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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#921

Post by lr4444lr »

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…

Maybe because it's just unanswerable? We're not talking about the right to pierce their ears or vote. We're talking about the termination of a living organism. I am pro-choice, but an intelligent mostly pro-life friend of mine tasked me to ask the most ardent activists on their side to answer, "when does human life begin?" It's a simple question to state, and yet many on the pro choice side absolutely refuse to grapple with it. It's become a great shibboleth question to find who is beyond reasoned debate on this issue. Yes, we are male. Yes, we acknowledge their is a thorny rights issue. There's also the question of rights of the organism being aborted. And the science of what a "viable" fetus is has progressed greatly since the 1970s. This is an uncomfortable conversation to have, but no one has a right of gender to say it can't be had.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#922

Post by deeviant »

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…

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not feeling the "begrudging" nature of your statement.

> Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive, but I'll wait and see.

Your comment seems naive. It should be pretty obvious the us Supreme (Being) court is not going to show restraint towards political activism, they literally destroyed 50 years of American bodily freedom and struck up a massive victory for the gun lobby in a day.

> The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed.

American democracy doesn't represent the majority as gerrymandering has stolen the voice of our people, and guess what issue this court absolutely won't be addressing: voters rights. Because it should be absolutely clear right now that this court wants only one thing: to execute their political agenda without care or thought to the consequence of their actions. And the consequence will be dire indeed, American is already divided and this will be the final push to forever sever the left from the right, affecting creating two separate countries, not in law perhaps (yet) but certainly in spirit. In one stroke, the court has done more damage to our country than our enemies ever could.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#923

Post by dpbriggs »

bshoemaker wrote: post #870

I have grown to hate edgy comments that are like "Well actually now it is just a state's issue and Roe v Wade was poorly decided!". You're not edgy & insightful. The impact of this decision isn't just pushing pieces around a chess board. It's scared women & girls around the country, it's women dying who wouldn't have otherwise.

How exactly is discussing how this came to be some edgy and hateful thing? People want to understand and discuss the current crisis.

If you want to discuss the human impact make that comment, or frankly, you're visiting the wrong sort of forum.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#924

Post by jungturk »

permo-w wrote: post #685
mmaunder wrote: post #372

I strongly recommend reading Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s thoughts on Roe v Wade in 1992 - expressed about a year before she became a Supreme Court justice. She describes Roe as a “breathtaking” decision and as interrupting a process already underway. Her discussion starts on page 1198 in this PDF which is a rewarding read if you have the time. I’m not advocating either way - I merely hope to present Justice Ginsbergs eloqu…

this may come across as emotional, and I suspect it is, so feel free to downvote me. but that person, dead or alive, is completely non-grata to me. she is a big part to blame for allowing the court to become so heavily conservative. if she had stood down in Obama's early years, when she was asked to, it would be a 5-4 split, and a good chance that they wouldn't have had the balls to follow through with this

Roberts' concurrence did not extend to overturning Roe - he stopped at Casey.

In your hypothetical, Roe would still be the law of the land today.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#925

Post by mike00632 »

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…

Women aren't just "life support"; that is an inaccurate view as well.

When a fetus is growing it takes from the womans body. For example, a woman's bones are dissolved so they can be repurposed to to fetal skeleton. The woman is literally giving up her body. The fetus is the woman's body in a literal way. She is not a passive incubator to something like an egg that has all it needs.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#926

Post by belorn »

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…

This would then be an excellent time to introduce universal human rights. Reproduction should only occur through consent, and no one should be forced to be a parent against their will. Any action done to our own bodies or action people ask that we perform with our bodies should require continuously consent. Any negative outcome to society of people not providing consent should be address by the government in the form of social support.

It is also about time that we abolish all laws that makes distinctions based on gender and sex. That way there won't be any 2nd-class citizens encoded in law that is based on gender.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#927

Post by karpierz »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #892
bshoemaker wrote: post #870

I have grown to hate edgy comments that are like "Well actually now it is just a state's issue and Roe v Wade was poorly decided!". You're not edgy & insightful. The impact of this decision isn't just pushing pieces around a chess board. It's scared women & girls around the country, it's women dying who wouldn't have otherwise.

There was 40 years for abortion to be codified in law. Blame the legislators, not the court.

There was no need to codify it into law, as it was already law! That's the whole point of a court ruling!

Roe v. Wade determined that the Constitution itself implied abortion as a right, meaning that there already was a law on the books which protected abortion.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#928

Post by pyronik19 »

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…

Shouldn't the legal analysis of a legal opinion be the norm? Facts don't care about your feelings.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#929

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

It's simple, fetuses don't have rights. Roe was the right decision. The current SCOTUS went off the farm and are now just an extension of the RNC because of the 6-3 supermajority and recent ruling show they just do whatever the republican platform is wrapping it up in "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#930

Post by dpbriggs »

iancmceachern wrote: post #545

I'm curious to ask some pro xhoice folks, respectfully, how they reconsile the fact that they believe abortion is murder, and also at the same time are seemingly pro military, war, and pro militarization of thr police. I'm genuinely curious how those two world views can coexist in the same mind. So a soldier who kills in the name of their country, even in a conflict that we can all agree was at best morally debatable…

Are they all like that?

It's easy to want to paint with a wide brush, especially in times of crisis. One of my teachers was pro-life and anti-war. There's no need for such a conundrum.

Otherwise, frankly, they probably haven't thought about it deeply or support the military for cultural or economic factors.

Post reply on HN