Good analysis Erik! As a Christian who has been holding on the the Republican Party by a thread because of abortion legislation, this feels like a win for, well, humanity.
However, I also understand the arguments over who this will hurt the most. I’m pro-life from womb to tomb, and I will vote for whichever party helps those whose lives will be most affected by this change.
Thanks William! I obviously disagree over the issue at hand but I do wish more anti-abortion advocates would fight for more justice and help for the people this impacts. It seems too often unwanted pregnancies turn into unwanted children and then a litany of tragic outcomes.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you on most of your points, Erik, and Greenwald was very much on point about this NOT being legislation from the bench, but actually turning over a decision that WAS.
I feel the way you do as well about what might have happened had we allowed things to progress over time the way they have with other social issues. The original Roe vs. Wade decision was Unconstitutional and sending the question back to the states is the way to go to remain Constitutional.
Hearts and Minds over time, not strident polarization, and protection of the rights of both majority and minority, the way the Constitution was designed.
GG is, as usual, filled to eyeballs with BS. Abortion is a human right. You cannot leave human rights up to majority rule. Otherwise, the exact same voters who would ban women from accessing health care would keep black people from voting. Vaginas are more regulated than guns. We live in a sick country and this may be the beginning of the end of the American experiment. Fascism came to this country holding an upside down Bible in one hand and hugging a flag (not sure which) in the other.
Never forget. We lead the first world in infant and maternal mortality. We are almost alone in having no mandated paid maternal/paternal leave. We have no universal prenatal care nor subsidized child care. We hate women and we hate babies. This is about control. And nothing more.
Greenwald literally never said it wasn't or anything remotely like that. His entire point, which you've conveniently ignored in order to make this comment, is that the court is not a force of democracy. It sometimes has to curtail majoritarian rule in order to protect individual rights.
I also think it's a bit breathless and silly to claim that "we hate women and we hate babies." What possible rhetorical purpose does making such silly, immature claims serve?
Is our society uniquely selfish in the advanced world? I would agree with that. I am a big advocate of social democracy. I think the Vikings have it down. But just because our policies are a mess of competing interests and it's hard to get things done that help people in a wildly more diverse society with a massive population doesn't mean we hate women and babies or that people are solely motivated by control rather than religious beliefs etc.
Please, if I wanted to hear arguments made by a 19 year old I'd go back to college. Surely you can rise above this shit.
Ahh. Excuse me, if as you seem to claim, that GG and whomever else would agree - that abortion and control of one’s body is a human right then it has no business being left up to whim’s of the crowd. And the preference of the American public is quite clear. Large majorities in every poll conducted favor abortion rights.
Silly and immature to conclude we hate women and babies? Then how do you explain all the ways we actively and purposely harm pregnant women, fetuses and postpartum women, babies and men? The richest country in the history of the world endures the absolute worst pre and post natal care in the developed world. That’s fact, not opinion. What is it if not a hatred? Maybe it’s just a blazing indifference to suffering and misery. It doesn’t have to be this way. No one else suffers like we do. We choose not to do anything to solve those problems. The choosing not to act makes it purposeful.
I’m the 19 year old? I can’t believe you wrote that people are not solely motivated by control rather than religious beliefs. Religious beliefs to do what exactly? Save the fetus. And how do we do that? Control vaginas. It was always about control. And how do we know? Because Eric, we do so little to help the fetus come out healthy and we do so little to help babies and mothers stay healthy. We just want to force birth. Thats control. In the immortal words of George Carlin. “Once you’re born, you’re on your own”
GG better watch out. Alito’s opinion has paved the way for every single privacy right to be struck down by this most theocratic SC. Gay marriage. Birth control. Sodomy. Interracial marriage. Every single one is now on the chopping block. In fact, if the religiously authoritarian justices have any judicial consistency every single one of those decisions - griswald, eisenstadt, loving, Lawrence must all be struck down as they all come from the penumbras of the constitution as Roe. You think I’m being hyperbolic. Just wait. This is a dark day in America. And I fear it will get much darker before the dawn. And what we will find, I shudder to imagine…
Well, clearly you have no legal training nor any desire to read those who do. Roe and all those cases come from the same privacy rights that will no longer exist. Ignore what is in front of your face at your own peril.
Right dude. For fifty years we didn't leave it in the hands of the public. Fifty years ago the courts sidestepped the public and enshrined abortion rights in our legal system. But now that same court is taking away that protection. And that's the problem with leaving it in the hands of the court. You can't have it both ways.
This isnt much of a response to what I wrote. I am not sure what you’re trying to convey here. Either the right to control one’s body is a human right or it is not. Human rights by their very nature are not up for a vote. If the state can force a woman to give birth to save a potential life can the state force you to donate a kidney to save a life?
It is in fact a highly salient response to what you wrote.
The essence of the comment is to point out the flaw in your position. Your position is essentially the philosopher-king argument: an assertion that a system where an enlightened elite class decides what is right by fiat is a workable, reliable system. Within that assertion are the assumptions that 1. what is right can in fact be decided, 2. that it can be decided correctly in all cases times, and 3. that the principles of those who decide will be eternally in line with the tribe you currently favor. All of these assumptions are incorrect. A court whose action today you support as a moral victory can tomorrow take action that you decry as "hate". But it can do so while remaining internally consistent in principle (though I have no comment on whether the Supreme Court actually does). You can't have it both ways. The court can't and won't always do only what you want.
Your argument was criticized above for being immature. I fully agree. It is foolish to come to a discussion about a legal ruling, and then appeal solely to metaphysical conceptions of right or wrong, as you do when saying "human rights by their very nature are not up for a vote". Rights exist outside of theory only when enforced by a state or an equivalent actor. States and their equivalents are, at their most basic level, a mechanism to determine a legal monopoly on the use of force and coercion. "Legal" in that sense is determined not by some nebulous conception of law, but by individuals agreeing to a set of rules to an extent that it can continue as a self-sustaining institution. The result is that you can wax poetic about how you feel rights ought to exist in a metaphysical sense, and are welcome to do so in discussions where theory is the only thing at stake, but when discussing real policy, you must accept that rights only meaningfully exist when they are enforced by a state, and all that is enforced by a state is fundamentally "up for a vote" at some level. This is not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact, though even I wish it was otherwise. Your argument is immature because it appears to show that you do not understand the actual nature of a "right".
What I think Erik (and Glenn Greenwald) are saying is that you must recognize the fundamental drawbacks of the philosopher-king argument and understand that it cannot be overcome, rather than thinking that it is just a one-time misapplication, and continuing to view through rose-tinted glasses what is a fundamentally imperfect system.
I sincerely wish that the philosopher-king idea worked - that an infallible arbiter of moral right and wrong could come along and free us of the responsibility of making decisions to minimize suffering and maximize good. But in our reality, with no infallible arbiter, it is delusional to support that idea.
As an aside, I also want to point out that you are throwing stones in a glass house when you criticize others for having "no legal training nor any desire to read those who do" when you group together legislation and legal decisions decided on very different principles just because they all concern personal rights. To pick just one example, Eisenstadt was decided on Equal Protection grounds, and it is hard to see how the current decision's reasoning (fundamentally about the extent of the purview of the Supreme Court) can form a practical attack against the reasoning used in Eisenstadt.
Thanks for this incredibly lucid and well-reasoned comment, Morpho. Very well said! I, too, wish the philosopher-kings (or super advanced AI) could save us from ourselves. Alas, we have to muddle through!
Wow. That’s a lot of words to say that there is no such thing as human rights and the right to privacy in the penumbra doesn’t exist. Majority rules. Though in the case of Roe the vast majority supports those rights now eviscerated by a tiny cult of Christian fundamentalists who now subject us all to their particular interpretation of the Bible.
Your invocation of eisenstadt is worthless. Griswald on which eisenstadt was built was decided on the right to privacy. With no right to privacy eisenstadt could every easily be ruled the other way.
Good analysis Erik! As a Christian who has been holding on the the Republican Party by a thread because of abortion legislation, this feels like a win for, well, humanity.
