You inserted Douthat's piece for comic relief, ne c'est pas?
Ponder this - name one freedom you lost under Trump. You can't. The entire construction of the left is one big lie.
Wait. I thought Kyle the murderous marauding racist was inspired by hair horn unemployed actors posting Trump love from their motherтАЩs basement. /sarc
The modern left has really destroyed sarcasm for me. I just canтАЩt outdo them. When the absence of complimentary bottled water is literally declared to be worse than Jim Crow by the President, sarcasm has been fully disabled.
Women refused to fight for it. Women were bluntly and accurately warned by icky-icky-yucky old-white-lady Hillary who reminded them of their ex-boyfriend's mother icky-poo I can't vote for her where my boyfriend might see!
So now they lose their rights. That's what happens when women prioritize male opinion over their g/d rights. They lose them. And they are entirely complicit in it, so as an old post-hysterectomy broad who is sick of being called a Karen for caring about this shit, I say let them learn their lesson and recover those rights that the generations prior to mine fought so long and hard for. Let them learn how precious and fragile every advance made by women is.
Let them learn that feminism means fighting for the rights of ALL WOMEN, including that bitch over there with the hair and shoes that they can't stand who votes Republican and doesn't sit at their lunch table. Let them learn that if they don't fight for the rights of ALL women, they will lose ALL women's rights.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, a lot has to happen before you get to the final, irrevocable choice. This isn't the 20th century (or the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th, for that matter), and I'd venture that *most* American women are free to make every choice that may or may not lead to conception of a human life.
Where did this come from, Penny? Did you just wake up? If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the elected officials of each state will decide, i.e. the people. Women are losing more freedom in the swimming pool of U. of Penn.
And what is тАЬreproductive freedomтАЭ other than deciding to kill a fetus. I did that and only learned later that is was a primary source of guilt, depression, shame and self-hatred for most of my life.
Overturn Roe vs WadeтАж So what. Reproductive rights will then fall under State law. Nothing changes immediately. Live in New York? You may still kill your baby up to just before birth, and walk away with a clear conscience. Men may continue to have sex freely with little concern. A big win for the male side of things.
It feels hard to believe anyone pays money to post off-topic tripe to deliberately pick a fight and then open fire like a misandrist hair dye sales leader.
Since as a male and I donтАЩt have a uterus, your giving me a pass Penny. Thank you. I will continue to have unprotected sex with as many women that will allow it. By the way, thatтАЩs a LOT. Seriously, I taught my boys that actions have consequences, and the sex act has the most serious of those. I didnтАЩt give them a free pass. Men donтАЩt deserve it. No maтАЩam.
Overturning Roe v Wade, if it happens, will not cause women to lose their "my body my choice" rights (because it ain't "reproductive rights"). It will turn the issue over to the states, to a large degree. All states will still allow "my body, my choice", and many states will have differing restrictions on the exercise of that civil right.
I predict this will be true to a point, probably a point approximating where the rest of the free world divides the rights of the unborn and the mother. Somewhere in the second trimester.
No, we won't. Thousands and thousands of children in foster homes have yet to be adopted. Thousands and thousands more in state care because nobody will adopt them.
Parental rights must be terminated before a child is eligible for adoption. Many foster kids are trapped in a system of do-gooder child protective service workers and parents who are unwilling to give up their rights to their children but have been relieved of the day to day burden of caring for their child. I have often wondered if it would be better if we just gave the monies spent on the system directly to the families.
Interesting approach! I've often thought that eliminating many federal programs in favor of giving money directly to people to spend as they wish, for what they need, would be far more efficient and less wasteful.
One advantage of age is I can see how various programs have played out. As a result I am not a fan of purported solutions that create bureaucracies. Before recent modern times much was accomplished through private charity. I realize that is no longer the norm but I see the idea that the government can, and will, provide as fraught with peril for all of us.
You said it well, Lynne--government has an important role to play, but creating endless programs and bureaucracies that can never be abandoned is horribly inefficient. Everyone's needs are so unique that providing straight cash to every person in America would be far more useful than ten million micro-targeted programs with their immense overheads. I'll spend that money on my needs, you'll spend it on yours, the couple down the street will spend it on theirs, and everything works out.
In Nellie Bowles's weekly summary last week, she noted an article written by an abortion supporter who opined that adoption is wrong because it is traumatic for a baby to be raised by someone other than the woman who carried the baby-as-fetus inside her, as the fetus will have "bonded" with its birth mother in utero. Nellie pointed out the obvious flaws with that argument. I was unable to read the article because it's behind a paywall, but my mind remains boggled by the argument.
You inserted Douthat's piece for comic relief, ne c'est pas?
Ponder this - name one freedom you lost under Trump. You can't. The entire construction of the left is one big lie.
TrumpтАЩs rhetoric caused released criminals in Oakland, who follow Trump closely, to attack Asians.
Wait. I thought Kyle the murderous marauding racist was inspired by hair horn unemployed actors posting Trump love from their motherтАЩs basement. /sarc
Kinda like the Smollet "MAGA" attack? What about all the folks who follow Biden who attack people? Are you blaming his rhetoric for those?
Sarcasm. Released criminals in Oakland do not follow Trump closely. Thought I was laying it on thick.
ЁЯШВЁЯШВ
KD...got that right, as in very thick-enough...woo
You were. I spit out my coffee laughing when I read it!!!!
doh...I should have caught that...normally I do...
The modern left has really destroyed sarcasm for me. I just canтАЩt outdo them. When the absence of complimentary bottled water is literally declared to be worse than Jim Crow by the President, sarcasm has been fully disabled.
ЁЯШСЁЯШСЁЯШС
Women refused to fight for it. Women were bluntly and accurately warned by icky-icky-yucky old-white-lady Hillary who reminded them of their ex-boyfriend's mother icky-poo I can't vote for her where my boyfriend might see!
So now they lose their rights. That's what happens when women prioritize male opinion over their g/d rights. They lose them. And they are entirely complicit in it, so as an old post-hysterectomy broad who is sick of being called a Karen for caring about this shit, I say let them learn their lesson and recover those rights that the generations prior to mine fought so long and hard for. Let them learn how precious and fragile every advance made by women is.
Let them learn that feminism means fighting for the rights of ALL WOMEN, including that bitch over there with the hair and shoes that they can't stand who votes Republican and doesn't sit at their lunch table. Let them learn that if they don't fight for the rights of ALL women, they will lose ALL women's rights.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, a lot has to happen before you get to the final, irrevocable choice. This isn't the 20th century (or the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th, for that matter), and I'd venture that *most* American women are free to make every choice that may or may not lead to conception of a human life.
Where did this come from, Penny? Did you just wake up? If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the elected officials of each state will decide, i.e. the people. Women are losing more freedom in the swimming pool of U. of Penn.
Penny...either way, pass/don't , the line for freedom remains, except when under force, but
not so under a general arrangement. Always legal, when considering the health of the Mother, but not so when considering the health of the Father.
No women have not lost their reproductive freedom. Can you speak in anything other than over-the-top hyperbole?
And what is тАЬreproductive freedomтАЭ other than deciding to kill a fetus. I did that and only learned later that is was a primary source of guilt, depression, shame and self-hatred for most of my life.
Truth. And now time to ask forgiveness and experience the grace of mercy.
Overturn Roe vs WadeтАж So what. Reproductive rights will then fall under State law. Nothing changes immediately. Live in New York? You may still kill your baby up to just before birth, and walk away with a clear conscience. Men may continue to have sex freely with little concern. A big win for the male side of things.
It feels hard to believe anyone pays money to post off-topic tripe to deliberately pick a fight and then open fire like a misandrist hair dye sales leader.
Yet, here you are.
Welcome.
Since as a male and I donтАЩt have a uterus, your giving me a pass Penny. Thank you. I will continue to have unprotected sex with as many women that will allow it. By the way, thatтАЩs a LOT. Seriously, I taught my boys that actions have consequences, and the sex act has the most serious of those. I didnтАЩt give them a free pass. Men donтАЩt deserve it. No maтАЩam.
Thanks Bob.
Well said, Bob.
And if he decides to identify as a woman? What then?
Not all women have uteruses. Some men have periods.
Something like that. How'd I do?
That is the key point. A life is taken
Overturning Roe v Wade, if it happens, will not cause women to lose their "my body my choice" rights (because it ain't "reproductive rights"). It will turn the issue over to the states, to a large degree. All states will still allow "my body, my choice", and many states will have differing restrictions on the exercise of that civil right.
I predict this will be true to a point, probably a point approximating where the rest of the free world divides the rights of the unborn and the mother. Somewhere in the second trimester.
If they crossed into the cartel areas they have more worries than just being knocked up.
No, we won't. Thousands and thousands of children in foster homes have yet to be adopted. Thousands and thousands more in state care because nobody will adopt them.
Parental rights must be terminated before a child is eligible for adoption. Many foster kids are trapped in a system of do-gooder child protective service workers and parents who are unwilling to give up their rights to their children but have been relieved of the day to day burden of caring for their child. I have often wondered if it would be better if we just gave the monies spent on the system directly to the families.
Interesting approach! I've often thought that eliminating many federal programs in favor of giving money directly to people to spend as they wish, for what they need, would be far more efficient and less wasteful.
One advantage of age is I can see how various programs have played out. As a result I am not a fan of purported solutions that create bureaucracies. Before recent modern times much was accomplished through private charity. I realize that is no longer the norm but I see the idea that the government can, and will, provide as fraught with peril for all of us.
You said it well, Lynne--government has an important role to play, but creating endless programs and bureaucracies that can never be abandoned is horribly inefficient. Everyone's needs are so unique that providing straight cash to every person in America would be far more useful than ten million micro-targeted programs with their immense overheads. I'll spend that money on my needs, you'll spend it on yours, the couple down the street will spend it on theirs, and everything works out.
In Nellie Bowles's weekly summary last week, she noted an article written by an abortion supporter who opined that adoption is wrong because it is traumatic for a baby to be raised by someone other than the woman who carried the baby-as-fetus inside her, as the fetus will have "bonded" with its birth mother in utero. Nellie pointed out the obvious flaws with that argument. I was unable to read the article because it's behind a paywall, but my mind remains boggled by the argument.
We have to kill babies to save them, doncha know?
Vague.
And if Kevin decides to identify as a woman, he tears up the WNBA and becomes MVP in both leagues?
Bruce...notice, he's thinking.
Name one federal law passed under Trump that restricted a woman's reproductive freedom. As far as Scotus - do you have the decision already?