Most everything the Left shrieks about is already legal under our Constitution. Want Communism? Start a Commune. Many have. Many exist in the U.S. today. Bernie was kicked out of one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelibertarianrepublic.com/lazy-bernie-was-once-kicked-out-of-hippie-commune/amp/

The smart on the Left know their ideas can only work if there is no choice.

I like your explanation better, but, unfortunately I think they just want to be able to kill babies.

Am I just a doofus not to have thought of this before now?

So here’s a thought: as this discussion has ranged through socialism and communism and abortion and judicial overreach, I wondered for the first time if the Democrat attachment to abortion isn’t actually about abortion per se at all. What if, all along, it was really about creating a Politburo disguised as the Supreme Court, and abortion just happened to be the issue that arose at the proper time? A perfect storm of sorts – the sexual revolution and the growing but not yet ubiquitous presence of reliable contraception leading to many more unwanted pregnancies – a subject the Constitution doesn’t address; a Supreme Court makeup that just might be sympathetic to the plight of unhappily pregnant women; the Leftward slide of the universities creating a growing socialist zeitgeist… So the forces of the Left make a push to entice the Court to legislate by fiat far more broadly than ever before – by creating a full-fledged “Constitutional right” out of a penumbra. It could have been some other issue – maybe gun control, if there had been a terrible mass shooting at just the “right” time – but they went with abortion because more of the game pieces were in place.

They keep trying it with abortion and other issues, but what if the point all along was simply to undermine the entire form of American government? Althouse has a piece today from the Atlantic that actually says out loud that maybe a really old president is better than a younger one – because a really old president would put more and more decisions into the hands of others. Seriously. Take a look. Somebody really wants American government to be run from behind the scenes.

That the judgement might be based on actual statutes and the Constitution is, of course, too absurd to consider.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1235584442242129920.html

Can we get a word from the Eroding Our Norms and Undermining Democracy choruses about Schumer and other Democrats trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court and normalize the practice of influencing it with threats of violence against individual justices?
Would any of our dedicated Anti-Authoritarianism Watchdogs care to weigh in on Schumer whipping up mob violence to impose his political will on the Supreme Court? I was told Donald Trump is an authoritarian menace because he writes mean tweets about reporters.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1235636889039908866.html

This is why Schumer must resign. He’s unapologetic and toxic as hell. He knows EXACTLY what he did and how he was hoping to intimidate Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with threats of violence. He was using a cruder version of the tactic pioneered by Barack Obama.
…
Obama raised eyebrows in his day for bringing political pressure to bear against the Supreme Court. The justices pushed back against him for it in public: cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/…
Schumer is less subtle than Obama, and got carried away with the contempt-signaling passion that animates a good deal of the pro-abortion movement, which is more about expressing hatred for traditionalists, religious people, and conservatives than medical procedures.
…
Criticizing Court rulings is one thing, but intimidating and threatening the justices is another. Obama skated over that line. Schumer leaped over it with a pitchfork and a burning torch. Schumer has to go, for the health of the American system and his own party.
Schumer isn’t some new wet-behind-the-ears radical nitwit who just won his first election. There is NOTHING ambiguous about what he said or who his words were directed at. He didn’t misspeak or choose an unfortunate metaphor. He knew what he was doing. /end

Obama got very little pushback from the media, but there was some; that was back in the early days, though, before he had been completely apostheosized.

https://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/28/toobin.obama.alito/index.html

The number of pregnancies which result from forcible rape approaches nil. That aside, a child’s life isn’t properly a function of your convenience.

The fetus IS a part of the mother’s body, early on — it can’t survive on its own. AND it is a potential human life. Both are true; this is the problem, the two facts are difficult to reconcile.

You write “Those in favor of abortion want to have sex without consequence.”

That blanket pronouncement is incorrect. It is certainly true of some people who are in favor of abortion, and if you had stated it in that qualified way I wouldn’t disagree. But there are plenty of other people with other reasons. The following isn’t meant to be an inclusive list, but here are three groups of people who don’t meet your description:

(1) There are people who personally would never, never have an abortion, and wanting to have sex without consequences is not something that motivates them at all. But they don’t think abortion is equal to murder, and have a libertarian attitude towards others who think it’s not murder and who would be okay with it.

(2) There are even people who never have sex – are not interested in sex at all for themselves – but who are in favor of making abortion legal, for reasons similar to those stated in point (1).

(3) There are people who favor abortion being legal who feel that way because they believe that even if it is illegal, abortions will continue. They conclude that people will get them anyway, from illegal and poorly trained people, under bad conditions, and the death toll will be even higher because not only will the babies be killed but many mothers will die as well.