Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[Segnosaur]

Could be that pro choice candidates are also seen as having more general socialist agendas which are even more unpalatable to a majority of voters.

I think the most important part of that sentence is the word "seen". While there are a few "far left" Democrats, they do not control the party. Yet how often have we heard the right wing screech "socialist/communist" at Biden despite the fact that he has been a very moderate candidate.

I think the built-in advantage that the Republicans have in politics has something to do with Republican success at getting their policies implemented (including anti-abortion)... Voter suppression, gerrymandering, an electoral college and Senate that gives more weight to states that have more cows than People.

If it were a "fair" fight, the Republicans probably would not have had held any significant power over the past couple of decades (not with their current policies/ideology anyways). But Moscow Mitch was able to block much of Obama's agenda (including his supreme Court pick) despite the fact that Republican senators came from states representing less than half the US population, and Stubby Mcbonespurs was able to nominate 3 supreme court justices (as well as approve an unpopular set of tax cuts for millionaires) despite the fact he was elected with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Clinton.



Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

 

[Lplus]

I think the most important part of that sentence is the word "seen". While there are a few "far left" Democrats, they do not control the party. Yet how often have we heard the right wing screech "socialist/communist" at Biden despite the fact that he has been a very moderate candidate.

I think the built-in advantage that the Republicans have in politics has something to do with Republican success at getting their policies implemented (including anti-abortion)... Voter suppression, gerrymandering, an electoral college and Senate that gives more weight to states that have more cows than People.

If it were a "fair" fight, the Republicans probably would not have had held any significant power over the past couple of decades (not with their current policies/ideology anyways). But Moscow Mitch was able to block much of Obama's agenda (including his supreme Court pick) despite the fact that Republican senators came from states representing less than half the US population, and Stubby Mcbonespurs was able to nominate 3 supreme court justices (as well as approve an unpopular set of tax cuts for millionaires) despite the fact he was elected with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Clinton.



Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

That may well be the case, but I suspect the fear among the "middle ground" is that they might find a way to do so.

 

[shuttlt]

I think the most important part of that sentence is the word "seen". While there are a few "far left" Democrats, they do not control the party. Yet how often have we heard the right wing screech "socialist/communist" at Biden despite the fact that he has been a very moderate candidate.

You maybe need to unpack what they actually mean when they say this. Often what that means is an elitist, technocratic, management state that promises some kind of utopia resulting from progress guided by experts and bureaucrats while actually making the population ever more dependent on an ever larger state with the background of society being understood as a struggle between an oppressed class and an oppressor class whose interests the "socialists/communists" rhetorically represent.

 

[Mr Fied]

You maybe need to unpack what they actually mean when they say this. Often what that means is an elitist, technocratic, management state that promises some kind of utopia resulting from progress guided by experts and bureaucrats while actually making the population ever more dependent on an ever larger state with the background of society being understood as a struggle between an oppressed class and an oppressor class whose interests the "socialists/communists" rhetorically represent.

There is nothing to unpack.

The only thing they mean when they say this is, "We don't understand what communism or socialism are."

If anyone believes that any of the mainstream Democrat politicians are anything more than slightly left of centre they are delusional.

 

[shuttlt]

There is nothing to unpack.

The only thing they mean when they say this is, "We don't understand what communism or socialism are."

If anyone believes that any of the mainstream Democrat politicians are anything more than slightly left of centre they are delusional.

Communism and Socialism have been around as ideas for, what, 200 years? They have meant a great many wildly contradictory things over that period. This game where we take a broad concept with a variety of historical meanings, and then pretend that actually the meaning is very precise and somebody is using the word incorrect is silly. It's a cheap rhetorical trick.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Could be that pro choice candidates are also seen as having more general socialist agendas

And that'd be right. I've mentioned this enough times in the past couple of weeks to feel like I'm harping, but the Democratic party as a whole has not been in favor of abortion rights until very recently. In hindsight it's obvious that they should have been, but the people who have argued that they should invest some political capital into redundantly preserving the legality of abortion have been the more generally socialist side who don't understand that incrementalism, bipartisanship and compromise are the real key to lasting change.

which are even more unpalatable to a majority of voters.

