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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#591

Post by kgwxd »

lesstyzing wrote: post #563
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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#592

Post by gobrewers14 »

batmansmom1 wrote: post #529
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.

> If you believe that life begins at conception

Someone believing life begins at conception is a reason for THEM to not get an abortion, it is not a reason for the government to outlaw it.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#593

Post by anigbrowl »

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 jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises

Suppose I come along and assault you, you defend yourself, and then someone comes along and tells you that you are as much to blame as the person who assaulted you. Are they accurate, or just squeamish?

Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity, and so contribute mightily to shifting of overton windows and ethical drift, where increasingly flawed outcomes are excused in the name of avoiding controversy. Consider the the atrocities perpetrated pursuant to the Iraq war, for which nobody but the very lowest ranks (and only a few of them) have ever been held accountable.

I respect my ideological enemies more than this panglossian excuse-making. At least those people stand for something.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#594

Post by margalabargala »

lghh wrote: post #118
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25

I'm pro-choice but I still believe that this is the right move. > “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.…

So you believe that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is better than doing the right thing for the wrong reason? That intent matters more than outcome? And that laws being structured in a way you specifically find compelling matters more than the morality of a law?

If we're speaking about what one should use as guiding principles, then it seems that if one acts for the "right" reasons, then that usually result in doing the right thing and only unusually results in doing the wrong thing.

Whereas if one acts for the "wrong" reasons, then that will only rarely result in doing the "right" thing.

One can look back at the original Roe v Wade and say "The right thing was done here, the outcome was good", but having that sort of consequentialist outlook tends to blind people to the downside of having the right things done for the wrong reasons- which is as we see here, those wrong reasons can in the future easily lead to the undoing of the right thing.

The original Roe v Wade decision meant that Congress never had to pass a law that explicitly nationally legalized abortion. If they had, the current situation wouldn't exist.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#595

Post by cryptonector »

jandrese wrote: post #476

What I find interesting is how for many many years people thought Roe would be safe because it was mostly useful as a political tool. A wedge to drive into voting blocks to make sure they stay Republican despite everything else they are doing. It was in nobody's interest to actually repeal it. What nobody expected was for decades of indoctrination to produce true believers that would actually be elected to the Suprem…

Arguably Roe distorted national politics. This ruling might now distort local politics. It's going to be interesting. We might well see a multi-decade swing to the Democrats!

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#596

Post by scythe »

noslenwerdna wrote: post #447
nus07 wrote: post #391

I fail to see what moderates can do in a two party system where gerrymandering is so heavily done that often Democrats have to win 3-1 to control any majority. At this point I see it as a fight between rich landowners+business owners+religion vs all the rest of the people . For a country where political lobbying and donations to effect legal decisions is common , I do not expect judgements to ever be fair. The battle…

Where is gerrymandering so bad that Democrats have to win 3-1? This doesn't represent the experience of the median voter.

I can't endorse his specific numerical claim, but if you look at the FiveThirtyEight projections for Georgia, a state that voted for Biden in 2020 and elected two Democratic Senators in statewide elections, also with Democrat Stacey Abrams coming within 2% of the governor's seat in 2018, you see four blue districts, one toss-up, and nine safe Republican seats:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps...

I think any reasonable person would find it unfair that a 2% difference in the popular vote (for governor, before the major Trump controversies) leads to doubling the number of Congressional seats.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#597

Post by theknocker »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #450
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]

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#599

Post by pcj-github »

softcactus wrote: post #485
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…

The HN crowd never fails to surprise me. For all of the great discussions about software on here, threads like this one reek of ignorance of civics and history. The de facto outcome of this ruling is abortion banned in red states. It's clearly partisan hackery when we have: 1. A court full of Federalist Society members 2. A court full of Catholics (staunchly pro-life) 3. Who are using the old argument of "states righ…

Agree 100%

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#600

Post by Nimitz14 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #331
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.

Exactly. Who cares about the fetus? It's not like any one of us is doing anything about the shitty stuff that people (conscious ones!) are going through right now in third world countries. So the whole "you're killing a human" angle is complete nonsense, life is not sacred and it is silly to act like it is.

The only thing that matters here is what the mother wants.

Post reply on HN