111–120 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, the bounty hunter law is reprehensible, but not as much as the motivation behind it. Those with that motivation can be treated as a single group. And to be frank, I don't care if they're unhappy to be lumped together. Lie with dogs and all that.
Should every movement be painted with the same brush as the worst people in the movement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forc…
> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.
Quoted post unavailable.
There absolutely are misogynists and hypocrites among the pro-life/anti-choice movement, but not everyone in that movement is at the extreme. Those of us who want abortion to be legal nationwide must acknowledge the ethical complexity of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But opposing abortion and not caring about the consequences for women and families IS appalling.
Edit: I misread the parent quote.
Forcing a birth of a badly unwanted human being, who is going to suffer through life being badly unwanted, is a rather different thing.
And forcing a woman to keep carrying a pregnancy which is dangerous to her life (and thus to the prospective baby's life anyway) is not just indifference, it's a direct opposite of care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you oppose abortion, you're the enemy. I don't know about that; I think it is possible to oppose abortion, but not seek to do so via legal remedies. Like opposing drinking or smoking, or game microtransactions, or IoT devices.
In the context of this discussion, I think they meant “oppose access to abortion for those who want/need it”.
One can be in favor of abortions for medical necessity or when the choice to get pregnant was not consensual while still being wildly opposed to abortions for convenience reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amendment that was ratified in 1992 was proposed in the 1700s. The amendment prior to that was from 1971, over fifty years ago. We're rapidly approaching the point where we can say the constitution hasn't been updated with new ideas in generations. The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. We used to update it every decade (at least). Somet…
>The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. No, it isn't. I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights is still a pretty good set of basic rights. Would you be willing to roll the dice on throwing a random out to get a new one? That is what can easily happen when you make changing it easy enough to be done quickly. Also, why would you want to change the r…
If you believe the world of today isn't materially different from the 70s, I don't know that we're going to agree on much.
On social issues, you could be arrested for being gay. You could legally be denied housing loans based on your race. It was considered impossible to rape your spouse. I could continue this paragraph, but the point is we're fundamentally different with our understanding of humanity on a social level.
On a technological level, what we have today is unthinkable to someone in the seventies. The internet, cell phones, personal computers, autonomous vehicles and drones, machine learning, predictive policing... All these things have major impacts on our way of life.
The world has changed too. Militarily, economically, socially, religiously, politically, etc.
> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…
> The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Was this motive ever hidden? Abortion should be illegal. I hope each state passes laws criminalizing it. That has always been the goal. The ‘judicial philosophy’ crap emerged due TO roe V. wade. The decision made a mockery of the constitution. The millions upon millions of p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. It's frustrating to see the threads on HN of people talking about this as if it's only hypothetical. Like it's a change to the Linux kernel and not something that impacts thousands of people every day. I don't care about the technical mechanisms of implementation, I care about how it affects the people around me dammit.
i get your point, but a bad change to the linux kernel could impact billions of people
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.
This comment isn’t acknowledging that long-term solutions are necessary but not sufficient to make whole the continued injustice of trauma and death that will result from laws that deprive reproduce rights. It’s important to keep in mind there is a current and ongoing number of people who are dying, who have died, who are being deprived medical care (some who aren’t even pregnant!) and that an amendment to the consti…
Just waiting for that batshit bounty law (in Texas) to spread to other states. Basically, any citizen can sue anyone if they suspect aiding or abetting an abortion. There are seemingly no recourses either, for the defendant. If successful, the plaintiff can be awarded up to $10k - therefore a bounty law. So by that logic, you should be able to sue the owner of a website - as long as it is within the state, because th…
Prior to SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade, other states were preparing their own bounty laws. I believe those have since been abandoned in favor of criminalizing abortion after overturning Roe v Wade. So I don't think we're going to see dedicated bounty laws, though bounties may be built into anti-abortion laws going into criminal code.