Gay equality and being fully pro-choice are NOT "far left" positions.

[Lyric]

Neither is opposition to the "unitary executive" crap and torture. That stuff is NOT "far left fringe". If people are upset because of SCOTUS picks that appear to be less than reliable on some of these issues, it's not because the grumblers are disappointed "far left fringe nuts". It's ridiculous to keep pretending like the only people who are unhappy are those who are so out on the left of the political spectrum that Karl Marx looks moderate in comparison.

There are some here who are trying to perpetuate the lie that standing firm on reproductive choice is now a "fringe" position, that embracing 100% equality for EVERYONE under the law is a "leftbagger" daydream, and that opposing executive usurpation of power and legalized torture is just another tree-hugging, bleeding heart, unrealistic stance of the "leftnuts". Sorry folks. It's just not true. You can say it a thousand times, you can mock us, you can lie until your tongue bursts, but endless repetition of a lie does not make it true.

Standing up for choice is a MAINSTREAM liberal value. Advocating equality under the law for ALL citizens of ALL races and sexual orientations is a MAINSTREAM liberal value. Opposing Bush's "unitary executive" crap and opposing legal torture is MAINSTREAM liberal, not "fringe".

So when people say that only the "fringe leftists" are unhappy with the current administration, I assure you, that is NOT the case. There are plenty of people who are scared sick about what's going on, and LOTS of them are just plain old LIBERALS. Not crazy leftists.

And I'd really appreciate it if a certain small handful of people here would stop trying to characterize classic liberal positions as impractical, divisive, far left fringe lunacy. Supporting equality, privacy, liberty, and military sanity are NOT "fringe" positions. That's what ALL of us should be doing--not because it's politically expedient or good strategy (even though it IS) but because it's the right thing to do.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I fully agree. And, I despise any lumping together. We are all different.

Most people I know are not far left or even progressive, but nearly all agree on the points you list.

If I had to use a label for these views, I'd use the term, "rational".

:thumbsup:

[havocmom]

7. were it just 'lumping together' I could deal with it. But it is a tactic to silence discussion

It is just one more version of 'you're either with us or with the terrarist' It doesn't make it less revolting that it is attempted in a bit of a velvet glove.

[cliffordu]

14. I agree on all these points

and you called ME everything but "rational" when I was at your house.....

[FarLeftFist]

66. But they are also 'far left' positions.

And mainstream liberal positions.

[sandnsea]

2. But those are distortions of her views

She said there is no constitutional right to gay-marriage. She did not say she opposes gay marriage, or that she thinks states should not have to treat all marriages equally. She said the right to marriage is not in the constitution. It's not.

She advised Clinton to pass a late term abortion ban to prevent Republicans from passing a worse one.

Her comments on unitary executive were specific to domestic policy, specifically against foreign policy and the kind of crap Bush pulled. It was encouraging the President to take a more active role in setting policy in administrative agencies. It had nothing to do what Bush did with it.

I have absolutely no idea what the torture crap is about, but it is likely just as baseless as the rest of the attacks against her.

[havocmom]

5. I don't think there is any constitutional right to ANY marriage, is there?

Why anyone would use the argument that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage worries me a good deal. Sounds a lot like denying EQUAL rights to gay people who would like to enjoy state recognized marriage just like other adult Americans.

The more I hear, the less I relish having this person on the SCOTUS.

And I agree with OP, there is nothing far left about favoring EQUALITY under the law.

[sandnsea]

10. That's the exact point

If there's no constitutional right to ANY marriage, then why in the world should she say there IS a constitutional right to gay marriage?

[LeftyMom]

11. Because there is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law, and the state grants

marriage licenses to some couples. And because there's a constitutional mandate that states offer full faith and credit to other states, which means that marriage licenses granted in one state are honored in the other 49. Except for gay couples, which brings us back to equal protection.

DOMA is unconstitutional. Twice. If she doesn't get that, she's not qualified to shovel snow on the steps of the supreme court, let alone decide law inside.

[HughMoran]

12. Arguing a broad statement versus microsemantics?

Good luck.

[havocmom]

16. She chose to phrase it the way she did, instead of pointing out constitution says zilch re marriage

And THAT is the point. She made a vapid excuse for not working to ensure EQUAL RIGHTS.

[sandnsea]

24. Yeah, she chose to answer like a smart lawyer

You prefer she jump off a cliff of controversy and destroy her career?

[havocmom]

25. I would prefer someone with the integrity to support equality

and do so unashamedly.

[Toasterlad]

42. So Would I. But Many Here Don't Give a Shit About Equality.

They only care about "winning". Which means, getting Obama whatever he wants, whether it's good for America or not.

[Smashcut]

27. Wrong. This is absolutely, 100% false.

'there's no constitutional right to ANY marriage"

This is wrong. There absolutely is a recognized Constitutional right to marry the person of one's choice. It's an aspect of substantive due process which was recognized most famously by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

There are many well established Constitutional rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution but that flow from its general liberty guarantees. Substantive due process includes not only the right to marry, but also the right to rear one's children the way one sees fit, the right to travel, the right to privacy, etc. Did you know that the right to vote isn't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution? Would you say the right to vote isn't Constitutionally guaranteed? Of course not. It, too, is protected by due process.

In fact, the only people who have tried to limit the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those written on the page are so-called "strict constructionists," a.k.a., conservatives, who naturally wish to limit individual rights of the common folk.

However, this is not the way our Constitution works or is currently applied. The rights you are guaranteed by the Constitution don't end at the four corners of the page. Among these rights is the substantive due process right to marry a person of one's choosing, which, as stated, is settled law as of the Loving decision.

Anyone who had passed Constitutional law would know that there is in fact a right to marry. Since Elena Kagan is a bit more advanced in her legal career, this couldn't be what she meant when she answered that there was no Constitutional right to gay marriage; she wasn't sliding by on a "lawyerly" technicality, as you like to suppose she was. In fact, it's more likely she knows there has been an ongoing debate about whether the right to marry a person of one's choosing also applies to those seeking to marry someone of the same gender.

The fact she answered this way is troubling because, if it was meant prospectively, it seems likely she would side with conservatives and limit the right to mixed-gender couples.

[sandnsea]

29. No, that isn't what was decided there

Loving says that a right granted by a state to one individual, has to be granted to all. Due process and full faith and credit. A state could have responded by eliminating marriage altogether and that would have withstood the constitutional question. There is no right to marriage in the constitution.

She doesn't directly address any of the gay marriage issues that will come before the court at some point in time. They won't be decided by finding a right to marriage in the constitution. They will be decided either with federal law changed or by someone bringing an air tight case to SCOTUS. When someone does, I would bet my last dollar that Elena Kagan will be supportive and write the decision.

[Smashcut]

30. I'm sorry - you really don't know what you're talking about.

First of all, Loving had nothing to do with FF&C. Secondly, no, as I explained, a state could NOT have eliminated marriage altogether to "withstand the constitutional question" (?) because the Court held that the right to marry the person of one's choosing was protected under the federal Constitution. Everyone in VA at the time of the Loving case could marry - it was a question of whom they could marry that was at issue. Nonetheless, the Court confirmed that the right to marry was protected by substantive due process.

The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because it's based on your false supposition that there is no Constitutionally recognized right to marry, which there very clearly is.

[sandnsea]

31. No, you don't

It was decided, in part, on due process. To deprive one citizen of the right to marry who they choose, on the basis of race, is to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. It did not create a right in the federal constitution, it defined the State's responsibility to create racial equality in marriage.

Big difference.

[Smashcut]

32. Again, you really don't know what you're talking about.

And you're actually contradicting yourself now. But at least this answer seems somewhat better researched, although still ultimately wrong.

"It was decided, in part, on due process." Yes, that's correct. It is a substantive due process RIGHT. The Constitutional protection of a liberty interest from infringement creates a right. That's what rights are!

"it defined the State's responsibility to create racial equality in marriage."

Yes, and the way it did that was to guarantee the right of every citizen to marry the person of his or her choosing, regardless of race. The question is whether the same holding applies to same-gender couples as well.

From the decision itself:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

Please just stop. Your argument is false, you're speaking to someone with the requisite training to tell you that and yet you still pig-headedly refuse to admit your error. It's unbecoming, really, but I suppose typical of those who refuse to see error in anything a politician does.

[sandnsea]

33. Ack, that does not create a right in the constitution

If it did, there wouldn't be any question to gay marriage.

There is a difference between an actual constitutional right, and States having to implement policy equally.

There's no right to education in the constitution. But states must implement education equally for the same reason they must implement marriage equally.

Breathing is a basic civil right of man, but there's no right to clean air in the constitution.

[Smashcut]

34. Now you're confusing unenumerated rights with equal protection.

There's no point in continuing this. I've done what needed to be done and what could be done--clearly not inform you, but rather inform those you were misleading.

Have a good day.

[sandnsea]

35. There is no constitutional right to marriage

Marriage is regulated by states. States don't have to issue marriage licenses. Lots of counties across the country quit issuing marriage licenses, both in opposition and support of gay marriage legislation. It's not a federal issue, it's a state issue. That's because there's no constitutional guarantee of marriage.

I mean seriously, you're arguing with quite a few very wise people, not just little old me. Elena Kagan is just one. You really think you're smarter than all of these legal scholars?

[William Z. Foster]

73. say what?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Rights are not privileges or permissions granted by the government that need to be spelled out.

You are disparaging and denying a right presumed to be retained by the people because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

[William Z. Foster]

75. that isn't where rights exist

There are no rights in the Constitution - the Constitution grants no rights. They would have to be privileges and not rights for that to be the case.

Rights are presumed to be universal, broad, and to exist outside of the Constitution. In no way was the Constitution intended to limit rights, which is what you are arguing - "it isn't in the Constitution." The authors worded the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very carefully in an effort to foreclose consideration of precisely the argument you are attempting to advance here.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Smashcut]

28. She should also google "substantive due process" as I describe above.

Her argument that there is no recognized Constitutional right to marry is totally false.

[bullwinkle428]

3. K&R.

It didn't take long, did it.

:facepalm:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

4. I didn't know any of these issues were being given away for compromise

I thought issues like the death penalty and guns were more in that category, not women's or gay rights. I suppose defining what is meant by 'unitary executive' might be an issue when your guy is in there. I dunno - I don't see why anybody cares that a few people here or there are 'wrong' - the only time it becomes an issue is when people start forming cliques that try to push those on the 'other side' from the site.

Edit: note that if this is specifically related to Kagan, then it's more complicated as all of her opinions have been related to her job function and may or may not represent her actual viewpoint. I refuse to assume that I know what's in her head.

[Lyric]

13. It's not just about Kagan

From what I understand, although her position on torture is good, her positions on the other issues I mentioned are sketchy at best, and scary at worst. But there is a larger pattern going on here that is contributing to practically every disagreement that the "factions" on this forum have. There seems to be an effort by a few people to exclude liberals--it started years ago with snide comments about pink ponies and whiny babies, continued through the past year or so with comments about how liberals aren't the "base" and shouldn't expect anyone to care about their "pet issues", and has increasingly progressed and poisoned practically every discussion we try to have. It's like there are people here who honestly think that we should only advocate for mainstream liberal issues so long as we don't make any sort of fuss or inconvenience to the Powers that Be.

