Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#901

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 8:53 PM UTC

permo-w wrote: post #685

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

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#902

Post by anm89 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 8:56 PM UTC

The problem with the modern left is that they aggressively want to win every battle and don't even know what war they are fighting. As long as they can yell and scream and cancel and grieve, they don't seem to be too focused on having cohesive goals or policy.

And this is what that looks like.

The supreme court doesn't fit into their model because they can't cancel it on twitter. So they just moved on to other stuff they could cancel. Reap what you sow.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#903

Post by rufus_foreman » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 8:59 PM UTC

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading 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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#904

Post by roflyear » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:01 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25

I'm pro-choice but I still believe that this is the right move. > “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.…

Ginsburg was an idealist.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#905

Post by swayvil » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:04 PM UTC

This is a distraction. Pure and simple.

A distraction from rampant inflation, censorship, who's responsible, etc.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#906

Post by coward123 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:04 PM UTC

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading 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…

Consider this a bit of code switching. Many of us absolutely are concerned about what this means for women, but we also know that this forum skews male and a particular kind of male. So we are making the argument here that resonates with this forum.

You are right though that more people overall - even those who skew conservative and pro-individual rights, should realize that if you take away rights from women, and then homosexuals, and then people who want to be married to someone of a different race... where does it end in terms of stripping away individual rights? I'd argue that if you view women's health care as a matter of individual freedom and rights, then is that not the same argument being made in interpreting the 2nd amendment as not about militias (IE: a standing army) but the rights of the individual? If I can tell women they can't have a set of health care services, what's stopping the government from telling men that they can't have a different set of health care services?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#907

Post by hobo_in_library » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading 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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#908

Post by jarbus » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

I'm consistently surprised at how many people, both in these threads and irl, assert there is no "grey area", and argue that a fetus goes from being 0% baby to 100% baby the instant it is born and no sooner. To me, there is a very clear "gradient" where it goes from being 0% baby to 100% baby over the course of 8-9 months, the percentage ticking up every day or so. Many people can't imagine a 5-month old fetus being viewed as "alive".

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#909

Post by swayvil » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading 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…

HN is full of coders. It's for coders, run by coders. Coders are 99% male.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#910

Post by a_shovel » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:12 PM UTC

teakettle42 wrote: post #562

ausbah wrote: post #441

saying "SCOTUS didn't ban abortion" is at best useless semantic formality and at worst plain incorrect a number of state have laws that the automatically make abortion illegal as soon as Roe was overturned, those are now enacted. furthermore, the case behind this ruling was dealing with a state law the effectively outlawed abortions, despite previous precedent ruling against it. this rule is simply enabling such beha…

It’s neither a semantic formality nor incorrect. The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it. I happen to think abortion should be legal. I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution, while simultaneously arguing for severely restricting and even eliminating a specifically enumerated…

This comment could easily be adapted into a form letter to oppose the majority of Supreme-Court-decided expansions of civil rights of the past century.