And that'd be wrong. Taken as a whole and divorced from political context, voters support socialist goals like universal health care and codified abortion rights. That's why those issues get ignored by moderate Democrats; anyone who cares are already safe blue votes. What they're unpalatable with are the "swing" voters that moderate dems fall over themselves to court, the people who see one party of hateful face-eating leopards and the other trying to make things better for everyone and genuinely can't decide.

You maybe need to unpack what they actually mean when they say this. Often what that means is an elitist, technocratic, management state that promises some kind of utopia resulting from progress guided by experts and bureaucrats while actually making the population ever more dependent on an ever larger state with the background of society being understood as a struggle between an oppressed class and an oppressor class whose interests the "socialists/communists" rhetorically represent.

That's a lot of unpacking for "ooga booga."

 

[bruto]

Communism and Socialism have been around as ideas for, what, 200 years? They have meant a great many wildly contradictory things over that period. This game where we take a broad concept with a variety of historical meanings, and then pretend that actually the meaning is very precise and somebody is using the word incorrect is silly. It's a cheap rhetorical trick.

One might have hoped, obviously in vain, that after those 200 years people would know the difference. Ther are many breeds of cats in the world too, but when the family moggie scratches at the door only a fool yells "tiger attack!"

 

[catsmate]

If some women are truly "horrified" that they won't be able to kill an unwanted baby, well, then maybe they should take measures to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes, women don't have a choice in cases of rape and incest, but such cases account for fewer than 2% of all abortions; some studies put the percentage even lower. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective abortions, i.e., abortions done purely for convenience.

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" apply to the baby as well? What right does the mother have to make the life-or-death decision for the baby, when the baby is powerless to express himself/herself at that point?

What additional risk to the life of the mother do you consider acceptable before you woud permit a termination?
A 25% additional risk of death?
50%
100%
200%
400%
800%

 

[Suddenly]

It puzzles me why so many states are going down this path if it is so unpopular. Are they states that are so gerrymandered that they can show the middle finger to the voters or are they populated with people who are so fundamentally religious that they would bring back the Salem witch trials if they could?

Gerrymandered is one.

A second is there is often a dominant party so the primary, not the general, is the election that counts so candidates aren't even trying to appeal to the majority, rather a majority of the people in their party and who vote in primary elections and at that usually in non-presidential years. This generally means angry people with time on their hands.

Related to that is that some states and municipalities seem to go out of their way to make voting difficult. I had to make phone calls to figure out when my town election happened. It was a random Tuesday, not a holiday, etc. In my town of 2500 people the mayor was elected by a vote of 187-19.

That sort of thing...

 

[shuttlt]

One might have hoped, obviously in vain, that after those 200 years people would know the difference. Ther are many breeds of cats in the world too, but when the family moggie scratches at the door only a fool yells "tiger attack!"

Sure, but that isn't how these kinds of words work. "Socialism" and "Communism" are much vaguer words than "cat". All sorts of things are Communist, in a sense.... or Socialist, from a certain point of view. They simply aren't clearly demarked positions with well policed boundaries. It's like the definitions of Left and Right in politics. People who are left wing in one persons perspective could be right wing in another.

 

[shuttlt]

What additional risk to the life of the mother do you consider acceptable before you woud permit a termination?
A 25% additional risk of death?
50%
100%
200%
400%
800%

This isn't going to turn into the continuum fallacy, is it?

 

[Bob001]

And here is where we are:

The New York Times reports, “There are no allowances for victims of rape or incest in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee or Texas.” In Idaho, a woman would have to file a police report to obtain an abortion, something virtually impossible for incest victims and others who live in fear of their attackers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/05/forced-birth-abortion/

Note that this conservative columnist has started calling the anti-abortion crowd "forced birth," no longer "pro-life."

