• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

The notion that Bernie Sanders is a radical far leftist utterly incapable of compromise is an opinion fully so divorced from his actual record as a politician as to be non-intersecting.
If he were running in our upcoming election, he would be distinctly right of centre. He would fit in quite well with the Coalition.
You can't be serious.
Very sorry for the derail! But I've been noticing a trend for a long time that the right is very comfortable and even confrontational about declaring that they are conservative and far right. No qualms. The middle is for the wimps. However, many on the left are very uncomfortable declaring their positions more represent the left.
True. The right has done well to demonize left positions. That said, I would disagree that viewing women are living and breathing human beings and deserve rights over their own self-automony should be considered a leftist position.
 
The notion that Bernie Sanders is a radical far leftist utterly incapable of compromise is an opinion fully so divorced from his actual record as a politician as to be non-intersecting.
If he were running in our upcoming election, he would be distinctly right of centre. He would fit in quite well with the Coalition.
You can't be serious.
Very sorry for the derail! But I've been noticing a trend for a long time that the right is very comfortable and even confrontational about declaring that they are conservative and far right. No qualms. The middle is for the wimps. However, many on the left are very uncomfortable declaring their positions more represent the left. Their position is moderate. People on the left don't like to admit that they are on the left. I don't know why.
I think it's a hold over from the Red Scare plus all of the animus directed at the hippies of bygone days: People want to think they are more grown up and more sensible. Plus the right is really mean to anyone they think has a better sales pitch. They aren't much for carrots when they have hellfire and damnation to use as sticks.

AND I think most people in the US prefer to think of themselves as centrists--not as radical anything. I've heard some very right wing people refer to themselves as center of the road/conservative. Because they see conservative as center of the road. In the traditional sense: conservative meaning wanting to preserve the status quo, they are not wrong: change is hard for most people and so they mostly want to keep things as they are, with a few minor tweaks. The other part of conservative, though, is wishing to return to a former state of being. Today's right wingers would not only like to return us to before Roe V Wade but also pre-Civil War.
You made a lot of great points. One quibble, moderates tend to want status quo, or at least slow change. Far right conservatives want dramatic change. Trump made far more right wing changes to the country than Bush Jr. Thus, Bush was more moderate than Trump. Same way on left. Biden hasn't made a lot of dramatic changes. Bernie would have made far greater changes towards the left. My only point is that there is nothing wrong with being on the left. I always say that the right is winning the war on language. They are far better at it than we are.
 
The notion that Bernie Sanders is a radical far leftist utterly incapable of compromise is an opinion fully so divorced from his actual record as a politician as to be non-intersecting.
If he were running in our upcoming election, he would be distinctly right of centre. He would fit in quite well with the Coalition.
You can't be serious.
Very sorry for the derail! But I've been noticing a trend for a long time that the right is very comfortable and even confrontational about declaring that they are conservative and far right. No qualms. The middle is for the wimps. However, many on the left are very uncomfortable declaring their positions more represent the left.
True. The right has done well to demonize left positions. That said, I would disagree that viewing women are living and breathing human beings and deserve rights over their own self-automony should be considered a leftist position.
Very much agree. Women deserve rights over their own self-autonomy (as Men already have) is very much a moderate position. The people who want to regulate women's health are the radicals.
 
The notion that Bernie Sanders is a radical far leftist utterly incapable of compromise is an opinion fully so divorced from his actual record as a politician as to be non-intersecting.
If he were running in our upcoming election, he would be distinctly right of centre. He would fit in quite well with the Coalition.
You can't be serious.
Very sorry for the derail! But I've been noticing a trend for a long time that the right is very comfortable and even confrontational about declaring that they are conservative and far right. No qualms. The middle is for the wimps. However, many on the left are very uncomfortable declaring their positions more represent the left. Their position is moderate. People on the left don't like to admit that they are on the left. I don't know why.
I think it's a hold over from the Red Scare plus all of the animus directed at the hippies of bygone days: People want to think they are more grown up and more sensible. Plus the right is really mean to anyone they think has a better sales pitch. They aren't much for carrots when they have hellfire and damnation to use as sticks.