I do not agree with the assertion that mainstream, time-honored, classic liberal values are somehow "fringe" now, and can be so easily dismissed for the sake of political convenience. Lots of people here pay lip service to issues like reproductive choice and civil equality, but far fewer people would actually moderate their support of a policy, candidate, or nominee for violating one or more of these liberal values. To me, that says "My principles are only important when they're easy to accomplish and convenient. When it might cost me something to uphold them, I'll back down without a fight." Some people actually have that choice, but for those of us whose actual, physical lives are intrinsically connected to these issues? Backing down is tantamount to declaring that we don't value our own families and personal liberties. It's like saying that we find nothing intrinsically worth fighting for in our own lives.

I think that expecting people to quietly cave when their lives and families are at risk is expecting entirely too much. Some say that we need to be "realistic". I say that their definition of "realistic" is self-serving, arbitrary, and weak. Expecting a gay person to display loyalty to a politician who refuses to support gay equality is not realistic--it's flat-out cruel. Expecting a woman to support a Supreme Court nominee who was ready to sign away the body autonomy of women in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters of pregnancy for the sake of political expediency is not realistic--it's perverse. I'd like to see these false, distorted notions of what's "realistic" tossed out of the debate, because they are the biggest cause of the "divisiveness" that some here preach so endlessly about.

[HughMoran]

17. Everybody has a different opinion here

I've learned to grow a thick skin and used ignore where that wasn't enough. There are groups on different sides that agree with each other more often than not, but there's nothing DU management can do about that. Don't back down, nobody can make you cave on anything. Don't support someone based on what you believe is inside their heads. Don't be angry at people who aren't mind readers and have said things on the job that they don't necessarily advocate in their own lives. Your views are opinion and open to criticism.

[havocmom]

20. You speak for many

And those who try to label people who disagree with their agendas with terms which have negative connotations are trying to bully people into agreeing, being silent. If we won't go along, or STFU, they attempt defamation.

There is nothing radical about working for equality, except to those who do not want people to have equality.

[donco6]

70. Everybody should read this post ^^^^^^^

Bravo. Couldn't have said it better.

[QC]

77. This post should be pinned at the top of the forum. n/t

[enigmatic]

85. Best post in the thread

and it isn't close.

[Odin2005]

6. K&R

[gravity]

15. She is pro choice and supports gay equality

Kagan has the support of planned parenthood and kicked military recruiters off campus over DADT.

[laughingliberal]

18. Agree 100%. nt

[HughMoran]

19. no text?

Make an argument.

[havocmom]

37. What is the deal with telling other people what to do?

Upthread, people have different opinions, but evidently just k&r is not an option?

Bullshit

[inna]

76. how about *you* make an argument.

:wtf:

[saracat]

21. I agree and there is nothing liberal about compromising away the civil rights of citizens in order

to protects political expediency!

[Donnachaidh]

40. +1000000 n/t

[G_j]

22. what you say is the truth

and I suspect that every person who reads the post knows it is true, especially those who are moving to the right.
The goal post is moving every day, and you will hear that you should get real and face realities,
but, what you refer to as mainstream liberal principles, are not really subject to the whims of politics. These values are really pretty simple to define.
They are about tolerance, compassion, equality, fairness (etc.) It's not that complicated, and you stated it well, thank you.

[Hamlette]

23. late term abortions should be regulated

not illegal, but regulated. It is a moral issue to me, not just for the mother but the providers. They would be killing a viable life. Too close to the line for me.

So that means I'm not liberal?

Let the GOP have litmus tests.

[noiretextatique]

43. dupe

[noiretextatique]

44. no, it means you support death panels

hey lady, i know you're about to die, but we need to run that late-term abortion that will save your life by the death panel that regulates these matter before we can save your life, and it only meets every other thursday. hang in there :sarcasm:

[mitchtv]

63. good one

cheers

[Hamlette]

65. I should have been more clear

I support Roe v Wade. If the life and health of the mother is not at risk, limits can be placed on late term (viable) abortions.

But hey if your moral code approves of killing live babies, go for it. Mine doesn't.

[Mushroom]

74. moral code my female butt

You're dishing out medical advice for women only.

