Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#681

Post by 1123581321 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #593

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…

The jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises Suppose I come along and assault you, you defend yourself, and then someone comes along and tells you that you are as much to blame as the person who assaulted you. Are they accurate, or just squeamish? Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity, and so contribute mightily…

In the United States, a political moderate typically acts according to principles that the extremes of the large political parties don’t prioritize. They are only in the middle because we use a one-dimensional political spectrum in our discourse.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#682

Post by greyhair » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

If your representatives in Congress would get off their butts and actually legislate, the court's "view" on the topic would be moot.

The fact is, lazy hand wringing house and senate members have been dodging these issues (more than just abortion) and passing them off to the court system for fifty years, or more.

They get good pay, they get good benefits, they should do their stinking jobs!

This all ultimately falls to the ineffectual legislative branch.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#683

Post by mherdeg » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #484

I'm asking in good faith, and ask for answers in the same: in a pro-choice framework, why do in-womb Homo Sapiens Sapiens have no rights to be considered, vis a vis the rights of the mother? In this context, I'm not implying that an unborn human's rights override those of its mother, nor imply what the right balance should be (50:50? 20:80? 80:20?). But pro-choice arguments tend to assume that the in-womb human has n…

> I'd argue that where welfare of two beings is affected, you need to consider the rights of both.

About 5,000 people die in the US annually while waitlisted for a kidney transplant; they are deemed medically eligible and a donation would give them more quality adjusted life years, but there is not a willing donor available.

Consider, pairwise, the rights of two particular people: a person on the waitlist who will die unless they receive a kidney but who is below the cutoff line; and a healthy adult who lives next door to the sick person, who has two kidneys, and who could relatively safely donate one of them.

The law currently forbids the sick person from paying the healthy person money in exchange for their kidney. This prevents coercion[1] which could endanger the health of the healthy person.

In other words, the law prioritizes the healthy person infinitely and does not prioritize the welfare of the sick person.

Do you think this setup is correct? Or should we make legal changes that would balance the rights of sick people against those of healthy people? Under your proposed framework, should we sometimes allow sick people who have money to pay healthy people for their organs, buying a chance to live?

[1] Some discussion here: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/698563807

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#684

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

mattnewton wrote: post #457

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…

Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#685

Post by permo-w » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

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

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#686

Post by fulvioterzapi » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

cmollis wrote: post #525

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…

> What I witnessed was no less than a 45 minute diatribe on the dangers of abortion, casting various aspersions (ad hominem) on any political leader not on board with new political agenda of the Catholic Church.

A typical Catholic Mass lasts less than one hour. Most of the Mass follows a fixed, prescribed set of prayers and readings, that have nothing to do with politics. In the middle there's a sermon, that usually lasts about 15 minutes, that might include references to news or to politics.

Either you ended up at a very atypical mass, and by very atypical I'd say borderline heretic, or you don't remember well.

> with new political agenda of the Catholic Church.

New? Like it or not, the position of the Catholic Church on abortion has been extraordinarily consistent through the centuries.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#687

Post by rhino369 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #371

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 can't say "figure it out democratically" with the Senate and electoral college saying "its the other branches problem" doesn't work either as SCOTUS is appointed by the undemocratic president and Senate

While somewhat true at the national level, the issue is actually pushed back to the states. Their legislatures are democratically elected.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#688

Post by Ekaros » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

Jason_Protell wrote: post #510

For those who say this is the logically correct decision, how exactly did you conclude that? - USA Constitution 14th Amendment Section 1 ...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro…

Now, which is more important life or liberty and property of owner of the host body in pregnancy. And if life is is more important should we force organ transplants? After all at least there is lot of spare kidneys around... Maybe half a lung is also workable.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#689

Post by screye » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #593

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…

The jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises Suppose I come along and assault you, you defend yourself, and then someone comes along and tells you that you are as much to blame as the person who assaulted you. Are they accurate, or just squeamish? Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity, and so contribute mightily…

I have frequently participated in an extreme version of this discussion.

Think about a situation where your race was being genocided in a neighboring country. The fastest way to stop it would be to engage in war. Now if you lose, genocide goes on, you have no recourse and your country is vulnerable to exploitation.

Instead, you can use economic levers. Maybe wait for your armed forces to be strong enough to go to war. Wait for winter and destroy food reserves. Maybe strike a deal to have your race only be 'persecuted' instead of genocided. Maybe fund militia instead.

All of these are suboptimal moderate outcomes. All of these lead to some loss of life or huge losses of freedom.for the people you want to save. But it avoids the worst case outcome. Majority of your race stil lives.

Moderates aren't spineless. Rathe, they understand that their agency is limited and you pull levers that are within said agency. If you try to climb a mountain that's too tall, it will lead to your demise.

Idealists want to be olympic gymnasts at 30. Moderates make peace with being a Yoga teacher. That's not spinelessness, that's wisdom.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#690

Post by twright » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

cmollis wrote: post #525

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…

One major change that spurred specifically the Catholic church into politics was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) which permitted priests and bishops to participate in politics.