AND I think most people in the US prefer to think of themselves as centrists--not as radical anything. I've heard some very right wing people refer to themselves as center of the road/conservative. Because they see conservative as center of the road. In the traditional sense: conservative meaning wanting to preserve the status quo, they are not wrong: change is hard for most people and so they mostly want to keep things as they are, with a few minor tweaks. The other part of conservative, though, is wishing to return to a former state of being. Today's right wingers would not only like to return us to before Roe V Wade but also pre-Civil War.
You made a lot of great points. One quibble, moderates tend to want status quo, or at least slow change. Far right conservatives want dramatic change. Trump made far more right wing changes to the country than Bush Jr. Thus, Bush was more moderate than Trump. Same way on left. Biden hasn't made a lot of dramatic changes. Bernie would have made far greater changes towards the left. My only point is that there is nothing wrong with being on the left. I always say that the right is winning the war on language. They are far better at it than we are.
Sanders would not have. Sanders would have the same 50-50 senate.
 
The notion that Bernie Sanders is a radical far leftist utterly incapable of compromise is an opinion fully so divorced from his actual record as a politician as to be non-intersecting.
If he were running in our upcoming election, he would be distinctly right of centre. He would fit in quite well with the Coalition.
You can't be serious.
Very sorry for the derail! But I've been noticing a trend for a long time that the right is very comfortable and even confrontational about declaring that they are conservative and far right. No qualms. The middle is for the wimps. However, many on the left are very uncomfortable declaring their positions more represent the left.
True. The right has done well to demonize left positions. That said, I would disagree that viewing women are living and breathing human beings and deserve rights over their own self-automony should be considered a leftist position.
Very much agree. Women deserve rights over their own self-autonomy (as Men already have) is very much a moderate position. The people who want to regulate women's health are the radicals.
Plus, when Roe v Wade was passed, it wasn't considered a leftist issue. It had the support of those on both side of the aisle. Republicans used to be quite moderate and willing to compromise with those who leaned left. I think that the manipulative religious leaders along with those on the right began to realize that they could use abortion as an issue to manipulate people. When I worked in public health, my fellow nurses who were Christians all supported the right of women to have choice, even if they personally opposed abortion. That was in the early 80s, before the government stopped paying for abortions for low income women. Wasn't it the Hyde Amendment that caused the end of government reimbursement for abortion for low income females? Shortly after that, abortion became an issue used by the right to demonize the left. That's when things really started to change.

I think some on the left avoid calling themselves that because the right will immediately label them as Communists. The kookiest Republicans call all Democrats, Communists who are ruining the country. I saw a quote this morning by the idiot MTG referring to Pelosi as a communist ho is destroying the country. I guess Democrats need to play dirty just like the Republicans do if they want to win elections It's sad that it's come this, but you can't be a bleeding heart liberal without being demonized these days. So, liberals need to toughen up and speak loudly. They need to label the Republicans for what they have become, fascists with theocratic tendencies.

To be honest, I don't think anyone even knows how to define left and right these days. Everyone seems to feel they can define what it means to be left or right to the point where the terms have become close to meaningless. I do believe in compromise, regardless of where one stands. Compromise is the only way to get anything done and that is a huge problem in the US these days. I'm not referring to abortion. Abortion is simply a medical procedure that a woman should have the right to access when she feels it's necessary. 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. There are no late term abortions, except to save the life of the mother or remove a nonviable fetus. And, that's between the woman and her medical provider. It's about privacy and bodily autonomy. It's ironic that the party that always speaks about freedom wants tot take away basic freedoms from women.
 
:facepalm: The guy advocated a maximum wage. Of course he's a radical far leftist. Just one who is very, very capable of compromise. If he were running in a different country's upcoming election he would conform his policy recommendations to that country's Overton window instead of to the U.S.'s.
Why would Sanders be a radical far leftist in the US, but conform his policy recommendations to a different country's Overton window if he were running in its upcoming election?
The same reason he conforms his policy recommendations to the U.S.'s Overton window when he's running in a U.S. election: because he wants to win. He'd rather get some of his wish-list enacted than none of it. This isn't rocket science.
So he is a radical far leftist in the US, but would conform his policy recommendations to a different country's Overton window? You are confused about stuff that is not even rocket science.
You evidently think those characteristics contradict each other. How do they contradict each other?

Imagine you were shipped off by the CCP to the University of Chicago to learn how to be an economist, and you came home a hard-core free-market capitalist, and they gave you an economist job in some bureaucracy, while Mao was still alive. Would you talk to the people around you about how they needed to abolish communism and open a stock market and privatize inefficient factories and let just anybody hire employees? Or would you talk to them about how they could increase the food supply if they let peasants work fewer hours on the collective farm and more hours on their private plots?
 
