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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#741

Post by president »

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…

> My personal opinion is that polarization has pushed both sides to be completely antagonistic towards each other.

Nobody in power is trying to put an end to it. In fact, media and institutions are trying to push the anger and divide further. I think most people realize this and this is why there are so many conspiracies out there as to why things have gotten this bad.

In my opinion, it's too late. Corruption of society of this level CANNOT be fixed. In a perfect world, everyone would chill out and realize they are fighting over what is essentially first world problems. But people have become trained to the point of abandoning reasoning, common sense, and good faith to prop up their tribes. We now have an entire generation that thinks this is all normal. It won't end well and this is exactly what our enemies wanted.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#742

Post by deathanatos »

andonisus wrote: post #663
Jason_Protell wrote: post #510

For those who say this is the logically correct decision, how exactly did you conclude that? - USA Constitution 14th Amendment Section 1 ...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro…

You do not have a right to life saving medical procedures. You do not have a right to an abortion. There is no law or constitutional amendment that grants this. This is the flaw in your reasoning. That being said, I believe women SHOULD have a right to get an abortion enshrined in law. It is up to our re-elected representatives to achieve this, not for the courts to invent rights thereof.

You might not have a right to them, but those procedures exist, and citizens would like to avail themselves of those procedures. They could even do so, except for the state's intervention: and that intervention thus deprives the citizen of "life, liberty".

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#743

Post by zht »

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…

"both sides"...

sigh...

one side is calling the other side pedophile child groomers sex trafficking children in the basement of pizza parlours....

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#744

Post by Emanation »

throwaway11789 wrote: post #604
jetsnoc wrote: post #342

My great grandmother Julianna died in 1935 aborting herself with a coat hanger in Southern Idaho. She was born in 1915 and died in 1935. Twenty years old. I’m a fifth-generation Idahoan, my family moved to Idaho during the great Mormon exodus of Illinois. They were extremely impoverished. It was the Great Depression and in one of her letters, she writes about not even having the luxury of bone broth They were barely…

Quoted post unavailable.

If you want to come across as genuine, you might want to take a stab at not taking someone's ancedote and bastardizing to fit the scope in which you want to limit the topic you want to discuss.

It makes you appear out of touch with reality and self serving, rather than trying to make any attempt to understand.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#745

Post by lamontcg »

We're going to wind up breaking up The Union one way or another in the coming years.

Time to start planning on how violently we do that or not -- to consider this unthinkable is going to be the path of more violence and not less.

To all the centrists who are trying to spin all this as nothing to get worried about -- either you're secretly perfectly happy with everything going on and you're not much of a centrist in reality, or else you're still in denial that you've lost. Political polarization is here to stay and will only get worse, and centrists equating what the right is doing now with the "far left lunacy" of universal health care share a massive chunk of the blame even though they'll never accept it.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#746

Post by Siira »

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 don’t agree with your framing. In my opinion, at some point between a baby being born and going to preschool, the child will become intelligent enough to warrant being called a real person. It’s quite probable that treating a just-born baby as a full human has its advantages, but that is certainly not biologically true. A baby is less aware than cows, and people eat cows all around.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#747

Post by noelsusman »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #602
Jason_Protell wrote: post #510

For those who say this is the logically correct decision, how exactly did you conclude that? - USA Constitution 14th Amendment Section 1 ...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro…

I'm not taking a stance for or against your argument. I'm simply point out a logical gap that doesn't make this as simple as your suggesting. The root of the issue is not the rights provided by the 14th amendment, but when, exactly, those rights apply during the process of conception, gestation, and birth. This is further complicated by the fact that scientific advances enable situations that our founders could have…

The rights provided by the 14th amendment are exactly the issue. Today's ruling does not strike a balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. It eliminates the rights of the mother.

There is a massive gray area, and Roe/Casey dealt with it just fine. Prohibiting restrictions early on in pregnancy and allowing restrictions later in pregnancy seems like a good solution to the competing interests at play.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#748

Post by wilsonnb3 »

chimprich wrote: post #728
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…

> It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. Speaking as an outsider on American politics, it seems to me that it won't be figured out democratically. If it was done democratically, on a nationwide vote, abortion would easily stay legal. What will actually happen is that the decision will be referred to states, where government is elected on sma…

As far as I am aware, every state in the US has a democratic government.

> If it was done democratically, on a nationwide vote, abortion would easily stay legal.

Direct democracy is not the only form of democracy. It has many problems.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#749

Post by adamc »

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…

No, they aren't irrelevant. The fetus is an obligate parasite. It could be a person and still not have the right to force the mother to carry it to term.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#750

Post by ncr100 »

chimprich wrote: post #728
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…

> It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. Speaking as an outsider on American politics, it seems to me that it won't be figured out democratically. If it was done democratically, on a nationwide vote, abortion would easily stay legal. What will actually happen is that the decision will be referred to states, where government is elected on sma…

Agreed.

This weakening of civil rights at the Federal level allows those Americans who are sexist to enact sexist laws where they have concentrated power within State boundaries.

Welcome to "The Divided States"

Post reply on HN