Forced-birth advocates can hardly be called “pro-life” when they are willing to gamble with the lives and health of women. To say women will die because of abortion laws or will suffer untold harm, both mental and physical, is not hyperbole. It’s reality for women who are now deprived of the right to make their own decision about their health and even their lives.

 

[Bob001]

.....
There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.

1/ A fetus is not a baby in law or in the teachings of most religions. 2/ If it was, on what basis do we say it has the right to compel any other person to risk their life, their health and their economic condition for its benefit?

 

[Suddenly]

1/ A fetus is not a baby in law or in the teachings of most religions. 2/ If it was, on what basis do we say it has the right to compel any other person to risk their life, their health and their economic condition for its benefit?

There is also "convenience" as a word for not having to birth and be responsible for a human being. Implying that it is frivolous .

If men could get pregnant there would be storefront abortion clinics in every town.

 

[Upchurch]

And that'd be right. I've mentioned this enough times in the past couple of weeks to feel like I'm harping, but the Democratic party as a whole has not been in favor of abortion rights until very recently.

Is it that they not been in favor of abortion rights or is it that they are in favor of them and just took it for granted that no sane Supreme Court would ever overturn such a basic right?

Obviously, hindsight is 20/20, but it was not an unreasonable assumption.

 

[shuttlt]

1/ A fetus is not a baby in law or in the teachings of most religions. 2/ If it was, on what basis do we say it has the right to compel any other person to risk their life, their health and their economic condition for its benefit?

I'm not sure that valuing another life, or some class of lives, is something that you can really be reasoned in to if you don't feel it. At the end of the day, any concept of rights, and who they apply to, is either coldly utilitarian, or derives from these kinds of gut instinct.

 

[shuttlt]

There is also "convenience" as a word for not having to birth and be responsible for a human being. Implying that it is frivolous .

If men could get pregnant there would be storefront abortion clinics in every town.

And if women could get pregnant, there would be no concept of child support.

 

[Bob001]

I'm not sure that valuing another life, or some class of lives, is something that you can really be reasoned in to if you don't feel it. At the end of the day, any concept of rights, and who they apply to, is either coldly utilitarian, or derives from these kinds of gut instinct.

You can feel and believe anything you want and live accordingly. The question is whether you should be able to impose your feelings and beliefs on anyone else, with criminal penalties for anyone who disagrees.

 

[Segnosaur]

One might have hoped, obviously in vain, that after those 200 years people would know the difference. Ther are many breeds of cats in the world too, but when the family moggie scratches at the door only a fool yells "tiger attack!"

Sure, but that isn't how these kinds of words work. "Socialism" and "Communism" are much vaguer words than "cat".

I don't think definitions are as vague as you might think.

Communism has a pretty specific definition (workers control the means of production), etc. Plus we have a pretty clear example of 'communism in action' (e.g. the USSR). And no democrat (even the most 'left wing') wants anything resembling that.

The term 'socialism' is perhaps a little vaguer (e.g. even Bernie Sanders has used the term to describe himself), but even there the mainstream democrats are not proposing anything near what 'socialists' want.

Plus, part of the reason the terms are seen as vague is because the republicans themselves keep misusing them. They distort the meaning of the word, then claim "the meaning fits because we ourselves have helped distort it".

 

[Suddenly]

Is it that they not been in favor of abortion rights or is it that they are in favor of them and just took it for granted that no sane Supreme Court would ever overturn such a basic right?

Obviously, hindsight is 20/20, but it was not an unreasonable assumption.

It was delusional. Especially in the sense that the best case scenario was a profound gutting of Roe/Casey that would make the right illusory. To the extent that hadn't happened already.

They've been rather apologetic about supporting abortion rights and that's done nothing but enable those that have seized the moral high ground.

Banning abortion was always the morally abhorrent position, but the Democratic party seemed to want to consider abortion more a necessary evil than something that greatly increases quality of life for those seeking it.