Alito wrote that it would be determined by the states, and Kavanaugh echoed the sentiment, hoping he'd never have to explain Roe again. However, I personally hold that Alito meant what Holden wrote.
I've been a pro-choice liberal Democrat since the sixties. But I must admit, I'm rapidly losing faith in the rationality of all sides of the abortion debate. The arguments presented by _both sides_ are not always "anti-science", but they are typically anti-reason, which is really an even bigger problem.
The Republicans say that if a family doesn't want a child so much that they want to kill that baby, the government should force them to become parents. By this logic, if I walk in to the Child Protective Services office and say I'm thinking about killing my children, the state should require me to have more children.
The Democrats refuse to ever say that what abortion really is in most (not all) cases is a baby killing service we provide to those too lazy to use contraception, and that we've been rationalizing this practice for decades by calling it "choice". And then we point the finger at everybody else as if we Dems had nothing to do with the creation of this controversy.
Ignoring the science is bad, ignoring reason is even worse. The sad irony is that it is in such ignoring that both sides of the debate are united.
2. The only "contraceptive" method which might be considered trustworthy would be reversible vasectomies for males over the age of 16, until they're married. Would you be in favor of that?
3. You are ignoring the fact that abortion is not just some kind of birth control but is a crucial part of women's health.
Unless you yourself have sat with a mother who is carrying a dead child which has not expelled, you have no clue.
4. I'm happy you can ignore the reality that women deal with when they get pregnant but other people should not have to suffer because you're naive.
Hi Bridget, your point that contraception fails is addressed in the article I linked to above. You might be interested to know that there is a 100% guaranteed reliable solution, that is free, and available to all.
I agree that because I'm a man I have no clue about anything at all, and in fact represent a danger to the entire civilization. And I'm not kidding. Luckily, I have a solution for that too.
Meaning no personal offense, but your lecturing comment which offers no solution to this controversy other than you get whatever it is you want, and everybody else is wrong, is why I'm alienated from the Democratic Party on this particular issue. But of course I still vote Dem, because there is no alternative to doing so, and this isn't the only issue.
Your "100% reliable" solution doesn't work for rape victims or women suffering from domestic abuse or children being molested by a relative but hey -- all of those people aren't men so they don't count.
You're lecturing me on women's health but I should be nicer?
I actually offered two solutions -- you ignored them in favor of your limited understanding of women's health needs but I did offer two.
First, which is a little tongue in cheek -- reversible vasectomies. If abortion is so heinous, then let's cut the problem off at the source.
Feel free to explain why men should have bodily autonomy but women should not.
Second - stay out of other people's health decisions unless they're a threat to public health.
Last, I am always amused when someone thinks I'm anti male.
I'm the daughter, the granddaughter, the niece, the cousin of great men. I work with great men.
The operative word is "men."
Not whiny little derps like Josh Hawley. Not blustering bags like Trump.
Men. Men who worked blue collar jobs and changed diapers and drank beer and taught me how to box when I was two. SOBs as well but men you could rely on at any time day or night.
If I sound harsh about some of your sex, it's because I know real men.
First, did you notice that I'm a PRO-CHOICE liberal Democrat?
You're right, my suggested contraception method only works for the overwhelming vast majority of situations, but in not EVERY situation.
I have no complaint with vasectomies at all, none.
Regarding women's bodily autonomy, did you notice that I'm a PRO-CHOICE liberal Democrat?
I didn't assume you are anti-male. What I said was _I AM_ anti male. See the link provided above. 13 pages of argument for a world without men.
Do you see how eager you are to get in to a squabble with me even though we're both PRO-CHOICE? That's what I'm pushing back against, not you personally, but the endless chest thumping squabbling from BOTH sides that has accomplished NOTHING for decades.
Yes, but. Most of your response to Bridget has been that of a somewhat opinionated white male. I should know; I am one of those. And I'm hampered by having spent some time in health care. Worse, I married a flaming feminist who, professionally, worked the majority of her career in women's health care as a certified nurse midwife. At this point, I'll also note, if for nothing else than the confusion factor, both of us were card carrying Republicans until that party went the way of the wacko starting around Reagan (the actual start was perhaps around the Goldwater campaign). But we were free to maintain, in the pre-Reagan days, our belief that a woman had the right to control her own body.
Sociologically, and for that matter, physiologically, your proposed solution isn't too good. People will listen, some will try it, and over time, all will fail, but the outcome won't be deterrence as the result won't necessarily be a pregnancy. Statistically, speaking, it's almost a miracle the human population sees enough pregnancies carried to completion to propagate the species when you look, from the jaded perspective of the medical provider, at all that can go wrong. Left to their own devices, we'd see more spontaneous abortions than we do these days because medical care is good at preventing this sort of thing. But nature has a way of determining when things need to happen. A lot of the spontaneous miscarriages prevented by medical care, and subsequently carried to term result in kids that need a LOT of care, are ill, or worse. Add to that the increase in problems associated with age, and the fact that women are conceiving later in life and you see more older women bearing kids that have more problems than the family anticipated. And I'm talking genetic anomalies, not sociology.
