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

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#521

Post by newfonewhodis »

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 won't make ad hominem attacks here but it's clear that you're privileged enough to not be impacted by this SC decision if you:

1. Resolve to both-sideism

2. Think we need more moderates (lol)

3. Think progress is the default if you just give it enough time

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#522

Post by CuriouslyC »

notch656a wrote: post #407
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

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 de…

What's perplexing is why they don't apply this to the rest of the federal powers. Overturn Wickard v Filburn and cut it at the root. The federal government has no legitimacy to regulate intrastate trade, most gun laws, most of the civil rights act, the controlled substance act, etc. The fact that they picked abortion but not the root of anti-constitutional federal expansionism is truly baffling.

I hope to god that regulation of interstate trade gets shot down, so California and New York can tax goods from red states into oblivion. That would be a poetic response to this egregious use of "state's rights."

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#523

Post by rich_sasha »

ausbah wrote: post #517
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

erm, no, that's clearly not considering the rights of the "donors".

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#524

Post by wilsonnb3 »

katabasis wrote: post #183

If Republicans take back congress and the presidency in the next election cycles, a national abortion ban becomes a serious possibility. This is not just a "red states" issue. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/anti-abortion-movement...

A federal abortion ban (or legalization) may be unconstitutional.

Depends on how effectively they can link it to interstate commerce or one of the other powers given to the federal government in the constitution.

Also depends on how the current supreme court feels about the commerce clause. I am not sure if they have ruled on anything involving that recently.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#525

Post by cmollis »

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned, to attend a Mass. He noted that I might find it more ‘enlightening’ than I had in the past so I agreed (albeit reluctantly). What I witnessed was no less than a 45 minute diatribe on the dangers of abortion, casting various aspersions (ad hominem) on any political leader not on board with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. Frankly very little else. I hypocritically thought to myself ‘would Jesus be proud of this? Perhaps. But I certainly wasn’t. The addtional twisted irony was that the person I was with actually had an abortion. She sat quietly listening to this without seemingly the slightest bit of concern. She said that’s how all services are now.

It occurred to me that all of this must have been carefully planned at the highest levels of both the church and political/financial benefactors that support it. A long and patient process put in motion years ago. I realize This is somewhat anecdotal but speaks to perhaps the planning that culminated in todays decision. This is about power and control operating under the auspices of religion. SCOTUS are just run-of-the-mill sycophants playing along.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#526

Post by xdennis »

softcactus wrote: post #306
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…

There is no answer of "when life begins". It's a game of semantics. Like Diogenes bringing a chicken to Plato, any set of traits you can give me to define life, I can find an exception that destroys your definition. Therefore the question should be "when is it ethical to terminate a fetus". Pro-choice voters have different answers for this question. The problem is pro-life hardliners who refuse to play ball whatsoeve…

> The problem is pro-life hardliners [...]

No. Most people agree that abortion is acceptable early on (e.g. > They believe life begins at conception with no basis other than religion.

It's not religion, it's science. A new human life (complete how it looks, what gender it's assigned, etc) begins at conception. It's not a full human, but it's slowly becoming one. The question is when it's too human to terminate.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#527

Post by hatware »

mirceal wrote: post #386
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

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 de…

Cute take but I'm going to ask the question: why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Is it maybe needed for the nutjobs that do want to ban abortion to do their thing? Also, you need to ask yourself: is this about abortion? Or is it really about literally keeping the people poor, stupid and uneducated? Think about it: if you're not poor this is not an issue. If you have 5 kids instead…

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Please answer the same question, but for slavery.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#528

Post by purplerabbit »

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…

Pro choice frames the question differently. To put it in an overly reductionist way: it’s not a human, it’s a fetus.

This framing does create a problem of defining when exactly it becomes a human, which I haven’t heard a good answer to.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#529

Post by batmansmom1 »

Jason_Protell wrote: post #510

For those who say this is the logically correct decision, how exactly did you conclude that? - USA Constitution 14th Amendment Section 1 ...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro…

If you believe that life begins at conception you could say that abortion deprives that "unborn person" of their right to life, as long as carrying the fetus to term would not put the life of the mother at risk.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#530

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

underyx wrote: post #488
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…

> Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive, but I'll wait and see. > States rights has always been a double edged sword. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized before national concensus; also now lead to abortion…

Your understanding of what happened yesterday is extremely poor.

The Supreme Court did not strike down New York‘s ability to regulate open carry at all.

They struck down the states ability to withhold concealed carry permits to anyone who does not provide a sufficient reason for application.

Turns out you don’t actually need to provide a reason for civil rights.

The NYPD since being sued over this has been found guilty in corruption cases of withholding permits to people who weren’t donors, connected, celebrities, elite.

No one reasonable should think you need to prove to the NYPD why you need your rights.

“May Issue” is now dead. “Shall Issue” is still fine, and open carry laws have not changed at all.

It should be noted, that New York had at least three opportunities in court to not appeal decisions they lost, and prevent it from going to the Supreme Court. Back when this case started the state of New York had assumed that Hillary would win and going all the way up to supreme court would be fine. When they lost the second circuit, they had offered the NYRPA concessions, they were reject, and had to appeal the decision making it go to supreme court. This was ALL the state of New York’s arrogance. And now NJ, MD, HI and others are surely pissed.

As to “needs” and “rights”. Hawaii since 2016 has issued approximately four concealed carry permits to citizens. They must be renewed every year. and you cannot leave your home county with the gun. This has been an obvious violation of rights and is soon to change.

Post reply on HN