I did NOT say two contradictory things. I said:
Why don’t men take more care not to impregnate their lovers?
That speaks as to personal responsibility beforehand, not being “held responsible” after the fact. I do agree however if abortion goes away for some women, the courts should be ready to impose strict child support payments on the father for the maintenance of the child he helped create. Since you seem to favor rolling back the clock, maybe “shot gun weddings” will make a resurgence (at least for young people), lol. The child will be legitimate, the couple can then divorce if they choose and the man still be held responsible for child support.

Many women who decide to carry their children to term do so knowing they may have to do it alone, but I often wonder if they’ve thought it through carefully. If they can do it financially great, but if they find they can’t, society is often on the hook. Better they should have terminated unless they are absolutely resolute in their decision to give the child up for adoption. Of course, this begs the question of who ends up supporting the children who can’t be adopted? The foster care system is a mess currently from what I’ve read. Should orphanages become the new “old thing”? Again, who pays for those?

As it is, because the responsibility lies more heavily with the woman as she is the one actually impregnated, she should have the ultimate choice. Why should any woman be FORCED to give birth? It’s like some dystopian fiction plot. If the woman decides to abort I would think the man would have no further obligation unless it’s to pay for the procedure if applicable and the two people involved agree, which is pretty much what you said. I agree that’s “fair”.

 

Like this country can keep any secrets anymore. Leaking information has become a national pastime.

None the less, this is an interesting read:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...roe-opinion-leak-conservatives-work-the-refs/

The subtext is that the unelected legislators on the Court should be able to make sweeping policy changes for the country in secrecy. The high council of elders makes a decision amongst themselves, hands it down, and the rest of us eat it up. If there's transparency around how decisions are made, a glimpse behind the curtain, we might all realize these are five people placed there for a political purpose. Never mind that they serve for life and cannot be held accountable in any way if their decisions stray from established case law. Never mind that one of the five justices who will overturn Roe sits in a seat that was stolen in outrageous circumstances, laid bare when another of those seats was filled after voting had already begun in the 2020 election. Never mind that four out of five were appointed by presidents who initially took office despite losing the popular vote. Never mind that, if this ends up as the final result, at least two blatantly lied during their confirmation hearings on this exact issue. None of it matters. They have the votes. They were willing to do anything to get them.


If they fail to connect the results of this year's midterms to this issue, and fail to reassert the power of the legislature, we will continue our slide towards rule by an unelected judiciary. This same Alito already signaled he will vote to strip states of their power to regulate the carry of concealed firearms in the public square. (There's a glimpse of the next stage of the anti-abortion crusade. Leave it to the states...until we leave it to us. Also, Alito cited 1700s English law in his opinion striking Roe, but will ignore 700 years of English and American precedent in the gun case.) The Court's conservatives have signaled an interest in stripping the Executive Branch of almost all latitude in enforcing regulatory policy, the ultimate goal of the corporate interests who fund the Federalist Society these justices crawled out of. This is the culmination of the project: unelected judges making policy under the auspices of simply adjudicating the law, protecting powerful interests so right-wing legislators don't have to—and don't have to bear the political consequences. Unless, of course, the Democratic Party imposes some.

 

But that was brought to court over a dispute. There is no case before them on this issue. Alito just decided he wanted it struck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don’t know if i would call Antifa the left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think it was just poor grammer. I think she was saying it is her child and her choice to discuss with a doctor. But I believe Dave Chapelle sums it up perfectly. NSFW warning




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No I’m not backing off my contention that it may be difficult for women of low economic means to easily obtain birth control measures without access to clinics that can provide those services.

I also maintain that across the board, patient compliance can be a real issue. If you’ve ever worked directly with patients you would know that. Taking a daily birth control pill can be challenging for many. Hell, you can’t even get people to take their full prescription of antibiotics for ten days or whatever when they’ve been sick cause they stop when they feel better. Woman who have trouble keeping to a schedule may need an IUD or an implant. Not to mention some employers balk at wanting to provide certain birth control measures such as IUDs because they feel it goes against their religious beliefs. Yes, it can be difficult for some. That’s why morning after pills should be widely available as well.

Quite frankly, with financial assistance from the government for food and housing that would allow those immigrant women to take in three foster kids, I bet they’d be great care givers.

What do I mean by forced to? Exactly what I said. If a woman resides in a state that has banned abortion and finds herself pregnant, and does not want to have a child at that time, for what ever reason, she will be forced to carry the pregnancy to term whether or not she wants to if she can’t afford to travel to a state where she can get an abortion. She might find someone who will do the procedure for her secretly but that could result in severe medical complications which would scare the hell out of me. Maybe the woman will consult Dr. Google for do it yourself abortifacients. Still sounds iffy. So if you have no other viable options than to risk your own health, that means you have no choice so you are forced into giving birth.
Any qualified professional performing the procedure would be doing so at the woman’s request or because of a medical need. No force necessary.

 

Yeah it's a real mess. The court has lost its legitimacy. We've been on a slippery slope here for awhile but so many of the gains we've made in a regulatory capacity are going to be rolled back. I've also felt too that another aim for McConnell, and the Republicans, is to damage the public trust in our institutions. We saw their reach even hit the postal service in 2020. They want to roll things back to the states, so they can have their red state fiefdoms devoid of many of the protections, rights and regulations it's taken over one hundred years to build.

 

Maybe people are complicated than more categories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ive seen most of his specials. He was not transphobic and he takes pot shots at everyone. At his last special, he addresses it in a poignant manner where he tries to explain his confusion about a stance that Others said he was taking. The results didn’t hurt him and forced him to take stock in how his jokes affect others. However his fans can suffer consequences due to supporting him. He basically states that he was not sympathetic to the plight of Trans and tried to make amends. They did not reciprocate and it affected a trans friend he made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk