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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.