Hacker News Reader

Comment by jquery | Hacker News Reader

“Tyranny of the minority” is even worse and that’s what we are seeing now. This Court isn’t upholding minority rights against the State, it’s doing the reverse, taking away rights from minorities (poor women without easy access to travel to another state if necessary).

We have six jurists with an extremist legal view called “originalism” which is “let’s imagine I’m a white male in 1800, what would I think about X”. The first Supreme Court decision to mention originalism was in 1994, when Scalia dissented because he thought juveniles should be executed.

View on HN

There are people who would dispute whether there's a helpless minority whose rights are being protected by this Court's decision. You can disagree on the resolution, but don't handwave away the almost unique conflict of rights abortion presents between the bodily autonomy of the mother and the right to life of the child. You'll convince nobody by proceeding so dishonestly.

I'm not about to dignify such an obvious bad-faith argument as is represented by your parody of originalism.

So what you are saying is that there is a huge gray area between a clump of cells and a child being born? Maybe even that pregnancy starts out nearly 100% a bodily autonomy issue and culminates in the life of a child?

Sounds like a good argument against allowing late term abortions, and a good argument against banning them outright.

That's a possible view, though not my own. I personally think it is going to remain contentious until, technologically, we can remove the conflict of rights by allowing the child to come to term outside the mother's body. It would be hard to support a right to kill the child when it could mature with no additional inconvenience to the mother.

My wife had a successful, “uncomplicated” pregnancy and has permanent lifelong physical and mental damage from it. Not that this is anyone’s business, but apparently I have to share this private information because of all the extreme ignorance out there.

It’s hard to believe there is such ignorance out there that pregnancy isn’t even considered an inconvenience by some men, let alone a life threatening event. If I can object to my corpse being used for organ donation to save lives, a woman should be able to object to her organs being used to support the extreme demands of a growing fetus. But now we are in the odd situation of corpses having more bodily autonomy rights than women.

I think I have not made my explanation clear to you, because what you have written, and should not have felt compelled to write, supports what I'm saying. I'm saying that abortion will cease to be an issue when we can, technologically, end the pregnancy without terminating the unborn life, avoiding exactly the situation you describe. I'm very sorry that your wife had to experience what she did.

You see a woman as an incubator of a "child" that has a right to life. This is biologically wrong and the fact that so many people share this view is an indictment of America's failed education system.

Even serious pro-choice scholars concede that a fetus is biologically a human life e.g., Peter Singer. If your argument is that a child is definitional not unborn then that is a semantic argument of no moral relevance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com