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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#971

Post by bmitc »

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…

> Getting rid of roe v wade kicks the issues to legislatures.

The problem with this sentiment is that the issue was kicked to the legislatures decades ago. Congress has had decades to take care of this, and they haven't. So now all of the sudden it's a whole "but the Supreme Court overstepped". Well yea, because Congress refused and still refuses to do their damn job. It's easy: pass a law that gives people their appropriate rights and move on.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#972

Post by dbsmith83 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #848
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…

If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed. They do [0]. We haven't. 'Own the libs, fuck the deplorables', no compromise. I'm tired of this false equivalence. Let's not forget that each of the recently appointed justices that voted down Roe V Wade lied to congress before they were approved for the supreme court, say…

You actually believe that the right lies, but the left generally acts in good faith? That's...cute. Your lifetime must not be very long. Both parties are full of dishonest slimeballs. If you only see one side of it, you are being tricked

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#974

Post by SergeAx »

Okay, I have a prediction.

According to polls, the end of democratic majority in Congress was almost inevitable. Now, democrats will put a federal abortion law on their banner. The elections is due this November, the timing is just right.

Thus, they will persuade non-partisan voters to vote for them. They will strengthen their majority in Congress and will have a 60/40 majority in Senate, which gives them an ability to overthrow a filibuster[1].

Then the world is their playground. Electoral laws, gun control laws - you name it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#975

Post by rich_sasha »

jsmith45 wrote: post #830
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…

My view has always been that it does not even matter if the fetus has full rights. People do not have the right to physically attach themselves to another person, and leach blood, oxygen, nutrients, etc off the other person. Period. Fetuses would not be an exception. This is not a rights balancing issue. A woman has the complete and absolute right to stop another person from parasitically draining her of resources. I…

So suppose some adult decides to subvert your resources. Dun i, moves into your farm and starts collecting your crops. You have a right tk get rid of them, but only up to a point. In most countries for example you can't shoot them for trespass and theft (self defense might be different and US might be different too). You can call the police, have them removed and claim damages. But say the person cannot pay them, you cannot enslave then and force them to fix what they damaged.

So in other words, we value the right to life and freedom so much that even when someone is abusing our rights, we can't take justice into our own hands, and have to put up with the damage.

In addition, I'd imagine many abortions happen to women in relationships with pregnancies stemming from consentual sex. So I'm not sure if your analogy stretches that far. Other cases are, I agree, more complicated, and I'm not arguing about such circumstances.

I guess again it comes down to "fetus rights".

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#976

Post by scotty79 »

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…

> But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt.

Isn't it the whole purpose of its existence?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#977

Post by [deleted] »

shagmin wrote: post #162
luckystarr wrote: post #58

The mid 2030s and 2040s will be the years of crime. That's when all the unwanted kids will "grow up" without affection.

For anyone interested, the book Freakonomics had a chapter devoted to studying this as a factor that lead crime to drop from its peak in the early 90s US, approximately 20 years after Roe v Wade. Kind of a provocative study and you could make a similar case for leaded gasoline and other factors but nevertheless interesting.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#978

Post by luckystarr »

jimbob45 wrote: post #148
luckystarr wrote: post #58

The mid 2030s and 2040s will be the years of crime. That's when all the unwanted kids will "grow up" without affection.

The study you’re speaking of (abortion lowering crime rates by preventing unwanted children from terrorizing the streets) remains unproven at best, despite oft being cited as settled research[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...

Thank you. We'll figure it out in 20 years time if no federal law will be instated. The data from pro/contra abortion states can then be correlated with the crime differential in those states. Through that I guess it can then either be shown plausible or implausible. We'll see.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#979

Post by jquery »

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 Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt.

Hard disagree here. The Supreme Court acting as a vehicle for rights the majority of the population thinks should be enshrined, but can’t due to Senate dysfunction, is what is preventing the USA from sliding into another civil war. The Constitution is an extremely buggy first draft and originalism is a sick joke. Abortion isn’t in the Constition? Of course not, it was written by men in the 1700s. Judicial review isn’t in the Constitution either.

Post reply on HN