Plus, when Roe v Wade was passed, it wasn't considered a leftist issue. It had the support of those on both side of the aisle. Republicans used to be quite moderate and willing to compromise with those who leaned left. I think that the manipulative religious leaders along with those on the right began to realize that they could use abortion as an issue to manipulate people. When I worked in public health, my fellow nurses who were Christians all supported the right of women to have choice, even if they personally opposed abortion. That was in the early 80s, before the government stopped paying for abortions for low income women. Wasn't it the Hyde Amendment that caused the end of government reimbursement for abortion for low income females? Shortly after that, abortion became an issue used by the right to demonize the left. That's when things really started to change.

I think some on the left avoid calling themselves that because the right will immediately label them as Communists. The kookiest Republicans call all Democrats, Communists who are ruining the country. I saw a quote this morning by the idiot MTG referring to Pelosi as a communist ho is destroying the country. I guess Democrats need to play dirty just like the Republicans do if they want to win elections It's sad that it's come this, but you can't be a bleeding heart liberal without being demonized these days. So, liberals need to toughen up and speak loudly. They need to label the Republicans for what they have become, fascists with theocratic tendencies.

To be honest, I don't think anyone even knows how to define left and right these days. Everyone seems to feel they can define what it means to be left or right to the point where the terms have become close to meaningless. I do believe in compromise, regardless of where one stands. Compromise is the only way to get anything done and that is a huge problem in the US these days. I'm not referring to abortion. Abortion is simply a medical procedure that a woman should have the right to access when she feels it's necessary. 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. There are no late term abortions, except to save the life of the mother or remove a nonviable fetus. And, that's between the woman and her medical provider. It's about privacy and bodily autonomy. It's ironic that the party that always speaks about freedom wants tot take away basic freedoms from women.

When Republicans first discovered abortion as a wedge issue, it was quite effective. Public sentiment could be readily triggered and a slight minority could become a winning majority by driving turnout.
But public sentiment has evolved in the years since Republicans seized upon abortion. Now they’re holding the bag, tying themselves to a 70/30 minority position.
It will be interesting to see the vote that Schumer is forcing.
🍿
 
However, many on the left are very uncomfortable declaring their positions more represent the left.
True. The right has done well to demonize left positions.

Today's right wingers would not only like to return us to before Roe V Wade but also pre-Civil War.

What goes around comes around.

That said, I would disagree that viewing women are living and breathing human beings and deserve rights over their own self-automony should be considered a leftist position.
It isn't. It's a sane position.
 
Not just the right. "Moderates" on the left will attack anyone on their own team who they see as socialist, every bit as readily. The Democrat party has as its main platform "let's find a way to work with the Republicans", which is funny, because the Republicans don't give a shit, do not appreciate or respond to conciliatory gestures in any way. They never have. They have no plans to. This "news" of the week is not news, the Court is affirming exactly what the right wing has been publically, openly, non-secretly promising its base for the past 48 years of American politics. We're supposed to act surprised that they really meant it; I refuse. They obviously did. They never made any other claim than that they would stuff the Court with their people and "reinterpret" the Constitution to support their theocratic views. And did Democrats take any step, make any motion, to enshrine reproductive rights as actual law before it was too late? Of course they didn't. Their job isn't to protect American lives or rights, but to avoid offending the grindhouse of fascism no matter the human cost of doing so.

They are taking down Roe v Wade this week. They will go for Obergefell v Hodges during the next session, after their party has survived the midterms with roughly similar or slightly improved numbers in the houses of Congress. Then they'll try for Bostock and Lawrence v Texas, either then or the following year. They will do this because they can. Because they are justifiably certain that no one will stand in their way. If the federal government were solely in charge, I would lose the right to marry my partner, then to be employed while with him, then to have sex with him in my own house. Because only the "radical fringe" will attempt any substantive action to prevent them from doing so, and they don't have the numbers to do anything about this and most of them are in "safe states" anyway, so what do they care? Until it is too late, of course. Yes, state government will protect us for a while, but without federal support its power is limited and temporary. "Too late" will come, eventually.

