13 ms·

> I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I'd like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest menti

by voisin 4y ago

> I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I'd like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention, he was quite vocal about the fact that greed was not compatible with salvation. I'd like to see Evangelicals and other Christians being as vocal for social justice as they were for abortions and same sex marriage, but I guess they do care more about putting woman back in the kitchen as indentured servants more than they do about social justice. It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others. Nietzsche is more relevant here than Jesus.

qorrect 4y ago
What possible argument against abortion exists besides "religion" ?
emilsedgh 4y ago
What enabled this is large populations who voted republican purely for this cause due to religious reasons.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  A continually tried and tested truth is that mixing religion and politics is likely to end up in disaster. This applies everywhere across the globe.
willcipriano 4y ago
This is simply a matter of law. The justification for Roe Vs Wade doesn't hold water, it never did, it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion and not in warrantless surveillance or any other matter. It was a legal fiction.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  > it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion False.
- avs733 4y ago
  Oh not this nonsense again. If this were true than it would be easy for the current court to write an alternative opinion upholding the right as a liberty interest. They didn’t because the argument you are repeating is wrong, as well as made in bad faith to undermine obviously correct legal analysis. You are a victim of propaganda and it makes me sad.
  - dang 4y ago
    Your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully, as they request? That means without name-calling, personal attack, and flamewar—especially religious flamewar, which you've been crossing into elsewhere. For example, your second sentence here would have been fine on its own, or as the nucleus of a more thoughtful comment. The other sentences are the ones that break the guidelines. I understand that on a fraught topic like this, it can be next to impossible not to write such things. But then one should edit them out. That's what I do, or try to. Edit: it looks like your comment history contains a fair bit of ideological battle. Please make sure you're not using HN primarily for that, because that's the line at which we ban accounts (regardless of which ideology is being battled, or battled for). https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
- krapp 4y ago
  "Simply a matter of law" is a meaningless statement. All rights, including Constitutional rights and the laws which support them, are legal fictions. Roe v. Wade held water simply because the Supreme Court decided it did, until today when the Supreme Court decided it didn't.
- voisin 4y ago
  Maybe the answer is that there shouldn’t be warrantless surveillance?
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Legal trickery and wordplay like the kind used in Roe Vs. Wade is what enables it.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Here is another one that thinks laws could be written in a programming language and are simple IF_ELSE clauses
- camgunz 4y ago
  It's the 4th Amendment. Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut: > "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." If your counterargument is "the word privacy isn't in the Constitution", my rejoinder is "neither is 'assault rifle'".
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Why is this right to privacy exclusive to activities around reproduction? Where else do you enjoy this implied right of privacy? Why not quote the direct text that provides this right to privacy if it's so clear and obvious?
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      It's also part of the 9th amendment. The point is that the courts ruled that people have an implicit right to privacy within their own home. That's literally why it exists, because it was to directly counter people who take the constitution at face value as being the ONLY rights it gives.
      - pkulak 4y ago
        But I can be prohibited from doing all sorts of things in my own home.
        camgunz 4y ago
        The Court's job is to balance your right to privacy with the state's interests. Let's say you're running a meth lab: meth is very bad for people, it's hard to cook it safely and you might grievously harm others in your house or those nearby. Therefore, if law enforcement has probable cause to enter your home (e.g. they have an informant who's provided evidence), they can obtain a warrant for the express purpose of ascertaining whether or not you have a meth lab. If you don't have a meth lab but you are smoking weed (in a State where that's not legal), they can't arrest you, because that's not what the warrant is for. Hooray 4th Amendment!
- monocasa 4y ago
  It's not just abortion, there's tons of case law around the implied right to privacy in the constitution.
- helloooooooo 4y ago
  And this reasoning also applies to same sex marriage, and inter-racial marriage. And guess what? SCOTUS is now gunning for both. Congratulations America, welcome to the 1960s
jklinger410 4y ago
The voters who support the policy believe it is about the lives of unborn children.
- Miner49er 4y ago
  This isn't logical though. People will still get abortions, all this will change is who can get abortions. So it's clearly about control.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    If abortions are bad, then it's good if fewer people get them, whether or not the reduction is spread evenly across different demographics.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      If abortions are bad, why are the same people who want to ban abortions the ones who want to ban contraceptives? That would do a lot more to reduce abortions in reality than any law can.
      - Clubber 4y ago
        >If abortions are bad, why are the same people who want to ban abortions the ones who want to ban contraceptives? That would do a lot more to reduce abortions in reality than any law can. I would imagine they believe the point of sex is to conceive. Both those things prevent conception.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        I agree. They are not actually trying to reduce the number of abortions, they are taking a religious/moral position.
