Hacker News Reader

Comment by cloutchaser | Hacker News Reader

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this.

The reason it’s not an issue in Europe is because opposing sides all get a say in this and arrive at a compromise, namely abortion allowed up to 12 weeks which is fairly standard in most European countries.

But because row v wade basically said abortion has to be allowed in the US, the issue has had no real democratic debate just massively polarized arguing.

I’d argue the current situation will be better for almost everyone a few years down the line. Democracy works in resolving these issues. And why not have stricter laws in more Christian states? And free for all in California, if that’s what democracy decides?

View on HN

> Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this.

That's an oversimplification of a very nuanced and pragmatic view that is better explained here:

"What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade", Washington Post https://archive.ph/jJENv

It's not that she felt the rights granted by Roe were wrong to grant, she was worried that it would not be insulated from legal challenges.

Essentially, the pro-choice group scored a tactical victory, that turned out to be a strategically vulnerable position. And in turn, the can got kicked down to our era.

This is her:

“Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.” That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway-the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them by the mid-1980s. No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.”

This is exactly the point I made.

>>she was worried that it would not be insulated from legal challenges.

and she was right.

> And why not have stricter laws in more Christian states?

The 1st and 14th Amendments of the constitution, for starters.

Yet we see religiously-inspired laws everywhere. Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice. These are not 1st amendment violations. Going deeper, religion created a culture which we have inherited: marriages, government holidays, even the official work week being seven days long. These do not violate the 1st Amendment.

> Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice.

My guess is these don't inconvenience people enough to make it to the Supreme Court. And there's also the fig leaf of "crime reduction".

> as is the state philosophy on criminal justice

Can you give some examples? I'm not familiar with this.

> religion created a culture which we have inherited

Which of these restrict individual freedoms by law?

> even the official work week being seven days long.

You'll be surprised to learn that pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures have also had 7-day weeks, likely because they divide a lunar month so well.[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History

The Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to govern alcohol. That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment.

Though the federal government did coerce every state into moving their drinking age from 18 to 21 under threat of withholding federal highway funding to states that had drinking ages set lower than 21.

That case went to the Supreme Court and is also in dire need of overruling in my opinion.

> That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment

Not alcohol specifically, but any law that appears to promote a state religion. Like I said, alcohol sale restrictions are hard to prove as being motivated solely by religion. There are crime reduction, public health and safety, labor safety considerations too. I imagine the bar/restaurant lobby is also influential.

Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data?

The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences.

With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are not necessarily motivated by religion. Many people believe life begins at conception, regardless of religion.

> Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion?

Certainly.

The Pledge of Allegiance. [1]

There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again.

These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_...

> There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again.

Yes there is. You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society. Giving them tax benefits, beaurocratic benefits (so one person can represent an entire family for example). Because whatever the fashion in 2022, societies need children to survive and want to incentivise it.

Now there might be edge cases in terms of children + gay couples in 2022, historically you can easily make a non religious case for marriage being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating.

> You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society

And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too?

> for the purpose of procreating

If that were really the case, what about couples who can't have children due to age or infertility? Should their marriages be illegal too? Should hetero couples divorce the minute the woman hits menopause, if they don't already have kids? Are widows over 50 not allowed to remarry? Seems like a heartless society to me, and also contrary to "tradition" (whatever that means).

Maybe we can admit that marriage in today's society is also about love, companionship, and deep emotional bonds. Not just raising children.

> And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too?

There is raising children and there is the creation of children. The argument was that the government incentivized marriage because it led to both the creation of children as well as their raising in a stable home.

Non-traditional guardians (homos, grandparents, etc.) can obviously raise children, but they cannot make them.

That is likely how marriage ended up governed by the state. You are correct that it was rooted in religion, so thanks for the example.

Imo, marriage should not be regulated by the government. It is a derived of and should remain in religious institutions.

Instead, the government can come up with a private partnership, which would easily do everything marriage does without the underlying religious debate and exclusions.

> the government incentivized marriage because it led to both the creation of children

Except this part is false. Because, as I mentioned previously, not every hetero marriage could lead to creating children. There have never been any strong religious restrictions on old people, or people with known infertility getting married in Western society.

> the government can come up with a private partnership, which would easily do everything marriage does without the underlying religious debate and exclusions.

So...marriage? In US law at least, there aren't any religious components to marriage. No religious body needs to be involved to have a marriage be legally valid. You go down to city hall, get a marriage license, and you're done. There's no legal requirement that a religious institution that objects to a marriage, for any reason, has to perform that marriage. Can divorced Catholics remarry in a Catholic church now, without getting a dispensation?

Now if your objection is to the use of the word "marriage" to refer to partnerships that certain religions don't agree with...I don't really know what to say. That's everyday language at work. You can't stop people from using words the way they want. And it's not a real problem that the government should be involved in.

> E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.

These can raise children obviously, and do it well. But it’s not called a marriage. Thanks for making my point for me.

> Thanks for making my point for me.

Your point was a "marriage" is a requirement for raising children well. And a "marriage" is solely for procreation. I proved that both are false by providing countercases. You didn't even attempt to engage with the second point. And in fact you seem to be agreeing with me on my first point.

I don't think you understand how a debate works. This ain't YouTube, there's no partisan audience that will clap when you say "So then you agree with me" for something completely illogical. I can't help you any further and I wish you luck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com