People who are responsible for this are evil scumbags and a blight on a society. There is simply no other way to put this.
Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
891–900 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#892I have grown to hate edgy comments that are like "Well actually now it is just a state's issue and Roe v Wade was poorly decided!". You're not edgy & insightful. The impact of this decision isn't just pushing pieces around a chess board. It's scared women & girls around the country, it's women dying who wouldn't have otherwise.
There was 40 years for abortion to be codified in law. Blame the legislators, not the court.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#893Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…
> the ability to govern their own bodies
I see this frequently repeated, but it's clearly sophistry, similar to the language trick in a comment below where "It's not a baby, it's a fetus" is used to subvert reality.
Women can very well govern their own bodies, but a 6 month old baby is definitely not "their own body" and one can very well understand why large portions of society would want to see it protected against abuse.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#894Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…
Not only that but once half of the population has lost bodily autonomy why would anyone believe that their rights are safe?
Today a woman can be compelled to use an organ in her body to keep another person alive.
What’s to stop the court from ruling that if you have 2 kidneys you can be compelled to donate one to keep someone else alive?
What happens when a deadbeat dad is the only match for a child with organ failure? Why shouldn’t they be compelled to give up an organ to keep their offspring alive?
Libertarians should be in the streets protesting the loss of bodily autonomy. And all of us should be afraid.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#895I almost lost my wife due to the Catholic Hospital's policy against D&C procedures. Had the OBGYN not put his career on the line, and over-riding the prohibition on the procedure, she would have died. Now that same hurdle can become risking prison. A few years later, we were blessed with a child who is doing well. I would have neither if not for Roe v. Wade. This isn't about abortion, it's about denying healthcare!
i m very happy for you but this is about abortion, a right that every civilized person should enjoy. i m not even american but this is bad
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#896Supreme Court has shoot itself in the foot. It they can overturn their own decisions based on political schemes, then we can overturn EVERYTHING they do, including this decision itself.
Actually now SCOTUS just doesn't really mean anything, and no longer stands for anything consistent.
They've undermined their own position.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#897I'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…
Ultimately, I don't feel this is really about reproductive rights. It's part of a long term disenfranchisement of groups of individuals in a way which secures GOP electoral college votes. As you say, the power of rural Republican votes is significant and depopulating those areas of democratic votes is a significant part of the GOP strategy.
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#898I'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…
Why shouldn't slavery be up to the states?
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#899Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…
Voted up. Reading comments here I feel like I'm watching Robert McNamara describe the hundreds of thousands of casualties that were required to win the second world war as if they were just figures on paper. Lives are going to be destroyed by this and women will be going to prison for what many civilized countries consider a fundamental right.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#900There's some really ugly things now opened up - now there are no more protections for states to force an abortion or sterilization. A lot of 'undesirables' were sterilized in the early 20th century America, to the point that even Hitler in his Mein Kamph wrote highly about the US program of mass sterilization. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa . This reversal re-allows this possibility. In fact, acc…
> What of the legal issues in unwinding a marriage of X years?
In the case of a binational couple, does the non-citizen (now-former?) spouse get to keep living in the US? Or is the situation going to go back to how it was previously, with no federal recognition, even if legally married in "gay marriage" state?
Married same-sex binational couples are minorities in a minority. They don't exist on the political radar unless a larger group takes up their cause. I fully expect them to get rolled here (again).