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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#771

Post by jamie_ca »

achenet wrote: post #587
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…

Change to proportional representatin or runoff elections. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Canadian here, I also would like to see multi-member districts of any variety rather than the status quo.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#772

Post by snarf21 »

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,…

Like most things, follow the money. How do you get people to care about the same sermon on the same verse year after year? Want to get people involved with their time and money? You just have to convince them of whatever evils they already believe. Be their echo chamber, talk about all the people who are trying to do such terrible things. Be a fear-monger. The same thing that works for Fox News and CNN also works in a church. Get them addicted to the rhetoric and watch the money flow in. Look at people like Joel Osteen who only care about money.

I grew up going to church multiple times per week. Today's church is a cult and it is a cult about hate. I learned in Sunday School that God is love and that we should help each other. Today the message is righteous indignation. They don't believe in the Bible or follow Jesus' teachings but they are very very adamant that the "sinners" must be converted to their way of thinking. It is nothing but hypocrisy and if pointed out, Christians have decided that they and they alone have the right to decide what parts of the Bible matter and what doesn't.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#774

Post by raincom »

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,…

"There shouldn't be intermediaries between God and human beings"--is a Protestant doctrine. This doctrine has gone secular: separation of church and state. In other words, protestant Christian ideas have become the foundation of many modern political theories.

For a Catholic, the Catholic Church is the intermediary between him/her and God.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#775

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

dogman144 wrote: post #227

All those red states that courted tech employees the last two years are about to get a challenging political period from that new donor base. Alabama has Huntsville, Texas has Austin, TN has chatt and Nashville, NC has Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham, Florida has Miami/Tampa, AZ has Phoenix, CO has Denver (CO isn’t super red but it’s somewhere). This will get more interested and remote workers go deeper into small towns…

A large part of why the right has disproportionate political power is because left-leaning folks tend to cluster together geographically and dilute their votes. Now that they're beginning to spread out, this may change a bit.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#776

Post by seydor »

mikewarot wrote: post #764

I almost lost my wife due to the Catholic Hospital's policy against D&C procedures. Had the OBGYN not put his career on the line, and over-riding the prohibition on the procedure, she would have died. Now that same hurdle can become risking prison. A few years later, we were blessed with a child who is doing well. I would have neither if not for Roe v. Wade. This isn't about abortion, it's about denying healthcare!

i m very happy for you but this is about abortion, a right that every civilized person should enjoy. i m not even american but this is bad

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#777

Post by noelsusman »

InTheArena wrote: post #188

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…

RBG had her criticisms of Roe, but a quick reading of her critiques would clearly show she would be with the dissent today, not the majority.

Reproductive rights are essential to women's liberty and equality, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The unborn child has a competing right to life that is also guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Roe/Casey balanced these competing interests well, and today's decision blows that up and eliminates any notion of reproductive rights for women.

Rights are not supposed to be subject to the whims of political majorities.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#778

Post by brigandish »

mherdeg wrote: post #683
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. About 5,000 people die in the US annually while waitlisted for a kidney transplant; they are deemed medically eligible and a donation would give them more quality adjusted life years, but there is not a willing donor available. Consider, pairwise, the rights of two particular people: a person on the waitlist who will di…

I heard this argument a couple of years ago via Youtube video and I liked its novelty (instead of having sides talk past each other it's gladdening to see some thought put into things).

That being said, for me, it fails on the responsibility front. The healthy person did not cause the sickness, is not the sick one's parent and did not in any way "give" life, so to speak. If we reimagine the sick neighbour's predicament so that her husband and child both need a new kidney and the healthy neighbour convinces her to give them up because the he has a special room in his house where she can convalesce and regrow her kidneys. Should the healthy neighbour now be allowed to withdraw the offer after the sick neighbour had donated both kidneys?

That kind of situation seems to align with some of the factors at play a bit better.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#779

Post by wilsonnb3 »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #101
YPPH wrote: post #23

As an Australian, a few things about the SCOTUS absolutely shock me, aside from the obvious issue of politicisation. I've only skimmed the judgment, but Roberts CJ convincingly points out that there was no need for the court to completely overturn Roe. It would suffice to jettison the viability standard. Going further was completely unnecessary to decide the case. On the other hand, Thomas J took the occasion, withou…

Roe stood for years because the decision directly tied it to the right to privacy (via the 9th and 14th amendments), because that right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy". The Supreme Court reverses itself in this Dobbs decision; skimming the final decision, it attempts to tear down the original justification, but I'm not seeing an argument beyond "we think they were…

> "we think they were wrong", which is a pretty awful rationale for the Supreme Court.

What exactly are you looking for that would count as a rationale that doesn't boil down to "we think they were wrong"?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#780

Post by dang »

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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31864204.
Post reply on HN