered, vis a vis the rights of the mother? In this context, I'm not implying that an unborn human's rights override those of its mother, nor imply what the right balance should be (50:50? 20:80? 80:20?). But pro-choice arguments tend to assume that the in-womb human has n…

>I'd argue that where welfare of two beings is affected, you need to consider the rights of both.

if you consider the welfare of the whole population then, you'd be ok if we took some people without asking and "donated" all their organs and other useful body parts to those who could use them

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#518

Post by snoopy_telex »

vitruvian_man wrote: post #341
InTheArena wrote: post #188

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…

While I'm a strong supporter of abortion rights, I agree with this logic. If anything, this will force conservatives to solidify and clarify their views on abortion which will allow voters to decide where they land on the spectrum of abortion rights. Whereas before, conservatives just deferred to "abortion bad. look at supreme court decision". Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights?…

> Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights? Thus, this could force conservatives to move center on the abortion spectrum in order to appease their constituents.

13 states have trigger laws going into effect with this. It’s not going to move the needle at all. The red states will ban it. Blue won’t. And it’ll still be a hot button topic in the reversed states. Red candidates in blue states will want to outlaw it. Blue candidates in red states will want to allow it.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#519

Post by cryptonector »

InTheArena wrote: post #188

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…

Yes. In fact, this ruling might well lead to an end of Republican majorities in red States, and to multi-decadal Democrat rule. Certainly that is likely if: a) public opinion is strongly in favor of some legal abortion, and b) Republicans ignore that and move to ban all abortions.

In 1992 Republicans ran on abortion and lost badly. In 1994 they ran on everything-but-abortion and won big. So there is precedent for them to lose badly if they overplay their hand now.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#520

Post by rich_sasha »

uniqueuid wrote: post #504
rich_sasha wrote: post #484

I'm asking in good faith, and ask for answers in the same: in a pro-choice framework, why do in-womb Homo Sapiens Sapiens have no rights to be considered, vis a vis the rights of the mother? In this context, I'm not implying that an unborn human's rights override those of its mother, nor imply what the right balance should be (50:50? 20:80? 80:20?). But pro-choice arguments tend to assume that the in-womb human has n…

Why should you first put on your own oxygen mask on a plane in the event of decompressing, before helping others? Because the damage is much greater otherwise. A child brought into this world under duress, to an unprepared mother and/or unprepared parents will have all the odds against him/her. There's a greater risk of dying. Of poverty. Of sickness. Of crime. It's not that the unborn has no rights. It's rather that…

Right, but in living/walking humans, we tend to prioritise right to live over many other rights. We don't euthanise children in adverse material conditions, for example. These get, or most people agree should get, state help, foster parenting and so on. "Let's euthanise the child" is not on any menu of interventions.
Post reply on HN