However, I also understand the arguments over who this will hurt the most. I’m pro-life from womb to tomb, and I will vote for whichever party helps those whose lives will be most affected by this change.
Thanks William! I obviously disagree over the issue at hand but I do wish more anti-abortion advocates would fight for more justice and help for the people this impacts. It seems too often unwanted pregnancies turn into unwanted children and then a litany of tragic outcomes.
I think this might be one of your big ones. Bravo!
I'm pretty much in agreement with you on most of your points, Erik, and Greenwald was very much on point about this NOT being legislation from the bench, but actually turning over a decision that WAS.
I feel the way you do as well about what might have happened had we allowed things to progress over time the way they have with other social issues. The original Roe vs. Wade decision was Unconstitutional and sending the question back to the states is the way to go to remain Constitutional.
Hearts and Minds over time, not strident polarization, and protection of the rights of both majority and minority, the way the Constitution was designed.
GG is, as usual, filled to eyeballs with BS. Abortion is a human right. You cannot leave human rights up to majority rule. Otherwise, the exact same voters who would ban women from accessing health care would keep black people from voting. Vaginas are more regulated than guns. We live in a sick country and this may be the beginning of the end of the American experiment. Fascism came to this country holding an upside down Bible in one hand and hugging a flag (not sure which) in the other.
Never forget. We lead the first world in infant and maternal mortality. We are almost alone in having no mandated paid maternal/paternal leave. We have no universal prenatal care nor subsidized child care. We hate women and we hate babies. This is about control. And nothing more.
Greenwald literally never said it wasn't or anything remotely like that. His entire point, which you've conveniently ignored in order to make this comment, is that the court is not a force of democracy. It sometimes has to curtail majoritarian rule in order to protect individual rights.
I also think it's a bit breathless and silly to claim that "we hate women and we hate babies." What possible rhetorical purpose does making such silly, immature claims serve?
Is our society uniquely selfish in the advanced world? I would agree with that. I am a big advocate of social democracy. I think the Vikings have it down. But just because our policies are a mess of competing interests and it's hard to get things done that help people in a wildly more diverse society with a massive population doesn't mean we hate women and babies or that people are solely motivated by control rather than religious beliefs etc.
Please, if I wanted to hear arguments made by a 19 year old I'd go back to college. Surely you can rise above this shit.
Ahh. Excuse me, if as you seem to claim, that GG and whomever else would agree - that abortion and control of one’s body is a human right then it has no business being left up to whim’s of the crowd. And the preference of the American public is quite clear. Large majorities in every poll conducted favor abortion rights.
Silly and immature to conclude we hate women and babies? Then how do you explain all the ways we actively and purposely harm pregnant women, fetuses and postpartum women, babies and men? The richest country in the history of the world endures the absolute worst pre and post natal care in the developed world. That’s fact, not opinion. What is it if not a hatred? Maybe it’s just a blazing indifference to suffering and misery. It doesn’t have to be this way. No one else suffers like we do. We choose not to do anything to solve those problems. The choosing not to act makes it purposeful.
I’m the 19 year old? I can’t believe you wrote that people are not solely motivated by control rather than religious beliefs. Religious beliefs to do what exactly? Save the fetus. And how do we do that? Control vaginas. It was always about control. And how do we know? Because Eric, we do so little to help the fetus come out healthy and we do so little to help babies and mothers stay healthy. We just want to force birth. Thats control. In the immortal words of George Carlin. “Once you’re born, you’re on your own”
GG better watch out. Alito’s opinion has paved the way for every single privacy right to be struck down by this most theocratic SC. Gay marriage. Birth control. Sodomy. Interracial marriage. Every single one is now on the chopping block. In fact, if the religiously authoritarian justices have any judicial consistency every single one of those decisions - griswald, eisenstadt, loving, Lawrence must all be struck down as they all come from the penumbras of the constitution as Roe. You think I’m being hyperbolic. Just wait. This is a dark day in America. And I fear it will get much darker before the dawn. And what we will find, I shudder to imagine…
Also dude, no. This hasn't set the stage for every privacy right to be struck down. That's hyperbole, which I get is fun, but still hyperbole.
