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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#131

Post by theandrewbailey »

fhkatari wrote: post #59

I work for a company, headquartered in the Mid West, that has been very public in their support of LGBTQ rights, among other things. Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights? Will tech companies continue to flock to Texas, in what will become a very difficult environment for abortion?

> Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights?

Some companies have even gone so far as paying for abortions. That's disgusting. It reveals that The Man doesn't want women's productivity to go down and would rather work them to the bone instead. Out of the kitchen and into the office? That might be a bad deal.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#132

Post by kryogen1c »

What a disappointing showing from HN. 120 comments and so little substantive discussion or truth-searching. Everyone rushing to share their feelings and no one trying listen.

I have thoughts I'd like to discuss, but apparently this isn't the place to do it.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#133

Post by kennywinker »

ipnon wrote: post #89
lawn wrote: post #52

There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral. But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

[citation needed]

Seems to me that the arc of the moral universe is actually more of a spaghetti. While some things improve, others regress.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#134

Post by BowBun »

typeofhuman wrote: post #72
lawn wrote: post #52

There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral. But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.

I can understand this argument, however in this specific case we are forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them (or most wouldn't consider abortion), and our state does a terrible job at providing support to kids throughout their lives (healthcare, education, welfare programs are all notorious in the US) in the case where parents aren't reliable.

As a pro-choice person, I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn't going to happen.

So without the appropriate follow-through, this is actually less enlightened and hurting both parents and children more.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#135

Post by showerst »

windows2020 wrote: post #78
dimator wrote: post #62

The real question is, what kind of draconian laws will they start hatching to make abortion tourism (flying to a state where it's legal, then coming back) illegal. How do you legislate that? Are people still free to go to another state if they want? Are they getting arrested as soon as they come back? The next case they'll hear is about Mississippi v Some Nonprofit That Pays For Abortion Flights.

You don't legislate that. That's the point of states.

There are already bills introduced in four state legislatures to do that, and more are surely on the way.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#137

Post by lokar »

echelon wrote: post #60
uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

The Supreme Court positions to be elected positions. None of this is the will of the people.

No, the will of the people should be expressed as amendments to the constitution.

It is a serious flaw is the US system that issues that carry supper majority support in the public for decades have no chance of making it into the constitution.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#138

Post by rootusrootus »

pastor_bob wrote: post #54
uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

Holy sh*t. Lawrence v Texas? Literally banning gay sex on the mind of American Conservatives

I occasionally wonder just how high the prevalence of closeted homosexuals is amongst conservatives, given how strongly they seem to believe that sexual preference is a choice. The only logical conclusion is that at some point they chose.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#139

Post by onychomys »

areoform wrote: post #120

Scientists have shirked their responsibility around abortion. The vacuum and silence around this topic helped push towards this day. The "viability" debate, or the re-branded "when does this ball of cells become a person" debate, has been monopolized by philosophers and religious people. And as a result many women will die due to botched abortions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerri_Santoro or the inability to get on…

Sure, blame the biologists instead of the religious goofballs who think that something becomes human at the instant of gametic fusion.
Post reply on HN