[Hamlette]

78. it's not medical advice, its moral advice

I don't believe in killing babies and think it should be limited

I do not think that a fetus prior to viability is a baby and society has no say in what happens

but I'm a woman

and I've had an abortion

and I do not regret it for one second. I'm not one of those women who wonders what might have been or wish I'd not done it. It was my business and I'm thankful it was legal and safe.

But I also find the reasoning in Roe v Wade compelling.

Don't you?

The third trimester balancing of rights language from the decision. Do you disagree with the reasoning entirely? Do you think that once a fetus is far enough along in its development to live on its own it should not have some rights that should be balanced against the rights of the mother? None? Then at what point to rights attach? At "normal" birth? And what happens when the abortion delivers a breathing, perfectly healthy child? Who decides what should be done at that very moment? The mother is 8 and 1/2 half months along and has NO heath reason for wanting an abortion. And you are the nurse or the doctor and you deliver a breathing, screaming, live child. You kill it? Or do you put a knife into the womb and kill it there? Really? You could do that with no moral compunction? Just call it a medical procedure?

This is not "medical" advice. Abortion at that point is more than a medical procedure. Just as the tests the nazis did on Jews was more than a medical procedure.

[Mushroom]

90. Yeah

You're giving medical advice for women only and you know it.

DU doesn't allow medical advice. I wish the mods would apply that rule to late-term abortion propaganda which makes women and their ob/gyns out to be baby-hating savages. The tragedy of late-term abortion shouldn't be an opportunity for those DUers who would exploit it to further their own personal agendas. Something to think about.

[Hamlette]

94. so you would overturn Roe v Wade

at least the part about viability

I think it makes compelling arguments.

[Cleobulus]

79. Why should it be "regulated", and what will the regulations entail?

[Hamlette]

80. once a fetus is viable, it has rights too

The mother's rights are paramount when her health, including mental health is threatened or the fetus is horribly deformed.

But I buy into the reasoning in Roe v Wade. Until viability, a woman gets an abortion on demand. Her rights and the only rights to be considered.

Once the fetus is viable, can live on its own outside the womb (without drastic life support measures) the fetus/child has some rights too. I also have some moral concerns for those who perform abortions at that stage but apparently that is an esoteric argument on this thread.

But if you say mom can get an abortion, kill a perfectly healthy child at 8 and 1/2 half months of pregnancy, or that the mother has the right to ask a doctor to kill that child, a child that is fully developed and capable of living on its own, why not say the mother has the right to kill the child after a "normal" delivery at 9 months? Does that child have any rights? Of course it does.

Remember that Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe v Wade, had been legal counsel for the Mayo Clinic and after the court voted to allow abortion and he was assigned to write the decision, he spent the summer back at Mayo talking to medical professionals (who favored choice) about setting some guidelines.

The history of abortion in this country is fascinating. Medical professionals were very much pro choice as they saw so many women who did not want to carry to term and they felt the law unduly restricted abortion. But they are on the front lines and they are the ones, the doctors and nurses, who crafted the limits in Roe v Wade.

I am perfectly comfortable with those limits.

I am against any limit when the health of the mother is at risk. That was Clinton's position in vetoing the "partial birth abortion" legislation twice during his presidency. In 100% of those cases it is up to the mother. But if there is NO health concern, and the fetus is viable, I am not opposed to the law saying the fetus has rights at that point in time too. Not rights that outweigh the mother's rights (as the decision says) but rights that have to be balanced against the mother's rights.

[Cleobulus]

81. The problem is that any regulation put women at risk...

Because they add a roadblock to what are NECESSARY medical procedures, and regulations that aren't overseen by medical professionals, but by politicians, judges, etc. who are NOT medical professionals.

See, that's the biggest problem, late-term abortions are, in ALL cases, NECESSARY medical procedure, why the fuck should politicians or the courts meddle in that?

Doctors already have ethics boards, staffed by peers to determine not only licensing but regulation of medical procedures, why aren't they enough?