Well, clearly you have no legal training nor any desire to read those who do. Roe and all those cases come from the same privacy rights that will no longer exist. Ignore what is in front of your face at your own peril.
Right dude. For fifty years we didn't leave it in the hands of the public. Fifty years ago the courts sidestepped the public and enshrined abortion rights in our legal system. But now that same court is taking away that protection. And that's the problem with leaving it in the hands of the court. You can't have it both ways.
This isnt much of a response to what I wrote. I am not sure what you’re trying to convey here. Either the right to control one’s body is a human right or it is not. Human rights by their very nature are not up for a vote. If the state can force a woman to give birth to save a potential life can the state force you to donate a kidney to save a life?
It is in fact a highly salient response to what you wrote.
The essence of the comment is to point out the flaw in your position. Your position is essentially the philosopher-king argument: an assertion that a system where an enlightened elite class decides what is right by fiat is a workable, reliable system. Within that assertion are the assumptions that 1. what is right can in fact be decided, 2. that it can be decided correctly in all cases times, and 3. that the principles of those who decide will be eternally in line with the tribe you currently favor. All of these assumptions are incorrect. A court whose action today you support as a moral victory can tomorrow take action that you decry as "hate". But it can do so while remaining internally consistent in principle (though I have no comment on whether the Supreme Court actually does). You can't have it both ways. The court can't and won't always do only what you want.
Your argument was criticized above for being immature. I fully agree. It is foolish to come to a discussion about a legal ruling, and then appeal solely to metaphysical conceptions of right or wrong, as you do when saying "human rights by their very nature are not up for a vote". Rights exist outside of theory only when enforced by a state or an equivalent actor. States and their equivalents are, at their most basic level, a mechanism to determine a legal monopoly on the use of force and coercion. "Legal" in that sense is determined not by some nebulous conception of law, but by individuals agreeing to a set of rules to an extent that it can continue as a self-sustaining institution. The result is that you can wax poetic about how you feel rights ought to exist in a metaphysical sense, and are welcome to do so in discussions where theory is the only thing at stake, but when discussing real policy, you must accept that rights only meaningfully exist when they are enforced by a state, and all that is enforced by a state is fundamentally "up for a vote" at some level. This is not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact, though even I wish it was otherwise. Your argument is immature because it appears to show that you do not understand the actual nature of a "right".
What I think Erik (and Glenn Greenwald) are saying is that you must recognize the fundamental drawbacks of the philosopher-king argument and understand that it cannot be overcome, rather than thinking that it is just a one-time misapplication, and continuing to view through rose-tinted glasses what is a fundamentally imperfect system.
I sincerely wish that the philosopher-king idea worked - that an infallible arbiter of moral right and wrong could come along and free us of the responsibility of making decisions to minimize suffering and maximize good. But in our reality, with no infallible arbiter, it is delusional to support that idea.
As an aside, I also want to point out that you are throwing stones in a glass house when you criticize others for having "no legal training nor any desire to read those who do" when you group together legislation and legal decisions decided on very different principles just because they all concern personal rights. To pick just one example, Eisenstadt was decided on Equal Protection grounds, and it is hard to see how the current decision's reasoning (fundamentally about the extent of the purview of the Supreme Court) can form a practical attack against the reasoning used in Eisenstadt.
Thanks for this incredibly lucid and well-reasoned comment, Morpho. Very well said! I, too, wish the philosopher-kings (or super advanced AI) could save us from ourselves. Alas, we have to muddle through!
Wow. That’s a lot of words to say that there is no such thing as human rights and the right to privacy in the penumbra doesn’t exist. Majority rules. Though in the case of Roe the vast majority supports those rights now eviscerated by a tiny cult of Christian fundamentalists who now subject us all to their particular interpretation of the Bible.
Your invocation of eisenstadt is worthless. Griswald on which eisenstadt was built was decided on the right to privacy. With no right to privacy eisenstadt could every easily be ruled the other way.