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

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#731

Post by nfw2 »

afavour wrote: post #578
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. I’m sorry but this feels entirely divorced from reality. The nature of the senate, the continued erosion of voting rights… we’re not going to see democratic traction in a system that actively opposes it.

Perhaps what they meant is that it could gain democratic traction within the states where abortions are restricted.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#732

Post by [deleted] »

bko wrote: post #647
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,…

The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-cho…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#733

Post by adammichaelc »

bko wrote: post #647
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,…

The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-cho…

I agree; I also think it's important to allow the people to decide these kinds of hot, controversial issues.

7 people shouldn't have the power to command millions of people.

It's better to persuade, discuss, debate, change hearts and minds, than to dictate top-down.

I personally believe only women should be allowed to vote on this issue. It's their bodies, and they bear the overwhelming brunt of childcare and labor associated with raising children. They take the risks. They ought to be in the driver seat.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#735

Post by zuminator »

bko wrote: post #647
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,…

The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-cho…

I disagree that there is a "point" at which a fetus becomes a person, no more than there is a point where a slowly accumulating pile of sand becomes a hill. Both hill-ness and personhood are artificial concepts that we give meaning to, and we can define them as precisely or as nebulously as we wish. Another example is adulthood. We have chosen to define it at 18 in the US, even though we all know 25 year olds who are less mature than some 16 year olds. In some cases (heinous crimes, emancipated minors) we will legally confer some aspects of adulthood to people under 18. In other cases (smoking, drinking), we will delay the privileges of adulthood. We do this because we know that a single "point" can't account for the full complexity of the transition to adulthood. And there's nothing stopping us from treating the onset of personhood as a similarly complex issue. Which is what the Roe v Wade regime did, for the most part.

"If the fetus is a life," you say, but of course it's alive, it's made of living cells. That's not even the issue really. Something being alive doesn't necessarily say anything about how we should treat it. We don't treat bacteria with respect, or mushrooms, or even most animals. So given that a fetus is alive, does that entitle it to any rights? And if so should those rights have primacy over the rights of the person who is carrying the fetus?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#736

Post by Comevius »

This will debilitate and kill and a lot of women in conservative states, and it opens the door to potentially eradicating the self-autonomy of tens of millions of non-desirable people (women, racial and ethnic minorities, sexual minorities).

Just another day of religious extremists and fascists crawling out of the woodwork, pretending to have a moral high ground. A lot of people here don't even know or care about how pregnancy works, what an embryo or a fetus is, or how extremely risky pregnancy is for humans because it evolved to be a crazy biological war.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#737

Post by jtdev »

xxEightyxx wrote: post #657
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,…

I'm not as old as you (born in the late 80's) but my family left the church (protestant) for this exact reason. There was more discussion of social/political issues than of scripture. To be fair, I think it's OK to some extent, but the elders had made it a priority to denigrate liberal ideas and beliefs. Look up the Koch brothers. They're largely responsible for much of the chaos we see in our country today.

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#738

Post by [deleted] »

bko wrote: post #647
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,…

The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-cho…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#739

Post by portpecos »

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 Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion.

Which means that New York, California, Massachusetts will retain abortion access. And Texas, Indiana, will remove abortion access.

This sounds like States rights is actually working.

But the media is distorting the overturning of Roe vs Wade with the sensational claim that “Abortion is banned in the US”.

No, it’s not banned. This just means Texas and New York have differing policies with regards to abortion access. Yes, 46 million women living in conservative states will lose access to abortion, but not all of those women are liberal quite frankly. Moreover, those states are exactly that: conservative. And the Conservative Majority of that state isn’t required to accommodate the views of the Liberal minority of that state.

Just like the Liberal Majority of California isn’t required to accommodate their Conservative Minorities.

That’s the nature of how US Democratic institutions were built.

Sounds fair to me and the Supreme Court made the correct decision by returning that authority back to the states.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#740

Post by darknavi »

fulvioterzapi wrote: post #703

To be honest I am pretty fine with it. For a few reasons: 1) Abortion (in my opinion) should not be a constitutional right. I can't name a country that has abortion as a constitutional right. More generally: the constitution should care about super-general, universally-agreed values, let's leave everything else to the legislative branch! 2) Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. Before you downvote me, read the 14th Amendme…

> More generally: the constitution should care about super-general, universally-agreed values, let's leave everything else to the legislative branch!

See: The 2nd amendment.

Post reply on HN