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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#551

Post by menomatter »

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'm undecided on abortion when it's not early (X weeks) and/or for medical reasons. As for the rights: Do we have the right to not carry another humanbeing even if it meant their "death"?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#552

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

gonehome wrote: post #516
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…

While I personally have strong pro-choice views I think this was correctly decided for the reasons you state. Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagreement among the public and at its core exists a genuine moral question. Most partisans talk past each other, but the core of it is about the rights of the unborn and at which point that becomes relevant. It's different because of this from gay rights and contra…

Excellent post and well reasoned. I agree that the root of the issue here is one that will never have a definite answer.

Germany has roughly the same laws as Denmark, and now after this decision many states will continue to have the same abortion laws they have had for the last 50 years, many will have on par with Europe, and some will outright ban.

There is no making everyone happy, but 50 options that are easier to change seem like a compromise to a binary split that will always be under attack.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#553

Post by klyrs »

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 sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority.

No, not this "democracy." The supermajority of supreme court justices were mostly seated by presidents who lost the popular vote. This ruling is incredibly unpopular among citizens of the US, but the court is also pro-gerrymandering, so the unpopularity is unlikely to have any real impact on elections. The country is rapidly hurtling towards religious authoritarianism, and the checks and balances to prevent that have largely been dismantled.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#554

Post by saghm »

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…

> States rights has always been a double edged sword. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized before national concensus; also now lead to abortion legislation being a state issue.

Except when the same court in the same week strikes down a state law that makes it marginally more effort to carry a concealed weapon in public.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#555

Post by the_lonely_road »

mattnewton wrote: post #457
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…

Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…

Are they having sex at the border of Texas? They should probably be arrested for that. Your assertion is obviously ridiculous, traveling gay men will not be arrested simply for being gay. It’s the young gay men trapped in the state we should be concerned about. It’s really not just as easy as moving to whatever you state has the laws you like as most of us are trapped by the locality where our support networks are.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#557

Post by mercutio2 »

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…

A fetus clearly is a collection of human cells. It is an example of living Homo sapiens.

The question abortion ethicists ask is whether a fetus or embryo is a person.

If, in fact, all embryos are persons, then the logical ethical reasoning would be that taking steps to minimize miscarriages should be one of our highest priorities. This doesn’t appear to match most people’s moral intuitions, however.

It is not obvious that a newborn baby is a person, either. But defining a being as receiving the rights of a person at birth is a schelling point that many people are more comfortable with than spots earlier or later in development.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#558

Post by analog31 »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

The amendment is at best quasi-democratic, since amendments that would have broad public support are almost prohibitively difficult to carry out, and requires the cooperation of states that are themselves quasi-democratic.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#559

Post by dukeofdoom »

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…

There are non religious, anti abortion arguments. I've read some version of these before. They have shifted public opinion I believe more than religious arguments. I've read some version of these before, but there are probably others I'm skipping.

To summarize:

- We need those babies to offset huge demographic changes in the US population. Not enough babies are being born to offset the aging population.

- Women having abortions earlier in life, and having babies later, is negatively affecting the health of the next generation. Autism, Downs and other diseases are all linked to the age of the mother.

- Abortion advocates do themselves no favours by advocating for abortion almost up to the moment of brith. Its about public opinion, and the opinion on when a baby becomes viable has shift due to science. Babies can survive outside the womb much earlier.

-Abortion takes out about 600,000+ babies per year in the US. About 40% of all US abortions are from African American communities. Whether you think this is good or bad, depends if you view abortion to be a good or bad thing. A lot of racists eugenists are hating this decision. So they're not happy with this either. So abortion can be viewed as racist policy because its end effect is killing so many black babies.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#560

Post by rory »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #400

Sorry but the USA is mental. Why have a unelected supreme court making political decisions?

Agreed, the legislative branch should push through a right to abortion matching the European standard (12-14wks). If our politicians were less cynical and self-serving, this would have already happened in redundancy to Roe.
Post reply on HN