SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[s_bushido]

Only reminder #90879012342 that Republicans hate Democracy.

Fixed that for you.

[Edge-]

In addition to that, Gietzien is threatening to send out Anti-Abortion activists to carry out a door-to-door investigation in countries where the provision lost because these people are sore losers.

I do wonder if folks like Tehdang are still going to pretend that this is a reasonable position and that the "pro-life" movement hasn't largely been co-opted by these types of extremists. Just like the Republican party and American conservative movement as a whole.

Really though, the stories about girls and women being forced to carry their rapists child as a 10 year old until they get an abortion out of state, the woman who had to carry a fetus missing half its skull, the other women denied abortions for miscarriages that had to "birth" the dead fetus and deal with that trauma.

All of those things are the legacy of Republicans. Of Donald Trump. Of Mitch McConnell. Of Amy Coney Barrett. Of Brett Kavanaugh. Of Samuel Alito. Of Niel Gorsuch. Of John Roberts. Their legacy is the unnecessary and cruel suffering women were forced to endure, or potentially endure if they couldn't get access to health care in another state, because of them.

[tehdang]

I do wonder if folks like Tehdang are still going to pretend that this is a reasonable position and that the "pro-life" movement hasn't largely been co-opted by these types of extremists. Just like the Republican party and American conservative movement as a whole.

Just as soon as you admit the "pro-choice" has been co-opted by no-restrictions-ever extremists on the issue, just like the Democratic party and American progressive movement as a whole.

The Kansas Democrats should be going to Democrat headquarters to teach them a thing or to about how to run a successful movement. The campaign that ended the amendment barely even mentioned the word abortion, talked about the amendment as a "strict government mandate" as in "Kansans don't want another government mandate" (alongside signs of coronavirus mask mandates, and a church closure announcement). They had a winning strategy for a red state. The national movement writes off these states and speaks openly about robbing their current political power in national elections.

[Edge-]

Just as soon as you admit the "pro-choice" has been co-opted by no-restrictions-ever extremists on the issue, just like the Democratic party and American progressive movement as a whole.

I won't, because that's a strawman. You have no Democrats pushing for "abortions right up until the moment of birth" in the same way you have both state-wide and national Republican pushing for "no-exception bans on abortion".

So no, I don't think I will. - Steve Rogers

The Kansas Democrats should be going to Democrat headquarters to teach them a thing or to about how to run a successful movement. The campaign that ended the amendment barely even mentioned the word abortion, talked about the amendment as a "strict government mandate" as in "Kansans don't want another government mandate" (alongside signs of coronavirus mask mandates, and a church closure announcement). They had a winning strategy for a red state. The national movement writes off these states and speaks openly about robbing their current political power in national elections.

The winning strategy was simply letting people vote on the issue. Something that, as pointed out, Republicans seem very disinclined to allow again because it would be terrible for their interests in banning abortion outright to appease their parties extremists - https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...b5bc1548518cf6

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice scoffed Monday at a suggestion by Democratic lawmakers to let voters decide whether abortion should continue to be allowed in the state.

The Republican governor said the state’s abortion law falls under the scrutiny of the Legislature and the attorney general.

Because they know, especially after Kansas, that leaving the issue up to voters - you know, democracy - is just terribly inconvenient for the goals they want to achieve.

[Endus]

Just as soon as you admit the "pro-choice" has been co-opted by no-restrictions-ever extremists on the issue, just like the Democratic party and American progressive movement as a whole.

Respecting women's basic human dignity and self-ownership is in no way an "extreme" point of view.

But kudos on telling on yourself.

[tehdang]

I won't, because that's a strawman. You have no Democrats pushing for "abortions right up until the moment of birth" in the same way you have both state-wide and national Republican pushing for "no-exception bans on abortion".

So no, I don't think I will. - Steve Rogers

I, too, consider your post detached from reality. Framing it in opposite ideologies helps to illustrate it. Let me know when you don't consider it a strawman, because that's just about the point I'll be willing to do the same.

The winning strategy was simply letting people vote on the issue. Something that, as pointed out, Republicans seem very disinclined to allow again because it would be terrible for their interests in banning abortion outright to appease their parties extremists - https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...b5bc1548518cf6

Hmm, not a word in here about how to persuade and motivate people's votes ahead of a major issue. Democrats win a vote in Kansas, other Democrats have nothing to say beyond the Republican response.

Because they know, especially after Kansas, that leaving the issue up to voters - you know, democracy - is just terribly inconvenient for the goals they want to achieve.

Elected representatives write and vote on the laws. This includes which processes, if any, should be made to mimic direct democracy. This has turned out to be quite problematic for people that write off the states and call the voters stupid for not electing their preferred candidates.

[Edge-]

I, too, consider your post detached from reality. Framing it in opposite ideologies helps to illustrate it.

It doesn't, because that's a flat-out lie. The reverse is not happening, as desperately as you want it to.

Meanwhile, the actual horror stories of children being potentially forced to carry the fetus of their rapist and be forced to risk their life to give birth to it, stories of girls/women carrying failed pregnancies that have no chance of survival and will simply risk the health of the girl/mother, and more that Republicans keep denying are real, keep happening.

You're just simply rejecting reality because it's terribly inconvenient for your political ideology and its view of the world.

Let me know when you don't consider it a strawman, because that's just about the point I'll be willing to do the same.

When you have examples to show of serious pushes at the state and/or federal level for similar levels of extremism from Democrats.

We have examples of Republicans doing this, so surely you also have examples, right?

Hmm, not a word in here about how to persuade and motivate people's votes ahead of a major issue. Democrats win a vote in Kansas, other Democrats have nothing to say beyond the Republican response.

Democrats won? No sir, the voters of Kansas won. That's who voted, everyone in Kansas who wanted to. Republicans, Democrats, independents, non-party affiliated, and probably some folks for fringe third parties too.

That they happened to vote to support bodily autonomy for girls/women, which also happens to be a Democratic platform position, is a happy coincidence.

And as a reminder: Kansas is a largely Republican state. Though again, this doesn't address the Republican fear of voters actually being able to decide on positions because Republicans know that their official party positions are deeply unpopular nationally, and often even within their own states.

Elected representatives write and vote on the laws. This includes which processes, if any, should be made to mimic direct democracy. This has turned out to be quite problematic for people that write off the states and call the voters stupid for not electing their preferred candidates.

No, again. It just highlights how scared Republicans continue to be of actual voters. Because again, they know that even within red states, their party positions. Sure Kansas may have a fairly conservative Democratic governor, but a look at their legislature shows that it's 2:1 (or more) in favor of Republicans in both the House and the Senate.

Almost like they're relying on gerrymandering and property to enforce their ideology writ-large, even when their own voters don't support certain party positions like he current extremists position on girls/womens bodily autonomy.

[Endus]

When you have examples to show of serious pushes at the state and/or federal level for similar levels of extremism from Democrats.

We have examples of Republicans doing this, so surely you also have examples, right?

Even entertaining that possibility as actual "extremism" is pretty objectionable, frankly.

Is Canada an extremist country? Because we've had no restrictions on abortions since 1988.

[Edge-]

Is Canada an extremist country? Because we've had no restrictions on abortions since 1988.

Well, to hear the people still upset about the vaccine mandates in Canada...or whatever it is they're upset about now, if they even know...yeah, apparently. It's a communist country according to them!

[Dontrike]

Just as soon as you admit the "pro-choice" has been co-opted by no-restrictions-ever extremists on the issue, just like the Democratic party and American progressive movement as a whole.

That's a really shitty argument that brings in a bit of "herp derp both sides" into the equation.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, not a word in here about how to persuade and motivate people's votes ahead of a major issue. Democrats win a vote in Kansas, other Democrats have nothing to say beyond the Republican response.

Imagine the voters actually choosing something and you think it's a win for democrats. We get it, if the state decides against abortion you think it's amazing, but when the people decide the other way you believe it's evil. Air is less transparent than you.

[Jastall]

I, too, consider your post detached from reality. Framing it in opposite ideologies helps to illustrate it. Let me know when you don't consider it a strawman, because that's just about the point I'll be willing to do the same.

Hmm, not a word in here about how to persuade and motivate people's votes ahead of a major issue. Democrats win a vote in Kansas, other Democrats have nothing to say beyond the Republican response.

Elected representatives write and vote on the laws. This includes which processes, if any, should be made to mimic direct democracy. This has turned out to be quite problematic for people that write off the states and call the voters stupid for not electing their preferred candidates.

You used to at least seem like you had thought-out arguments for your positions on this subject, but the more time goes the more you simply resort to "nu-uh, both sides, also Democrats bad!" at every available opportunity.

[Nymrohd]

I don't see how no restrictions is extremism. If your approach to pro-choice is deontological and based on the pregnant person's right to control their body, restrictions are irrational. You either respect that people have an absolute right to control their own bodies or you don't.

[s_bushido]

I don't see how no restrictions is extremism.

Because when your position on this issue is as abhorrent as those of conservatives, you have to pretend that everyone else is just as bad as you are.

[Nymrohd]

Because when your position on this issue is as abhorrent as those of conservatives, you have to pretend that everyone else is just as bad as you are.

It was more a comment because I see progressive people trying to justify things. They don't have to. There is nothing wrong with no restrictions.

[Endus]

It was more a comment because I see progressive people trying to justify things. They don't have to. There is nothing wrong with no restrictions.

Like I said; that's been the legal status quo in Canada for like 35 years now. Calling it "extreme" is laughable. Especially since restrictions that are so common have essentially no justifying rationale for them other than people thinking abortion is an icky subject that makes them uncomfortable, and that's not a reason for a law.

[Nymrohd]

Like I said; that's been the legal status quo in Canada for like 35 years now. Calling it "extreme" is laughable. Especially since restrictions that are so common have essentially no justifying rationale for them other than people thinking abortion is an icky subject that makes them uncomfortable, and that's not a reason for a law.

Oh the rationale is entirely political. Politicians simply do not want to anger the small parts of the electorate that are against abortion so they instead have a week limit and then add vague exceptions. The terrifying thing is that in most western states there still are restrictions and if someone does take a person to court for having an abortion the vague exceptions may not prove in their favor with the wrong judge. No restrictions to abortion is limited to Canada, China and I think one other country?

[s_bushido]

It was more a comment because I see progressive people trying to justify things. They don't have to. There is nothing wrong with no restrictions.

Well, that itself is just a reaction to how the pro-"""life""" side frames things. If they're calling you an extremist because you believe that abortion should be available up to the moment of birth (when you know full well that basically the only reason that would even be a consideration would be serious medical issues), it does make sense to at least try to justify/clarify your position.

[LilSaihah]

No restrictions to abortion is limited to Canada, China and I think one other country?

Not really fair, the Chinese restrictions are in the other direction

[enigma77]

No restrictions to abortion is limited to Canada, China and I think one other country?

Great company!

[tehdang]

It doesn't, because that's a flat-out lie. The reverse is not happening, as desperately as you want it to.

The basics on what makes you a creature of the left is that you believe the right is just too extremist on a host of issues, and the right's similar claims on the left are totally misplaced. I think rehashing this point isn't worthwhile to continue. Some left-right differences won't be solved on the internet.

Democrats won? No sir, the voters of Kansas won. That's who voted, everyone in Kansas who wanted to. Republicans, Democrats, independents, non-party affiliated, and probably some folks for fringe third parties too.

That they happened to vote to support bodily autonomy for girls/women, which also happens to be a Democratic platform position, is a happy coincidence.

And as a reminder: Kansas is a largely Republican state. Though again, this doesn't address the Republican fear of voters actually being able to decide on positions because Republicans know that their official party positions are deeply unpopular nationally, and often even within their own states.

Still not a word in here on what Democrats and associated groups used to sell the campaign against to the voters.

No, again. It just highlights how scared Republicans continue to be of actual voters. Because again, they know that even within red states, their party positions. Sure Kansas may have a fairly conservative Democratic governor, but a look at their legislature shows that it's 2:1 (or more) in favor of Republicans in both the House and the Senate.

Almost like they're relying on gerrymandering and property to enforce their ideology writ-large, even when their own voters don't support certain party positions like he current extremists position on girls/womens bodily autonomy.

You can't just choose direct democracy when you feel like it. Democrats have recently cheered for judges in NC reversing constitutional amendments that were voted on, and passed with majorities, by the entire public. You're showing an arbitrary method for when representatives vote on laws, and when they're sidelined. In fact, it's indicative of a failure to persuade voters of the importance of issues (indeed, an intentional dumbing-down of complex issues) when it comes time for electing representatives.

You used to at least seem like you had thought-out arguments for your positions on this subject, but the more time goes the more you simply resort to "nu-uh, both sides, also Democrats bad!" at every available opportunity.

I respond with thought to the manner in which I was addressed.

In this case, it was desiring me to admit extremism within two movements and my political party. I was aware that the author would obviously refuse to do so in his own case, and he happily obliged. Since we both think the other as trending towards extremism, the point was communicated to anybody reading. But feel free to go in depth on your stances on marital harmony when somebody asks you if you're stopped beating your wife.

I don't see how no restrictions is extremism. If your approach to pro-choice is deontological and based on the pregnant person's right to control their body, restrictions are irrational. You either respect that people have an absolute right to control their own bodies or you don't.

The abortion debate is over when there can or should be restrictions, from conception to birth. An extreme view on a pro-life side would be banning all abortions from the first day of pregnancy. An extreme view on the pro-choice side is standing for no restrictions up until the moment of birth. I've pointed out when politicians are asked if they can state any restriction they favor, and they cannot point to any. I understand the debating position that an extreme position on the issue is justified by the philosophical stance of absolute control of the second body by the first body through every minute of the pregnancy.