Hacker News Reader

Comment by skhunted | Hacker News Reader

Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense.

The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their life for another. In this sense one can reasonably argue that one has a constitutional right to an abortion.

View on HN

> The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their life for another.

I guess you haven't served in the military?

Serving in the military in time of war is not the same thing as "forcing someone to risk their life for another" as I meant it. I'll be more precise.

The government does not have a right to force me to directly use my body or parts of it to save your life. Thus is the essence that some lawyers have argued and reasoned.

> The government does not have a right to force me to directly use my body or parts of it to save your life. Thus is the essence that some lawyers have argued and reasoned.

According to whom? And even if you believe that, why does that mean the constitution bakes in that belief?

I'm pro-choice but arguing the government doesn't have the right to limit medical procedures doesn't seem obvious to me.

I didn’t claim this. My claim (later clarified) is that the government doesn’t have a right to force me to use my body to save another person’s life.

You're right it doesn't but they can regulate what operations a surgeon can perform and what drugs can be prescribed which is de-facto regulating whether or not an abortion can be performed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com