      - rufus_foreman 4y ago
        That's a straw man. Only 6% of Americans think birth control should be illegal, https://today.yougov.com/topics/health/articles-reports/2022/06/09/birth-control-yougov-poll-may-9-12-2022 https://today.yougov.com/topics/health/articles-reports/2022....
dorfsmay 4y ago
> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. Power and control is what organized religions have always been about.
joshstrange 4y ago
> We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others. I can promise you that this has quite a bit to do with religion. My parents both voted republican because "Billy Graham's son endorsed Trump" and before Trump they voted republican for this issue among others. I fully understand that elected republicans are just paying lip service to religion/abortion but they have their constituents completely fooled (or happy with their cognitive dissonance).
sandworm101 4y ago
>> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. The difference? Politics and religion are both about controlling the actions of people. It may be done for good or ill, but it is always about control.
pmdulaney 4y ago
Yes, it is about power and control in the same way that society's prevention of the sexual abuse of children is about power and control. That's what laws are about: power and control.
- voisin 4y ago
  No one says we prevent sexual abuse of children because of Jesus.
  - pmdulaney 4y ago
    Well, first of all, it is a foundational principle of democracy that you can vote how you like for whatever reason you like. You can vote for a rule that every governing board have at least one woman because you hate men! But as a matter of fact, Christians who are Christians in more than name only do everything of import because of Jesus -- or because of biblical teaching more generally. I believe that I should tell the truth because of Jesus. I believe that divorce is wrong because of Jesus. I believe that those who take a life should forfeit their own because of Jesus (Gen 9.6).
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > Christians who are Christians in more than name only do everything of import because of Jesus I am not sure Jesus would agree
      - pmdulaney 4y ago
        Most Christians agree that the Apostle Paul speaks authoritatively for Jesus (that's actually the definition of an apostle), and Paul said: "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10.31).
    - geekbird 4y ago
      If you need a demigod and a book of fiction to tell you not to lie, cheat and kill then you aren't a very good person underneath. Morality and ethics are not the exclusive purview of Christianity, or even religion in general. Atheists and agnostics don't need a bible to tell right from wrong. In fact, religion is often used as an excuse to subjugate others, which is what they're doing by overturning RvW. They are subjugating women of breeding age as baby factories and unpaid child minders whose life course is decided on whether a man ejaculates in her and fertilizes an egg or not (whether she wanted him to or not.) If she catches, her life is no longer hers. It now belongs to the state as a incubation vessel for a potential citizen, and her wishes are now unimportant.
InTheArena 4y ago
Interestingly enough - Evangelicals where typically left of center prior to Roe v. Wade (even in states where abortion was legal). My hope is that things return to a more historical norm now that Roe V Wade can actually be "a fair fight" (to use Scalia's language)
tablespoon 4y ago
> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others. Nietzsche is more relevant here than Jesus. We, as a society, need to stop constantly creating straw men like this. Opposition to abortion is certainly about religion, or at least morality. Sure some politician can exploit morality to cynically gain power to accomplish other things, but that doesn't mean the voters are doing that. The voters are just caught in (many) moral dilemmas, and are therefore forced to make bad choices.
- ineptech 4y ago
  > Only a quarter of evangelicals in the United States believe abortion should be illegal in all cases, according to a new poll showing that a majority of self-identified Christians in the U.S. identify as “pro-choice” and less than half of evangelicals identify as “pro-life.” https://www.christianpost.com/news/less-than-half-of-us-evangelicals-identify-as-pro-life-new-poll-suggests.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/less-than-half-of-us-evan... It's not a "religious issue" when the members of the religion are split along party lines just like everyone else.
  - rockemsockem 4y ago
    If you don't believe that there is some immortal soul endowed at conception then it is extremely unlikely that you'll oppose abortion. It is absolutely religious.
    - ineptech 4y ago
      Why isn't it a "science issue" because the pro-choice side is based on science? Or an "age issue" because old people are far more pro-life than young people? I'm not here to argue semantics. The point I'm here to make is that the people who call it a religious issue are trying to claim legal protection that is undeserved. "That law violates my religion!" is not a compelling argument when half of your religion supports it.
      - 4y ago
yndoendo 4y ago
Religion is the ruler's favorite tool This is seen very Authoritative Governments and Dictatorships because it allows for the exploit of self-identity. People often create their self-identity around a religion and if you try to talk about any logical flaws with their statements or show them whole evident of facts proving them wrong they will still stick with their religion because they then would destroy their self-identity. When religion becomes self-identity then the person stops living reality and in a religious dream-like state. Look at Benjamin Franklin, US Founding Father, was a Christian but didn't self-identity and also wrote a section in a book, Every Man His Own Doctor: The Poor Planter's Physician, how to perform an abortion. He is an example of self-identity that goes beyond religion. But also the self-identity factor can also be tie not to religion but political parties or other extreme identities leading to group think. With high confidence, and hopefully a good study is done, a high percentage of people that gave power to the anti-abortion / anti-liberty movements are self-identified with religion over other aspects.

