Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#701

Post by Der_Einzige » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

standardUser wrote: post #582

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 court's view on the 2nd amendment is so wildly, outrageously out of line with the Founder's intentions, and the actual text of the law, that any hope of "restraint towards political activism" is beyond futile.

At the time of the founders private ownership of cannons was legal, which was the most powerful weapon at the time.

Framers likely would have claimed that private citizens should be able to own working tanks (gun and all). They believed in a monopoly of violence solely predicated on the ability to muster an army, not on bans of certain types of weapons.

But maybe we shouldn't give a fk about framers intent. That's where the real debate should be on...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#702

Post by bilekas » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

Its somewhat hypocritical that the supreme court takes away an inherit right. That was part of the constitution. It was a demonstration of right to privacy concerning your own body. And they take it away and call it conservative.

You really couldn't make this up.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#703

Post by fulvioterzapi » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

To be honest I am pretty fine with it. For a few reasons:

1) Abortion (in my opinion) should not be a constitutional right. I can't name a country that has abortion as a constitutional right. More generally: the constitution should care about super-general, universally-agreed values, let's leave everything else to the legislative branch!

2) Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. Before you downvote me, read the 14th Amendment: how the judges could infer from it at the time a right to abortion is beyond me! I can squint my eyes a lot, but the right is simply not there!

Edit: downvoters, go read the 14th Amendment, and tell me if you can honestly read a right to abortion in there.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#704

Post by starkd » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #647

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,…

The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-cho…

There was a time when the democrat party stood for abortions being "legal safe and rare". None other than Bill Clinton said this. Perhaps this decision will now allow state legislatures to pick a reasonable time limit. This does not have to be a wedge issue.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#705

Post by MrMan » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

wollsmoth wrote: post #512

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.

people are very disorganized and afraid and bombarded by social media and news media that distorts reality. no one thinks they can do anything and the only people who act in an organized way tend to be antisocial types who just want to take things and control others for their benefit.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#706

Post by Jason_Protell » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #688

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…

Now, which is more important life or liberty and property of owner of the host body in pregnancy. And if life is is more important should we force organ transplants? After all at least there is lot of spare kidneys around... Maybe half a lung is also workable.

This is a separate conversation, but I believe organ donation should be an opt-out system.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#707

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

Der_Einzige wrote: post #641

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…

History will NOT have a dim view of the left. Thomas Paine, an example of a radical leftists in his own time by the standards of his day, is extremely well regarded today despite dying in relative obscurity and relative poverty. It's the radical right wing that history will take a dim view on. The left can be secure in their control of posterity.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#708

Post by screye » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

Der_Einzige wrote: post #641

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…

History will NOT have a dim view of the left. Thomas Paine, an example of a radical leftists in his own time by the standards of his day, is extremely well regarded today despite dying in relative obscurity and relative poverty. It's the radical right wing that history will take a dim view on. The left can be secure in their control of posterity.

For the most part history does have a dim view of the mainstream leftist movements (socialists and communists) from the 20th century.

I don't know much about Paine, but trends are pretty clear.

(Right-wing populists have a similarly spotty record, but that just proves my point of a dim view of both sides in this era)

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#709

Post by erikpukinskis » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

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…

An important related question is: why don’t animals have rights?

I think something special happens to humans on the journey from embryo to child. Something like an awareness of their relationship to the world, that makes death more tragic.

As an aside, I think the same transition happens in many animals and their deaths can be just as tragic, although obviously nothing in U.S. law acknowledges that.

In fetuses, I don’t know when this “relationship to the world” begins, if it has really begun in earnest in the womb, or if it even has begun in earnest as a newborn.

But the problem with law is that such things must be codified.

I know “at conception” is too early, since we destroy similar creatures by accident every day. And even a sparrow has a richer concept of their relationship to the world than an embryo.

I’ll also add that “on their first day of kindergarten” is certainly far too late. By that time many of us have a very rich self concept.

“At first breath” is a clear middle ground, easy to interpret legally. It certainly seems that the “understanding of one’s relationship to the world” is greatly enriched at that moment of birth, and quite actively thereafter. And importantly, “at first breath” happens to be a moment where the child is no longer a danger to the mother. People have a right to self defense that clearly ends for the mother at that point.

All of that said, I think it’s possible some form of person is ”murdered” in some abortions. Just like some people are “murdered” in war. But there are simply limits to what can be fairly decided through the legal system.

At some point, other forms of justice take over. For me, not trying to push this on anyone, but that’s God’s justice. Many evils are punished not by the courts but by something greater, and that’s OK with me.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#710

Post by MrMan » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

glogla wrote: post #621

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 I'm reading this comment, and many others, and I am in awe, just how utterly heartless and soulless people are on Hacker News.

HN definitely shows a vile, callous and selfish side of humanity