Skip to main content

View Diary: The SCOTUS Is Extraordinary: The Right To Choose (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  how can he be a moderate... (none)
    and be rabidly anti-abortion? Those two stances are in opposition.
    •  Could Be Moderate About (none)
      leaving intact most of the ability of society to enact liberal legislation, apart from abortion rights.

      An extremist would be a Constitution-in-Exile type who believes that a fundamental premise of liberalism--that government has a role in social matters and various economic protections for the people--is invalid, leading to striking down the social safety net, environmentalism, worker rights, consumer rights, tort rights, etc.

      Such a person might support abortion rights on a libertarian basis for example, leaving us with our abortion rights pining for the good old days of Dickens' industrial England.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:45:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are a lot more issues (none)
      •  of course there are other issues... (none)
        but the description "rabid anti-abortion" suggests a   radical ideology that lies far outside of the mainstream in terms of privacy and the right to choose. Outside of mainstream = radical conservative = not a moderate.

        I think it is likely that someone who is rabidly anti-abortion would also be rabidly conservative on other social issues.

        •  But ... (none)
          Someone who is pro-choice might not be mainstream.  As someone above pointed out, one could argue for the constitutionality of abortion from a strict libertarian perspective - the same perspective from which one would strenuously limit the government's ability to enact social-economic legislation (a la New Deal).

          Abortion is an undeniably crucial issue, and I'm not sure I'm qualified to rank order priorities, but maybe making sure we don't get a Justice whose legal philosophy demands a laissez-faire gov't is as important as one who is (certainly) personally or (maybe) philosophically anti-choice.

        •  Rabidly anti-abortion = rabid social conservative (none)
          Not necessarily.  A year or two there was a fascinating thread right here on dkos where a bunch of regulars "came out" and talked about how they were pro-life, and how that was the one issue they parted ways from the Dems on and how uncomfortable they felt.

          People can be anti-abortion and still be socially progressive in other areas. I don't know whether Garza is or is not.  I'm just saying abortion is a very special issue from which you can't always extrapolate.  

          After having seen the ultrasounds of my boys in utero, seeing their hearts beat, feeling them kick,  I have to be truly honest and say I don't know when life begins.  At some point during the pregnancy it does become "the baby."  

          I will always be pro-choice, but I am far from sure that is the morally correct position.  

          If you want something other than the obvious to happen, you've got to do something other than the obvious...

          by trillian on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:40:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site