[Hamlette]

86. so the medical boards should decide when it becomes murder?

and what do you mean when you say all late term abortions are necessary medical procedures?

What is the difference between a woman saying I want an abortion at 38 weeks and the woman saying "kill that baby" the second it is born?

Does the fetus have any rights at any point in the process? If not, why does the newborn?

The courts and politicians don't "meddle" in our lives (in a perfect world) They balance our rights, one of us against another. That is their job. To decide conflicts. And I see a conflict between a baby and the mother when that baby is viable. I'm curious. Why don't you? When do those rights attach to the child? At birth? Age 18?

Why do you think Roe is wrong? I disagree with the "privacy" rights analysis and would rather they had couched it in terms of women's rights but that doesn't impact the end result.

Call me squeemish. I guess I'm not a true liberal. Allowing a woman (or anyone) to say, the day before the delivery date "Kill this baby to be because I want to take a vacation, or it has blue eyes, or I've changed my mind" diminishes us all. And it is NOT a necessity unless you define necessity as being anything I want.

Oh, and I've dealt with enough medical ethics boards to not want them deciding. They are usually very conservative. And time consuming!!!! I went through that a few times before abortion was legal. Women with cancer and deformed babies. And we waited weeks or months for the boards to decide. They are not in the business of protecting rights. And if they were to decide, my bet is they'd come down the same way the Mayo doctors did in Roe v Wade. You gotta have a reason if the baby is viable.

[Cleobulus]

91. And you think a court of law will be any quicker?

Why should they decide, and not doctors?

[Heidi]

26. Recommended.

:kick:

[Rhythm]

36. K&R n/t

[slackmaster]

38. Correct. They're actually traditional liberal i.e. libertarian positions.

As opposed to authoritarian.

[kctim]

39. It is the stance, not the issue

that helps determine if a position is "far-left liberal" or not. That stance is compared to the stance of the majority and is then labeled in modern political terms.

And you are correct, "supporting equality, privacy, liberty, and military sanity are NOT "fringe" positions." Believing everybody must support them how you define them and to whom they apply, however, is.

[Toasterlad]

45. Translation: Saying You're For Equality Is Fine: Holding the President Accountable For Equality....

...is not.

[kctim]

47. How does that affect

where a position is placed on the political scale? It doesn't.
Who said not to hold the President accountable? Just you.

[Toasterlad]

48. Oh, So You Agree That Obama Has Betrayed the GLBT Community? Sorry, My Mistake.

It appeared that you were all about making excuses for him. Glad to see that you agree he's been a complete failure on these issues.

[sandnsea]

49. I agree he's got to do better too

But that's got nothing to do with distorting Kagan's one sentence answer on gay marriage.

[kctim]

53. Nope, not making excuses

and as sand said, I too believe he has work to do on the issue. Wouldn't go as far to say he outrightly betrayed gays or that he has been a failure either.

[livetohike]

41. K&R n/t

:kick:

[KamaAina]

46. This website needs more Lyric!

:yourock:

[MountainLaurel]

60. Amen!

I love me some Lyric

[femrap]

50. k and r

anyone who thinks that a person shouldn't have freedom over one's body is a f*cking Totalitarian.

[Echo In Light]

51. K/R

[TheKentuckian]

52. Lyric, this country is so jacked up that even traditional capitalism

is far left, much less a mixed socialist system or Gawdforbid anything further.

Hell, it used to be that being anti-torture was an American value shared by liberals and even hard right conservatives but now if you're firm on the Executive not being judge, jury, and executioner then you're a left wingnut for sure and possibly a terrorist.

See the thing is "conservative" parlayed its self into reactionary and now radical regressiveness is all the rage and "liberal" now includes even yesterday's hard right conservatives.

Just look at the freaks one the Reich nowadays, Lindsey Graham and McShame are liberals to them now and anyone to the left of Ben Nelson (including Snowe) are straight up Marxists.

