Unless you are the window in a bank or large corporate chain business, the far left are statistically no danger to you at all.
Even if we separate Islamism from the far right, the far right remains responsible for the vast majority of political violence, the vast majority of politically motivated killing and a significant amount of non-politically motivated killing (because, again, there's a significant overlap between the far right and organized crime). By contrast, you can count the number of deaths from far left extremist violence over the past decade on one hand. The far left doesn't intentionally infiltrate police departments and the military. The far left does not seek to influence or usurp the political system. The far left do not organize paramilitary training camps to learn how to conduct armed terrorism.
You, personally, may be more frightened of the far left than the far right. That is your right as an individual, but it is also extremely stupid and short-sighted. If someone is going to murder you for political reasons, it's far more likely to be some mentally deranged incel with a swastika painted on his rifle than anyone else. You are not safe from these people. Noone is.
The hell are you even talking about.
I don't know who you think the "far left" actually is, but in reality it comes down to revolutionary versus non-revolutionary politics. The far left don't have policy because they refuse to participate in a government they see as illegitimate. They are actual extremists who have given up on the ability of the political system to realize their goals, not people who are concerned because the cops keep murdering innocent people. That's a pretty normal concern to have, because cops killing innocent people kind of goes against what moderates believe the cops are supposed to be for.
The far right, on a fundamental ideological level, view the modern world as disordered. Racial and sexual equality is disorder to them. Secularism is disorder to them. Democracy is disorder to them.
I realize this may be difficult for a self-appointed "centrist" to understand, but people do not all fundamentally want the same thing and not everyone is reasonable and well meaning.
And who is responsible for all the new crime policies that don't actually punish criminals that are increasing crime? The average person that is overwhelmingly not in politics cares about political violence? You said countless people live in fear of violence from the far-right, where (in America)? The majority of people in fear of violence are not concerned about the far right. How has the far right infiltrated the military and police? This is like conspiracy theory tin-hat shit you're going on about.
Why would someone murder me for political reasons? Sure, if I do get murdered for that somehow, the far right is probably more likely, but the chance of getting murdered over politics are so freaking small. In fact, I don't think I've probably ever met a Nazi, you guys act like Nazis are like Hydra or some shit, they're not. I'm sure I've met more socialists and communists than Nazis in my life.
"Far left" is just people who want to steer the country much farther left than the average person wants, same as the far right. It's not just people armed with guns wanting to do direct violence to others.
The far left making the world more disordered just leads more people into believing in far right ideologies.
But only stupidly.
that is an aspect at which Roe fell short; the rights of the one pregnant should be protected regardless of the age or any other fact about the fetus.
Why wouldn't right to privacy over any medical procedure not be an valid argument in court?
The fact that Roe makes no sense to just abortion itself, let alone anything else that can be applied to it, makes it a pretty poor ruling.
In case you are unaware, the ruling and the reasoning for Roe v Wade don't make sense because the Constitutional reasoning they gave has absolutely nothing to do with their ruling. Their ruling just mimics early American and English Common law, it's basically nothing more than "you're not allowed to change from the old ways". If you read the whole ruling, they spent twice as long talking about ancient Greek practices and English Common law than they did identifying a Constitutional right to privacy. When it came to historical record, they had no issue tying modern medical practices to the literally ancient concept of "quickening", where the first movements of a fetus (usually in the second trimester, this is where 15 weeks comes from) were for centuries seen as the first indication of the soul entering the body. When it came to "the right to privacy", they cared so little to identify it as to say at one point "Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision."
It should not surprise anyone who has read the decision that their conclusions match the historical precedent they wrote about at length and have no connection to the right to privacy that they needed to exist to justify the ruling without particularly caring what that right was based on. The Supreme Court made one of the most noteworthy court rulings in history based on what Aristotle thought about souls. And for reasons beyond my comprehension, culture decided that banning abortion is a conservative view.
I'm not that surprised because I looked into some SCOTUS ruling once (can't remember off the top of my head right now) and I'm surprised how much time was wasted in arguments that had no relevance. I'm kinda of surprised that happens at the highest level. I was a juror on a criminal case for case on excessive police force and at least 90% of the trial was wasted on stuff that had no bearing on our decision. You'd think that stuff would get filtered out as you move up to higher courts but I guess not. I care about the actual justification vs whatever the majority of time was spent on. Like if right of privacy is the justification (which I believe you're saying), then applying that to other medical things is pretty dangerous.
Edit: Oh, it was gay marriage ruling I was reading about and the actual court arguments/transcripts. I forgot exactly what was the main argument (in amount of time dedicated) but it was something generic like happiness or something. To me, gay marriage was simply an equal opportunity issue because married people do get advantages to being married and excluding others from those rights is a violation of equal opportunity. Thus, either allow gay people to marry or just have the government not officially acknowledge marriage. But that was like the last main argument when that is literally the only argument that needed to be made IMO.