by voisin 4y ago

qorrect 4y ago

What possible argument against abortion exists besides "religion" ?

emilsedgh 4y ago

What enabled this is large populations who voted republican purely for this cause due to religious reasons.

boeingUH60 4y ago
A continually tried and tested truth is that mixing religion and politics is likely to end up in disaster. This applies everywhere across the globe.

willcipriano 4y ago

This is simply a matter of law. The justification for Roe Vs Wade doesn't hold water, it never did, it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion and not in warrantless surveillance or any other matter. It was a legal fiction.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
> it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion False.
avs733 4y ago
Oh not this nonsense again. If this were true than it would be easy for the current court to write an alternative opinion upholding the right as a liberty interest. They didn’t because the argument you are repeating is wrong, as well as made in bad faith to undermine obviously correct legal analysis. You are a victim of propaganda and it makes me sad.
- dang 4y ago
  Your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully, as they request? That means without name-calling, personal attack, and flamewar—especially religious flamewar, which you've been crossing into elsewhere. For example, your second sentence here would have been fine on its own, or as the nucleus of a more thoughtful comment. The other sentences are the ones that break the guidelines. I understand that on a fraught topic like this, it can be next to impossible not to write such things. But then one should edit them out. That's what I do, or try to. Edit: it looks like your comment history contains a fair bit of ideological battle. Please make sure you're not using HN primarily for that, because that's the line at which we ban accounts (regardless of which ideology is being battled, or battled for). https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
krapp 4y ago
"Simply a matter of law" is a meaningless statement. All rights, including Constitutional rights and the laws which support them, are legal fictions. Roe v. Wade held water simply because the Supreme Court decided it did, until today when the Supreme Court decided it didn't.
voisin 4y ago
Maybe the answer is that there shouldn’t be warrantless surveillance?
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Legal trickery and wordplay like the kind used in Roe Vs. Wade is what enables it.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Here is another one that thinks laws could be written in a programming language and are simple IF_ELSE clauses
camgunz 4y ago
It's the 4th Amendment. Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut: > "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." If your counterargument is "the word privacy isn't in the Constitution", my rejoinder is "neither is 'assault rifle'".
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Why is this right to privacy exclusive to activities around reproduction? Where else do you enjoy this implied right of privacy? Why not quote the direct text that provides this right to privacy if it's so clear and obvious?
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    It's also part of the 9th amendment. The point is that the courts ruled that people have an implicit right to privacy within their own home. That's literally why it exists, because it was to directly counter people who take the constitution at face value as being the ONLY rights it gives.
    - pkulak 4y ago
      But I can be prohibited from doing all sorts of things in my own home.
      - camgunz 4y ago
        The Court's job is to balance your right to privacy with the state's interests. Let's say you're running a meth lab: meth is very bad for people, it's hard to cook it safely and you might grievously harm others in your house or those nearby. Therefore, if law enforcement has probable cause to enter your home (e.g. they have an informant who's provided evidence), they can obtain a warrant for the express purpose of ascertaining whether or not you have a meth lab. If you don't have a meth lab but you are smoking weed (in a State where that's not legal), they can't arrest you, because that's not what the warrant is for. Hooray 4th Amendment!
monocasa 4y ago
It's not just abortion, there's tons of case law around the implied right to privacy in the constitution.
helloooooooo 4y ago
And this reasoning also applies to same sex marriage, and inter-racial marriage. And guess what? SCOTUS is now gunning for both. Congratulations America, welcome to the 1960s

jklinger410 4y ago

The voters who support the policy believe it is about the lives of unborn children.

Miner49er 4y ago
This isn't logical though. People will still get abortions, all this will change is who can get abortions. So it's clearly about control.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  If abortions are bad, then it's good if fewer people get them, whether or not the reduction is spread evenly across different demographics.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    If abortions are bad, why are the same people who want to ban abortions the ones who want to ban contraceptives? That would do a lot more to reduce abortions in reality than any law can.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      >If abortions are bad, why are the same people who want to ban abortions the ones who want to ban contraceptives? That would do a lot more to reduce abortions in reality than any law can. I would imagine they believe the point of sex is to conceive. Both those things prevent conception.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        I agree. They are not actually trying to reduce the number of abortions, they are taking a religious/moral position.
    - rufus_foreman 4y ago
      That's a straw man. Only 6% of Americans think birth control should be illegal, https://today.yougov.com/topics/health/articles-reports/2022/06/09/birth-control-yougov-poll-may-9-12-2022 https://today.yougov.com/topics/health/articles-reports/2022....

