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

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#561

Post by rich_sasha »

menomatter wrote: post #551
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'm undecided on abortion when it's not early (X weeks) and/or for medical reasons. As for the rights: Do we have the right to not carry another humanbeing even if it meant their "death"?

We don't when the human is born. If you don't feed a newborn and it dies, it's criminal neglect.

What is the root difference?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#562

Post by teakettle42 »

ausbah wrote: post #441

saying "SCOTUS didn't ban abortion" is at best useless semantic formality and at worst plain incorrect a number of state have laws that the automatically make abortion illegal as soon as Roe was overturned, those are now enacted. furthermore, the case behind this ruling was dealing with a state law the effectively outlawed abortions, despite previous precedent ruling against it. this rule is simply enabling such beha…

It’s neither a semantic formality nor incorrect.

The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it.

I happen to think abortion should be legal.

I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution, while simultaneously arguing for severely restricting and even eliminating a specifically enumerated right to bear arms, that they’re operating in complete bad faith, and don’t really care about the constitution except when convenient.

Change needs to be secured by convincing others of its necessity, not by appealing to authority to force others to behave or believe what you think they should.

The courts have been abused as an end-run around democratic change for too long now. I’m glad to see a serious bit of legislation from the bench rolled back.

This will force people to talk to each other. To convince each other. To work together. That’s ultimately a healthier outcome, even if things are a little worse while we figure things out.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#563

Post by lesstyzing »

cmollis wrote: post #525

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,…

Why is it a surprise that the Catholic Church is against abortion? This list of religions that are ok with abolition is short. It would be quite a big thing for a catholic to turn a blind eye to and not consider when voting.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#564

Post by colinmhayes »

ecommerceguy wrote: post #532
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…

>>Now, the rural republican votes counting for more in the senate is a huge issue and threat to democracy that the US needs to figure out if it ever wants to represent the views of the people The United States is a Republic not a democracy.

Republics are democracies.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#565

Post by cryptonector »

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…

Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law. Until it wasn't. And it was rightly overturned after decades of injustice. I bet there were many in the 50s who cried about settled law. Basically, the stare decisis argument is very limited, and the best anyone can hope for is that stare decisis is time-limited. Plessy lasted 64 years, while Roe lasted 50. So stare decisis seems to mean "for a few decades", which I think is fair.

Stare decisis is neutral as to the content of court decisions. It can be used to sustain rightly and badly decided rulings for decades. And the court can ultimately overturn its past decisions rightly and wrongly. They can fail in the past, they can fail in the present, and they can fail in the future.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#566

Post by dang »

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…

I'm afraid your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please make your substantive points thoughtfully? That means without fulminating and without calling names.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#567

Post by Jonnston »

iancmceachern wrote: post #545

I'm curious to ask some pro xhoice folks, respectfully, how they reconsile the fact that they believe abortion is murder, and also at the same time are seemingly pro military, war, and pro militarization of thr police. I'm genuinely curious how those two world views can coexist in the same mind. So a soldier who kills in the name of their country, even in a conflict that we can all agree was at best morally debatable…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#568

Post by rich_sasha »

mercutio2 wrote: post #557
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…

A fetus clearly is a collection of human cells. It is an example of living Homo sapiens. The question abortion ethicists ask is whether a fetus or embryo is a person . If, in fact, all embryos are persons, then the logical ethical reasoning would be that taking steps to minimize miscarriages should be one of our highest priorities. This doesn’t appear to match most people’s moral intuitions, however. It is not obviou…

That's it. And I'm wary of intuitions, because clearly people have very different intuitions.

What's the scientific argument for or against personhood for the unborn homo sapiens?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#570

Post by altcognito »

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…

> The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority.

As you said, the Judiciary is the least democratic, the nominations came from Presidents whom were elected by a minority of voters and confirmed by the Senate, using a minority of the voting populace of the country (because, slavery essentially)

It's awful all around.

Post reply on HN