Hacker News Reader

Comment by tick_tock_tick | Hacker News Reader

Abortion is absolutely not covered in the Constitution and Roe v Wade was a one of the most twisted bits of logic I've ever seen out of the court. We need real legislation rather then trying to stretch amendments to cover things that they clearly don't.

View on HN

I was tempted to see it that way, but the general right to be left alone by the government is most certainly in the founding character of the country. That right to be left alone most certainly applies to medical care. The only thing novel about Roe v Wade was applying the newer standard of gender equality to extend the right to be left alone to women.

Since we're talking about abortion, let's restate what should be abundantly clear - nobody is using abortion as a substitute for birth control. "Pro-choice" is an utterly stupid term that plays right into the political tempest-in-a-tea-pot, completely on-brand for the Democratic party. An appropriate label would be pro-medical-care. This whole topic is akin to debating whether individual states should be able to prevent their residents from receiving blood transfusions.

How is pro choice a stupid term? You are literally arguing that the government shouldn't get involved in someone's medical care, that they should be allowed to make their own choices rather than having the decision forced on them by the court.

The only reason i can see you saying this is that you are angry and have found a group to other. Perhaps you should do some meditation or smoke a joint or whatever to relax, and stop directing your anger at people advocating for a position you agree with.

"Choice" implies that abortion is some optional activity, directly supporting this red team narrative of convenience. Putting the focus on individual choice carries little weight with collectivists/conservatives, especially when there is an imagined second person involved. Meanwhile from someone in the position of needing a medically necessary or medically prudent abortion, the situation is anything but a choice.

The politickers have chosen the strongest statement to rally their own group around, but what it has actually done is create a potent straw man for opposition to rally around.

pro-medical-care is identically stupid.

This is about the right to bodily autonomy, not medical care. Right now we have a right to not be searched, but don't have a right to do what we want with our own bodies. Give it a few years, watch in amusement as redneck states start attempting to ban tattoo parlors for "decency" reasons under the auspices of "proper medical care."

redneck states

Yes, redneck states (I'm from Louisiana and live in Texas... I have no reason to be politically correct). The current opposition to bodily autonomy is historically intertwined with opposition to dismantling segregation, and there are many "super-concerned" adults living south of the Mason-Dixon who would be just fine with prohibiting their kids from getting tattoos because they clash with appearances at Sunday service. The exact same disregard for bodily autonomy for the purposes of preserving the life of a fetus also applies to body art.

Ironically the bible forbids tattoos (LV 19:28), but doesn't say much about abortion.

> This is about the right to bodily autonomy, not medical care.

Does "bodily autonomy" apply to vaccines?

What number of people were forced to take a vaccine?

> What number of people were forced to take a vaccine?

Folks who worked for govt agencies and contractors were fired for refusing and there were serious efforts to deny govt services on that basis.

Feel free to play games with "forced" but we both know how you'd come down wrt comparable measures and abortion.

Oh, I'm not playing games.

They're literally different and you know it to be true, but you'd prefer to play semantics because you can't back it up with logic. Like the idea that losing your job for failing to comply with public safety measures is the same as being charged with murder for aborting an ectopic pregnancy. Severing an employment relationship is nothing like incarcerating someone.

So, you're okay with women being fired or denied govt benefits if they have an abortion.

What? You're not? But you said that they were different.

The difference is that one involves abortion while the other involves vaccines.

And yes, I'm going to argue meaning. There aren't any tautologies here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com