dorfsmay 4y ago

> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. Power and control is what organized religions have always been about.

joshstrange 4y ago

> We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others. I can promise you that this has quite a bit to do with religion. My parents both voted republican because "Billy Graham's son endorsed Trump" and before Trump they voted republican for this issue among others. I fully understand that elected republicans are just paying lip service to religion/abortion but they have their constituents completely fooled (or happy with their cognitive dissonance).

sandworm101 4y ago

>> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. The difference? Politics and religion are both about controlling the actions of people. It may be done for good or ill, but it is always about control.

pmdulaney 4y ago

Yes, it is about power and control in the same way that society's prevention of the sexual abuse of children is about power and control. That's what laws are about: power and control.

voisin 4y ago
No one says we prevent sexual abuse of children because of Jesus.
- pmdulaney 4y ago
  Well, first of all, it is a foundational principle of democracy that you can vote how you like for whatever reason you like. You can vote for a rule that every governing board have at least one woman because you hate men! But as a matter of fact, Christians who are Christians in more than name only do everything of import because of Jesus -- or because of biblical teaching more generally. I believe that I should tell the truth because of Jesus. I believe that divorce is wrong because of Jesus. I believe that those who take a life should forfeit their own because of Jesus (Gen 9.6).
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Christians who are Christians in more than name only do everything of import because of Jesus I am not sure Jesus would agree
    - pmdulaney 4y ago
      Most Christians agree that the Apostle Paul speaks authoritatively for Jesus (that's actually the definition of an apostle), and Paul said: "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10.31).
  - geekbird 4y ago
    If you need a demigod and a book of fiction to tell you not to lie, cheat and kill then you aren't a very good person underneath. Morality and ethics are not the exclusive purview of Christianity, or even religion in general. Atheists and agnostics don't need a bible to tell right from wrong. In fact, religion is often used as an excuse to subjugate others, which is what they're doing by overturning RvW. They are subjugating women of breeding age as baby factories and unpaid child minders whose life course is decided on whether a man ejaculates in her and fertilizes an egg or not (whether she wanted him to or not.) If she catches, her life is no longer hers. It now belongs to the state as a incubation vessel for a potential citizen, and her wishes are now unimportant.

InTheArena 4y ago

Interestingly enough - Evangelicals where typically left of center prior to Roe v. Wade (even in states where abortion was legal). My hope is that things return to a more historical norm now that Roe V Wade can actually be "a fair fight" (to use Scalia's language)

tablespoon 4y ago

> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others. Nietzsche is more relevant here than Jesus. We, as a society, need to stop constantly creating straw men like this. Opposition to abortion is certainly about religion, or at least morality. Sure some politician can exploit morality to cynically gain power to accomplish other things, but that doesn't mean the voters are doing that. The voters are just caught in (many) moral dilemmas, and are therefore forced to make bad choices.

ineptech 4y ago
> Only a quarter of evangelicals in the United States believe abortion should be illegal in all cases, according to a new poll showing that a majority of self-identified Christians in the U.S. identify as “pro-choice” and less than half of evangelicals identify as “pro-life.” https://www.christianpost.com/news/less-than-half-of-us-evangelicals-identify-as-pro-life-new-poll-suggests.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/less-than-half-of-us-evan... It's not a "religious issue" when the members of the religion are split along party lines just like everyone else.
- rockemsockem 4y ago
  If you don't believe that there is some immortal soul endowed at conception then it is extremely unlikely that you'll oppose abortion. It is absolutely religious.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    Why isn't it a "science issue" because the pro-choice side is based on science? Or an "age issue" because old people are far more pro-life than young people? I'm not here to argue semantics. The point I'm here to make is that the people who call it a religious issue are trying to claim legal protection that is undeserved. "That law violates my religion!" is not a compelling argument when half of your religion supports it.
    - 4y ago

yndoendo 4y ago

Religion is the ruler's favorite tool This is seen very Authoritative Governments and Dictatorships because it allows for the exploit of self-identity. People often create their self-identity around a religion and if you try to talk about any logical flaws with their statements or show them whole evident of facts proving them wrong they will still stick with their religion because they then would destroy their self-identity. When religion becomes self-identity then the person stops living reality and in a religious dream-like state. Look at Benjamin Franklin, US Founding Father, was a Christian but didn't self-identity and also wrote a section in a book, Every Man His Own Doctor: The Poor Planter's Physician, how to perform an abortion. He is an example of self-identity that goes beyond religion. But also the self-identity factor can also be tie not to religion but political parties or other extreme identities leading to group think. With high confidence, and hopefully a good study is done, a high percentage of people that gave power to the anti-abortion / anti-liberty movements are self-identified with religion over other aspects.