As Bridget points out, you've been lecturing a women on how they should act. I did that once, at closer range. I learned a lesson.
What the GOP hasn't learned as a group, and for that matter, your criticism of the Democrats is valid as they're a bit paternalistic, too, is the phrase "All men are created equal" no longer refers to one sex, but recognizes the term "men" to translate to "humans". So women can and should be able to control their own destinies, at least in this country.
As for your last sentence, what party created and rammed through PPACA, flaws and all? I'm forced to note that PPACA, while somewhat similar to the Massachusetts plan, can be traced to the Reagan era plan for unified health care, deemed unsatisfactory by the Democrats at the time. Using the old Reagan plan, the third proposed in the first term of Obama, was a nod to the GOP in an attempt to get bipartisan support. Instead, the amendments demanded by the Republicans were virtually all poison pills designed to get the Democrats to refuse to pass their own legislation. Left to their own devices, the GOP would, indeed, have wrecked the legislation, then claimed the Dems couldn't get anything through. The resulting flawed legislation still provided better health care more universally, than anything the Republicans have imagined since. At this stage, they're relying on Trump appointed judges to dismember it on flawed premise so they don't lose votes over the popular elements of the bill. PPACA was a victory and provided women with more health care options. That was something significant the Dems did.
You write, "....somewhat opinionated white male. I should know; I am one of those."
I hear you brother. Me too obviously. I can't do anything about being a white male, and don't feel being opinionated makes me at all unique.
I'm not lecturing women on how they should act, I'm lecturing everybody. I'm not challenging this or that position, I'm challenging ALL sides of the abortion debate. I know I'm supposed to pick a team and chant their slogans so I can get patted on the head in approval, but until I see a more rational team to join, I'm declining.
You write, "So women can and should be able to control their own destinies"
As I suggested in my article linked above, they already have that power. Some choose not to use it, and so here we are.
Also, it's not only women's destinies which are being controlled by abortion, but somebody else's as well. I'm pushing back against my own party because they too often aren't intellectually honest enough to simply admit the obvious. Too much dogma chanting for me, from all sides.
And should this sound like MAGA dogma chanting, please note my article presents a ruthless challenge to Republicans as well.
I think most Americans are pretty reasonable about such matters, and we're all being driven in to opposing corners by the self serving agendas of corporate media and BOTH political parties. There are powerful interests in our society who benefit from all these divisions.
I think you've got a typo.
"the justices stated that access to abortion would (not) be determined by the states."
Alito wrote that it would be determined by the states, and Kavanaugh echoed the sentiment, hoping he'd never have to explain Roe again. However, I personally hold that Alito meant what Holden wrote.
Is that because -- like me -- you think Alito is a liar and has always wanted a full ban?
Um... yes.
I've been a pro-choice liberal Democrat since the sixties. But I must admit, I'm rapidly losing faith in the rationality of all sides of the abortion debate. The arguments presented by _both sides_ are not always "anti-science", but they are typically anti-reason, which is really an even bigger problem.
The Republicans say that if a family doesn't want a child so much that they want to kill that baby, the government should force them to become parents. By this logic, if I walk in to the Child Protective Services office and say I'm thinking about killing my children, the state should require me to have more children.
The Democrats refuse to ever say that what abortion really is in most (not all) cases is a baby killing service we provide to those too lazy to use contraception, and that we've been rationalizing this practice for decades by calling it "choice". And then we point the finger at everybody else as if we Dems had nothing to do with the creation of this controversy.
Ignoring the science is bad, ignoring reason is even worse. The sad irony is that it is in such ignoring that both sides of the debate are united.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/aborting-the-abortion-debate
1. Contraception fails.
2. The only "contraceptive" method which might be considered trustworthy would be reversible vasectomies for males over the age of 16, until they're married. Would you be in favor of that?
3. You are ignoring the fact that abortion is not just some kind of birth control but is a crucial part of women's health.
Unless you yourself have sat with a mother who is carrying a dead child which has not expelled, you have no clue.
4. I'm happy you can ignore the reality that women deal with when they get pregnant but other people should not have to suffer because you're naive.
Hi Bridget, your point that contraception fails is addressed in the article I linked to above. You might be interested to know that there is a 100% guaranteed reliable solution, that is free, and available to all.
I agree that because I'm a man I have no clue about anything at all, and in fact represent a danger to the entire civilization. And I'm not kidding. Luckily, I have a solution for that too.
https://www.tannytalk.com/s/peace
Meaning no personal offense, but your lecturing comment which offers no solution to this controversy other than you get whatever it is you want, and everybody else is wrong, is why I'm alienated from the Democratic Party on this particular issue. But of course I still vote Dem, because there is no alternative to doing so, and this isn't the only issue.
Your "100% reliable" solution doesn't work for rape victims or women suffering from domestic abuse or children being molested by a relative but hey -- all of those people aren't men so they don't count.
You're lecturing me on women's health but I should be nicer?
I actually offered two solutions -- you ignored them in favor of your limited understanding of women's health needs but I did offer two.
First, which is a little tongue in cheek -- reversible vasectomies. If abortion is so heinous, then let's cut the problem off at the source.
Feel free to explain why men should have bodily autonomy but women should not.
Second - stay out of other people's health decisions unless they're a threat to public health.
Last, I am always amused when someone thinks I'm anti male.
I'm the daughter, the granddaughter, the niece, the cousin of great men. I work with great men.
The operative word is "men."
Not whiny little derps like Josh Hawley. Not blustering bags like Trump.
Men. Men who worked blue collar jobs and changed diapers and drank beer and taught me how to box when I was two. SOBs as well but men you could rely on at any time day or night.
If I sound harsh about some of your sex, it's because I know real men.
I expect better.
Hi again Bridget,
First, did you notice that I'm a PRO-CHOICE liberal Democrat?
You're right, my suggested contraception method only works for the overwhelming vast majority of situations, but in not EVERY situation.
I have no complaint with vasectomies at all, none.
Regarding women's bodily autonomy, did you notice that I'm a PRO-CHOICE liberal Democrat?
I didn't assume you are anti-male. What I said was _I AM_ anti male. See the link provided above. 13 pages of argument for a world without men.
Do you see how eager you are to get in to a squabble with me even though we're both PRO-CHOICE? That's what I'm pushing back against, not you personally, but the endless chest thumping squabbling from BOTH sides that has accomplished NOTHING for decades.
Yes, but. Most of your response to Bridget has been that of a somewhat opinionated white male. I should know; I am one of those. And I'm hampered by having spent some time in health care. Worse, I married a flaming feminist who, professionally, worked the majority of her career in women's health care as a certified nurse midwife. At this point, I'll also note, if for nothing else than the confusion factor, both of us were card carrying Republicans until that party went the way of the wacko starting around Reagan (the actual start was perhaps around the Goldwater campaign). But we were free to maintain, in the pre-Reagan days, our belief that a woman had the right to control her own body.
Sociologically, and for that matter, physiologically, your proposed solution isn't too good. People will listen, some will try it, and over time, all will fail, but the outcome won't be deterrence as the result won't necessarily be a pregnancy. Statistically, speaking, it's almost a miracle the human population sees enough pregnancies carried to completion to propagate the species when you look, from the jaded perspective of the medical provider, at all that can go wrong. Left to their own devices, we'd see more spontaneous abortions than we do these days because medical care is good at preventing this sort of thing. But nature has a way of determining when things need to happen. A lot of the spontaneous miscarriages prevented by medical care, and subsequently carried to term result in kids that need a LOT of care, are ill, or worse. Add to that the increase in problems associated with age, and the fact that women are conceiving later in life and you see more older women bearing kids that have more problems than the family anticipated. And I'm talking genetic anomalies, not sociology.
As Bridget points out, you've been lecturing a women on how they should act. I did that once, at closer range. I learned a lesson.
What the GOP hasn't learned as a group, and for that matter, your criticism of the Democrats is valid as they're a bit paternalistic, too, is the phrase "All men are created equal" no longer refers to one sex, but recognizes the term "men" to translate to "humans". So women can and should be able to control their own destinies, at least in this country.
As for your last sentence, what party created and rammed through PPACA, flaws and all? I'm forced to note that PPACA, while somewhat similar to the Massachusetts plan, can be traced to the Reagan era plan for unified health care, deemed unsatisfactory by the Democrats at the time. Using the old Reagan plan, the third proposed in the first term of Obama, was a nod to the GOP in an attempt to get bipartisan support. Instead, the amendments demanded by the Republicans were virtually all poison pills designed to get the Democrats to refuse to pass their own legislation. Left to their own devices, the GOP would, indeed, have wrecked the legislation, then claimed the Dems couldn't get anything through. The resulting flawed legislation still provided better health care more universally, than anything the Republicans have imagined since. At this stage, they're relying on Trump appointed judges to dismember it on flawed premise so they don't lose votes over the popular elements of the bill. PPACA was a victory and provided women with more health care options. That was something significant the Dems did.
You write, "....somewhat opinionated white male. I should know; I am one of those."
I hear you brother. Me too obviously. I can't do anything about being a white male, and don't feel being opinionated makes me at all unique.
I'm not lecturing women on how they should act, I'm lecturing everybody. I'm not challenging this or that position, I'm challenging ALL sides of the abortion debate. I know I'm supposed to pick a team and chant their slogans so I can get patted on the head in approval, but until I see a more rational team to join, I'm declining.
You write, "So women can and should be able to control their own destinies"
As I suggested in my article linked above, they already have that power. Some choose not to use it, and so here we are.
Also, it's not only women's destinies which are being controlled by abortion, but somebody else's as well. I'm pushing back against my own party because they too often aren't intellectually honest enough to simply admit the obvious. Too much dogma chanting for me, from all sides.
And should this sound like MAGA dogma chanting, please note my article presents a ruthless challenge to Republicans as well.
I think most Americans are pretty reasonable about such matters, and we're all being driven in to opposing corners by the self serving agendas of corporate media and BOTH political parties. There are powerful interests in our society who benefit from all these divisions.