None of this is a surprise. They are using the same tactics and strategies they have been using for more than a century and a half. You know socialism was the actual charge that sent 250,000 Romani people to grisly deaths, right? It was baseless, but they were accused of communism, and that became the legal basis for their extermination by the state. Actual socialism would have to work damn hard to be anywhere near as socially deleterious as anti-Communist paranoia has proven to be in the West. Christopher and His Kind should be required reading for every tepid Liberal. Half-hearted commitment to common decency means nothing, accomplishes nothing, if the people fighting you don't care about propiety or the rules. If intentional offense is their playbook, their public strategy, their recruitment technique. Screeching at them to be more polite, like the Left is polite to them, will do nothing. "When they go low, we go high". And that's how they win every time. It's cheating, but it isn't a secret.

People need to fucking wake up. But that would make them Woke and we can't have that. What would Father say? So they can but they won't.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with pro-abortion? I'm pro-abortion. Abortion isn't wrong and we need to stop talking as though we're embarrassed about it and it's something to be ashamed of. The hell with that. Pro-abortion, pro-abortion, pro-abortion.
Because "pro-abortion" isn't what people like me are for. I'm for a woman being able to make the right decision for herself. I'm either pro-choice or pro-legal access to abortion.
Do you think every workplace should be required to be unionized even if the employees vote against it? I can't believe you're against workers getting a say in the matter. But does this mean you'd doggedly insist that you aren't pro-union? Do you tell people, "No, no. Pro-union isn't what people like me are for. I'm pro-choice about unions. I'm pro-legal access to a union." Nobody says that. It's silly. You're pro-union. So why the heck can't we talk about abortion the same way we talk about unions -- the same way we talk about everything normal?
 
The numbers I heard today as to pro abortio in general, about 30% of republicans and 80% of democrats.
It's not 'pro-abortion' - it's 'pro-choice', 'pro-healthcare', 'pro-safety'.
Really. "pro abortion" is a major tell.
Semantics and euphemisms. Whatever you call it, it amounts to the same thing. You can say abort or terminate a fetus if you are squeamish or you can say kill. A life in the process of development is ended. You can spin it and rationalize it as you please.

I support abortion to a point. I oppose late term abortion.
No, it's not the "same thing". And what do you consider "late term abortion" and do you know why a doctor would perform one? Because no one wakes up one morning at 35 weeks and say.....'gee, I think I'll get an abortion today'. Nor is it currently LEGAL.
 
They are taking down Roe v Wade this week. They will go for Obergefell v Hodges during the next session, after their party has survived the midterms with roughly similar or slightly improved numbers in the houses of Congress. Then they'll try for Bostock and Lawrence v Texas, either then or the following year. They will do this because they can.
Gorsuch wrote Bostock. He's not going to reverse himself on it. And the logic of Bostock applies equally to Lawrence v Texas, so he's unlikely to vote to overturn that.
 
They are taking down Roe v Wade this week. They will go for Obergefell v Hodges during the next session, after their party has survived the midterms with roughly similar or slightly improved numbers in the houses of Congress. Then they'll try for Bostock and Lawrence v Texas, either then or the following year. They will do this because they can.
Gorsuch wrote Bostock. He's not going to reverse himself on it. And the logic of Bostock applies equally to Lawrence v Texas, so he's unlikely to vote to overturn that.
Of all these clowns, I like Neil Gorsuch the most. By a country mile. As a person, he seems like a good guy. He has a honest heart somewhere down there. He's been tolerant to non-evangelicals, some of the time, and an an actual ally of the Native nations, most of the time. He's said things in the chamber that have made me actually cheer.

But you're wrong. And I think you know that you are, and that you are playing the game.

Gorsuch takes the positions he does because he is more honest about the implications of Originalism and precedent than the rest of the conservative judges are. But if the consensus of the Court changes, he'll change with it. When was any politician ever afraid to change reverse their previously held positions in the direction of their current party consensus?
 
What's wrong with pro-abortion? I'm pro-abortion. Abortion isn't wrong and we need to stop talking as though we're embarrassed about it and it's something to be ashamed of. The hell with that. Pro-abortion, pro-abortion, pro-abortion.
Because "pro-abortion" isn't what people like me are for. I'm for a woman being able to make the right decision for herself. I'm either pro-choice or pro-legal access to abortion.
Do you think every workplace should be required to be unionized even if the employees vote against it? I can't believe you're against workers getting a say in the matter. But does this mean you'd doggedly insist that you aren't pro-union? Do you tell people, "No, no. Pro-union isn't what people like me are for. I'm pro-choice about unions. I'm pro-legal access to a union." Nobody says that. It's silly. You're pro-union. So why the heck can't we talk about abortion the same way we talk about unions -- the same way we talk about everything normal?

