Hacker News Reader

Comment by yucky | Hacker News Reader

>on the basis of religious ideology

Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally.

Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown tremendously in the last 50 years, so "the science" no longer views a 32 week old fetus as a parasite to be freely disposed of, and one doesn't need to be religious to see doing so as morally bad.

So then you're left with the logical problem of where to draw the line - 8 weeks? 24 weeks? 39 weeks? And that isn't something the Constitution covers, therefore it needs to be left to the states. Removing emotion from it, it was logically correct.

View on HN

> Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers.

Then I would ask that you trust people to read a whole sentence.

> States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas.

Have you read the GOP platform for Texas?

The Texas GOP has nothing to do with this Supreme Court decision though. Nobody disputes that religious people tend to be against abortion, but a lot of non-religious people are as well, just from a logical standpoint.

There is no scientific basis to support the idea that a 38 week old fetus isn't viable or that it somehow only gains sentience once it passes through the birth canal. So then you have to draw a line somewhere, a line which will likely change over time as medical advancements occur - and so that is a matter for legislatures to handle.

There just isn't a constitutional basis for Roe, and all defenses of it are based on emotion not logic.

The Supreme Court's draft decision is all about states like Texas. I'm talking about the consequences which are to follow from their projected ruling.

The question I pose is whether an individual ought be able to seek medical services which are mainstream across the west in consultation with their doctor. In accordance with the projected SCOTUS ruling, the answer for states like Texas is <no>. And the debate will not be along the lines of mainstream medical empiricism.

As a democratic plurality, we ought demand that such state medical decisions be anchored on secular & empirical reasoning which groups from various religious backgrounds can understand, but this will not happen in states like Texas. What we do see in Texas is movement further away from the mainstream medical consensus and ethical standards of our western peers.

As for a constitutional basis for the right to privacy, I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I do not pretend to be fluent with constitutional law, especially not enough to denigrate arguments as being emotional and illogical on the merits of the law. If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials.

I am also not a medical professional. That is why I rely on my doctor to consult with professional bodies of science and medicine to deploy treatment in accordance with mainstream practice.

> If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials.

We can both save time by reading the draft opinion, which was created by the foremost Constitutional experts in the world.

In it, you'll see relying on a 50 year old decision that was loosely predicated on an unrelated right to dictate national abortion laws, is outmoded. Privacy doesn't cover the sentience of a 39 week old fetus for instance..

I actually think most people are in agreement on the issue, they just don't realize it. A tiny percentage of people support no regulations at all on abortion (ie even an elective abortion at 39 weeks with no medical necessity would be legal), and an equally tiny percentage on the other side who would even be against Plan B or abortions in the first few weeks. The problem though is then that means you have to draw a line somewhere on non-medically necessary abortions (8 weeks? 24 weeks? Something else) and that isn't something that the Roe decision is able to address, so we have to look to legislatures (state and Congress) to do their jobs.

From the beginning I have only been talking about how states will conduct themselves, and I have never pretended to have fluency in constitutional law. I follow Supreme Court opinions for the issues I care about, but that does not translate into an arrogance of denigrating the arguments of others as emotional and illogical. In accordance with that, I do not speak on whether SCOTUS is right or wrong.

You talk about "reading" things, but this is my original post:

> States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas.

> This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.

> Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.

I have talked only on the consequences which are to follow in states like TX and how state medical policy ought be conducted — in accordance with mainstream medical practice as developed by national and western consensus among professional medical and scientific bodies. This is precisely the sort of state-level debate that you allege to support, and yet are completely ignoring.

>This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.

This isn't the consensus though. For instance, at 39 weeks very few people consider the baby irrelevant in the "private decision between mom and doctor" any more than they would that of a 1 week old baby. By that point in the pregnancy, the baby has to be considered. It is no longer just the mother and doctor. If you think it is, then what magically happens in the birth canal to convey sentience?

Are we pretending there is no difference in a 3 week old zygote and a 39 week old fully viable child that has yet to exit the birth canal? Now do you see the issue? At some point, there are more than 2 beings (mom and doctor) involved in and affected by the decision..

Of course it didn't spell out religious ideology, just as people claim the civil war wasn't about slavery. If you can cloak your argument in neutral language, it's easier to dismiss the views of the opposition and not be branded a zealot.

So where should the line be drawn? Should abortions at 39 weeks be legal? If not, what restrictions should be placed on them?

The line drawn is the government should not be involved in medical decisions between doctor and patient. Women don't endure pregnancy for almost 9 months and then decide to have an abortion a week short of birth on a whim. Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. If people are personally against abortion, don't have one, but don't force your views on others when you have no idea of the personal and painful decisions that others have to make.

>Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother.

Then there should be no problem regulating that to ensure they are only performed that late due to those defined medical problems with the fetus, or if the life of the mother is in danger, right? I think most people would agree with that.

Doctors are well trained to evaluate what is needed for their patients, no need to get government involved in private personal medical procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

We definitely need to regulate it.

Regulation is another red herring. People who are against abortion are not interested in regulating doctors, they are for 100% outright bans on any form of the procedure.

We know that's false though, just through polling. The majority of Americans support abortion with restrictions. Very few people support non-medically necessary abortions at 39 weeks for instance. So to prevent that, you need regulations to draw the line somewhere, wherever that line is being up for debate.

The medical professions are already pretty well regulated in all countries. The other reply re Dr Gosnell is an obvious inflammatory distraction, and existing regulation should already apply. It does not make a logical case for new regulation, it is mere shock value and attempt to start an argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com