Fucking McLame is probably no less right wing than Reagan but he's now a liberal to Republicans.

Hell, even self proclaimed Democrats insist on proclaiming Justice Kennedy as a moderate and that fucker is one of the most conservative SOB's to ever serve on the high court.

[Lyric]

54. I think the thing with Kennedy is more wishful thinking than anything else.

It's hard to admit that we're staring at a nearly hopeless situation in regard to the SCOTUS. :(

[KamaAina]

55. This is why we needed the Fairmess Doctrine

In its absence, political discourse in the country has been given a hard shove to the right by the likes of Beckkk, Rush the OxyMoron, etc. Yesterday's mainstream liberals are today's "fringe left". Conversely, what would have been considered crackpot John Bircher positions a generation ago are now considered mainstream conservatism. As for the teabaggers, they couldn't have existed back then in a form any more organized or harmful than your Uncle Jed going off on a racist and/or homophobic rant at Thanksgiving dinner after hitting the egg nog.

[unapatriciated]

56. K&R

I am growing weary of the characterization of all that I have believed for years as impractical, divisive, far left fringe lunacy.

[Missy Vixen]

59. What she said

As long as anyone else is oppressed and their civil rights are not recognized, mine aren't, either.

It's a proven fact that the 1,000+ rights of marriage do not translate to "domestic partnerships".

I also don't support the "just wait another four years" bullshit. How long are people we love going to be forced to wait to have their families recognized by the state and by society as a whole?

[William Z. Foster]

57. agreed

In addition, I would add that opposition to privatization and regressive taxation are not "far left" positions, either. Nor is support for organized Labor, nor is support for public education.

[me b zola]

58. K&R

[Dinger]

61. Thank You (nt)

[Moochy]

62. Well said.

:kick:

[KonaKane]

64. Kay and Ar, baby.

[JDPriestly]

67. Look, I am now considered to be on theleft.

In the 1960s, I was considered to be a moderately liberal Democrat. Many, many Democrats were much further left than I was, and they were loud about it.

Reagan's extreme right-wing thinking shifted the entire country to the right. The Democratic Party went way, way, way to the right with it.

Our last Democratic president, Clinton signed anti-labor bills like NAFTA and pro-business bills like the banking and commodities reform bills that ended needed regulation. For all its faults, the Clinton administration did not enter in or continue fighting any completely illegal wars. If I recall correctly, the conflict in Kosovo was already in progress. We intervened as peacekeepers.

Obama's policies are even further to the right than were Clintons. If I seem left compared to him, I'm still a middle-of-the-road Democrats by the standards I grew up with.

[Hamlette]

68. So, does "fully pro-choice" mean killing babies?

I'm sort of surprised at this thread and the response to my earlier post so I'm just asking.

To make my position clear, if the life or health of the mother is at risk, no limits on abortion at any stage.

But lets say you are a nurse or doctor and a pregnant woman comes to you in her 8th month and wants an abortion (no life or health concern, she just doesn't want to go through with it) and you know, by experience, the child could live on its own if delivered. You kill the baby? You could sleep at night? How is it different if the mother delivered "naturally" and said she didn't want it, would you kill the baby then?

I see this as getting too close to the nazi medical shit. Which of course is not the same thing but both involve a loss of the reverence for life. What am I missing?

[Cleobulus]

82. Oh please, can the hyperbole, that never happens, and you should know it.

No reputable doctor or nurse would assist in an abortion such as the one you laid out, it violates their ethical codes, and they could lose their license to practice if they did decide on that. And this is before any state or federal laws "regulating" late term abortions were enacted.

[Hamlette]

87. glad you agree with me. There should be limits.

Most doctor's ethical codes prohibited abortion before Roe. So they follow the law and vice versa.

[Cleobulus]

92. No, most doctors follow the law, their ethical codes help determine...

their specialization and the ethics of that specialization. A cardiologist is never going to be called upon to perform an abortion, and doctors have violated the law in the past to keep their ethical codes.

Here, how about this, why not read this woman's story, and think of the legal blocks that YOU want to put in place that could have prevented her from doing what was right for her and her family. Remember this, medical science, as in all sciences, don't deal with certainty, something the law all too often requires.

http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html

[Hamlette]

96. It's not me, its Roe.

Roe, as you well know, allows abortions in cases like the one you posted the link to.

I find the language in Roe compelling. Since you posted a link to a story addressed by Roe but still call me wrong, I'm guessing you've maybe not read it. And not read the cases that followed it.

It's covered. Legally under Roe she gets an abortion.

[Cleobulus]

97. Roe didn't go far enough...

Abortion should be treated as a medical treatment for the condition of pregnancy, one of many, and shouldn't be the target of special legislation that throws roadblocks in the way of said treatment. Whether its in the first or third trimester makes NO difference, and please, refrain from the stupidity and crass exaggerations you use.

Pregnancy should be treated as a medical condition, no more no less. You say the woman I mentioned would have been allowed to have the abortion she needed because of Roe, but that's not a given, the leeway that Roe gave opened a door for attempts on banning a medical procedure that saved her health, and possibly life. She became an activist because of the weakness in Roe, and that shouldn't have been necessary.

Do we need to have untrained and inexpert people regulate medical procedures? This is the danger, the last thing we should want is for doctors or their patients having to have to show up in court to have a medical procedure done, or having to justify medical procedures after the fact to judges or lawyers, and not even for malpractice, but doing these procedures correctly.

The woman whose account I mentioned at least had time to make the decision, not all are even that lucky, if you can call it that. Women will die from such regulations, or become disabled or have their health severely compromised. No offense, but it takes a truly callous person to want to put roadblocks up to prevent people access to needed medical procedures.

[LeftyMom]

84. I love when supposed progressives post anti-woman horseshit.

[Hamlette]

88. it isn't anti woman it just doesn't happen to agree with you

I am a woman.

I'm not a progressive though.

I'm a liberal.

We're open minded, a quality I don't find as much in progressives if DU is any indication.

[LeftyMom]

89. It's anti-woman to assume women undergo abortion or other health care for reasons that are frivolous

or that anybody owes you any justification for their health care decisions.

[Hamlette]

95. I find the argument in Roe compelling

you don't but instead of telling me why, you attack. Fine. That's why we have courts. But you'd think that on a board like this we could discuss it without name calling.

[LeftyMom]

98. You said women who choose abortion were "killing the baby."

Now you're complaining about me attacking you just by stating my opinion, when you indirectly called me a murderer. I don't fucking think so honey.

[Starry Messenger]

69. It should simply be the human position.

What kind of person takes away the right of another person to pursue reasonable happiness in life? Don't listen to the so-called "moderates"--they have the biggest bias at all, the refusal to see that the so-called middle is a side too. To quote a good friend of mine, sometimes pointedly not taking a side *is* taking a side. I'd rather take an unambiguous side and side with the people whose lives are in jeopardy by a lack of rights and access to security.

[deacon_sephiroth]

71. weird, I had no idea

Granted, I just recently showed up on DU, through I've been a reader for some time off and on, but I didn't know these issues would be so polarizing around here. Call me old fashion, but I rather thought those WERE the issues that made one a Democrat, and certainly not everyone can agree with every issue, but if you aren't down with choice, equality, and ethical treatment... are you SURE you're a liberal at all?

[defendandprotect]

72. r

[old mark]

83. I always thought that stuff was American stuff, not particularly "liberal" -

Freedom of choice, equality under the law, chacks and balances in the political system-isn't all that in the constitution? Isn't all that THE LAW in America?

Anybody who is AGAINST that stuff is "fringe"-on the extreme right-and going against the principles of the US.

mark

[Divine Discontent]

93. the ones that cry out that these are "far left" beliefs need to really question why they're even

posting here. Same goes with folks who defend corporations and the M.I.C.