Nobody is advocating that pregnant women be forced to have abortions, and unions are decided by a majority of the workers. In many unionized companies, it is possible to opt out of being a member of the union, and that typically means that one gets the benefits of a union contract without paying for it or having to stop work when a strike is called. So you've managed to construct a whataboutism wrapped inside of a straw man.

The term "pro-abortion" can be taken in two different ways--to advocate that an abortion be allowed and to advocate that an abortion take place. That's why those who advocate for it being allowed prefer the term "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion". The decision should be made by the pregnant woman, not someone else who favors or opposes the abortion.
 
They are taking down Roe v Wade this week. They will go for Obergefell v Hodges during the next session, after their party has survived the midterms with roughly similar or slightly improved numbers in the houses of Congress. Then they'll try for Bostock and Lawrence v Texas, either then or the following year. They will do this because they can.
Gorsuch wrote Bostock. He's not going to reverse himself on it. And the logic of Bostock applies equally to Lawrence v Texas, so he's unlikely to vote to overturn that.
The logic was also that Americans had a right of privacy that so many depended on for so many things.
 
What's wrong with pro-abortion? I'm pro-abortion. Abortion isn't wrong and we need to stop talking as though we're embarrassed about it and it's something to be ashamed of. The hell with that. Pro-abortion, pro-abortion, pro-abortion.
Because "pro-abortion" isn't what people like me are for. I'm for a woman being able to make the right decision for herself. I'm either pro-choice or pro-legal access to abortion.
Do you think every workplace should be required to be unionized even if the employees vote against it? I can't believe you're against workers getting a say in the matter. But does this mean you'd doggedly insist that you aren't pro-union? Do you tell people, "No, no. Pro-union isn't what people like me are for. I'm pro-choice about unions. I'm pro-legal access to a union." Nobody says that. It's silly. You're pro-union. So why the heck can't we talk about abortion the same way we talk about unions -- the same way we talk about everything normal?
I'll take "Another Shitty Political Analogy" for $1200 Mayim.
 
Very sorry for the derail! But I've been noticing a trend for a long time that the right is very comfortable and even confrontational about declaring that they are conservative and far right. No qualms. The middle is for the wimps. However, many on the left are very uncomfortable declaring their positions more represent the left. Their position is moderate. People on the left don't like to admit that they are on the left. I don't know why.

We declare it all the time. We're just not as zealous about identity. We'd rather talk about issues and principles.

But for some reason, right wingers don't like to talk about actual principles. I don't know why. (Kidding. I do know why. ;))
 
Gorsuch wrote Bostock. He's not going to reverse himself on it. And the logic of Bostock applies equally to Lawrence v Texas, so he's unlikely to vote to overturn that.
But you're wrong. And I think you know that you are, and that you are playing the game.
Yeah, telling yourself the other guy already agrees with you is just a cheap way to give yourself permission to feel like you won without going to the effort of coming up with a decent argument.

Gorsuch takes the positions he does because he is more honest about the implications of Originalism and precedent than the rest of the conservative judges are.
He took the position on Bostock he did because firing a man for doing something you'd let a woman do is plainly straight-up sex discrimination, precedent or no, and because trying to reframe it as "sexual orientation discrimination" or whatever Alito called it is blatant sophistry. Gorsuch's ruling on that case should not have come as a surprise to anyone who heard the oral arguments.

But if the consensus of the Court changes, he'll change with it. When was any politician ever afraid to change reverse their previously held positions in the direction of their current party consensus?
"Afraid"? That's turning reality on its head. Politicians don't stick to their guns when their parties change because they're afraid; they change when their parties change because they're afraid. Their parties have power over them because they need their parties' support to keep their cushy jobs. SCOTUS justices do not need their parties' support to keep their cushy jobs.

For Gorsuch to change to match the consensus would be for Gorsuch to volunteer to become Clarence Thomas to Alito's Scalia. The guy doesn't strike me as wanting to become Clarence Thomas.
 
Gorsuch wrote Bostock. He's not going to reverse himself on it. And the logic of Bostock applies equally to Lawrence v Texas, so he's unlikely to vote to overturn that.
The logic was also that Americans had a right of privacy that so many depended on for so many things.
Lawrence v Texas was decided based on privacy; but who should have won that case follows directly from the plain text of the 14th Amendment whether there's a right to privacy or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom