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

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#601

Post by InTheArena »

dragonwriter wrote: post #495
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…

> States rights has always been a double edged sword No, “states rights”, in the US, has only ever been invoked for state-sanctioned repression. There is no other edge. (Both sides of the tighter/looser federalism argument can be viewed as double-edged, but “states rights” has a very particular history.)

The reason you didn't have slavery in the north (and thus a north to fight the south in the civil war) was because of states' rights. California changed the environmental law of the land - because of states' rights.

It goes both ways. There is nothing intrinsically good nor bad with it. It's part of how the system is designed to operate.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#602

Post by SkyPuncher »

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…

I'm not taking a stance for or against your argument. I'm simply point out a logical gap that doesn't make this as simple as your suggesting.

The root of the issue is not the rights provided by the 14th amendment, but when, exactly, those rights apply during the process of conception, gestation, and birth. This is further complicated by the fact that scientific advances enable situations that our founders could have never predicted.

I see two facts that are very clear:

* A person cannot exist without conception.

* At some point during pregnancy, a baby can survive as an independent living human. The youngest living baby was born on day 132 of pregnancy.

Unfortunately, that leaves a massive grey area and your opinion on those is likely highly personal - including religion and living situation.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#603

Post by analog31 »

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…

An interesting aside is that when sperm were discovered, it was hypothesized that each sperm carried a complete, miniature person, a "homunculus." The person became a fully formed human life when God attached a pre-existing Soul. The Soul contained those things which separated us from the animals, such as moral and reasoning capacity if male. It was God's intervention that marked the start of life.

"Every sperm is sacred."

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#604

Post by throwaway11789 »

jetsnoc wrote: post #342

My great grandmother Julianna died in 1935 aborting herself with a coat hanger in Southern Idaho. She was born in 1915 and died in 1935. Twenty years old. I’m a fifth-generation Idahoan, my family moved to Idaho during the great Mormon exodus of Illinois. They were extremely impoverished. It was the Great Depression and in one of her letters, she writes about not even having the luxury of bone broth They were barely…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#605

Post by anigbrowl »

mattnewton wrote: post #457
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…

Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…

I think it would be wise to look beyond today's issues.

Earlier this month in Egbert v Boule, the Supreme Court said you have no right to sue a federal employee or the agency for which they they work over violations of your 4th amendment rights, as long as the agency has a complaint procedure (operated by that same agency). Yesterday in Vega v. Tekoh they decided that you don't have a cause of action against a police officer who doesn't read you your rights (although such testimony remains inadmissible).

In the months and years to co come, ultra-conservatives aim to eliminate birth control and install an overbearing theocratic government. They are not shy about saying so, nor are they a marginal fringe lacking influence. There was already one serious (albeit poorly executed) effort to interfere with the constitutional transfer of power. Conventional politics are very much over in the US.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#606

Post by vlunkr »

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…

If you look at the popular vote then this is clearly wrong in two ways. Rich land and business owners don't make up half the population. And if you're implying that most religious people vote republican, then they should be absolutely destroying the popular vote. This is just the worldview that's been sold to you by social media.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#607

Post by sophacles »

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…

How is it completely correct? The 9th amendment acknowledges that rights not enumerated in the constitution exist. It's perfectly reasonable to say that bodily autonomy is in fact one of those rights, as the concept is required for other rights to even exist.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#608

Post by InTheArena »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #559
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…

There are non religious, anti abortion arguments. I've read some version of these before. They have shifted public opinion I believe more than religious arguments. I've read some version of these before, but there are probably others I'm skipping. To summarize: - We need those babies to offset huge demographic changes in the US population. Not enough babies are being born to offset the aging population. - Women havin…

The abortion maximalist position, as well as the pro-life maximalist positions, do no one any good here. Someone in Mississippi came up with the idea of grabbing what by all appearances is a pretty mainstream European law, and applying it - and waiting for the inevitable lawsuit and overreach.

And abortion has absolutely had significant impacts on racism - but that racism pre-dates abortion.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#609

Post by theknocker »

TameAntelope wrote: post #410
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…

The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer. This isn't a codebase refactor, this is people's lives. Pulling this ruling before you have "what the people want" in place is like deleting a feature you plan on rebuilding later before you actually rebuild it. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here?

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#610

Post by [deleted] »

andsoitis wrote: post #395
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…

It is worth considering the larger shape of things. Do you imagine, if the Republicans control all three branches of government, that they would not create a federal law that bans abortions everywhere? All signals point to that, and the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is there to remove friction to get there.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN