Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time'

[Reformedfindlay]

THERE ARE ZERO VALID ARGUMENTS AGAINST ABORTION, in this day-and-age. Not one. If you think you encountered one, you have been deluded.

Ok buddy.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

CORRECT, SEE THE CENSUS. The Constitution mandates counting all persons every 10 years (except Indians not taxed). But see for yourself; unborn humans have never been counted as persons in any U.S. Census, including the very first one of 1790, where the Founding Fathers set the Legal Precedent.

As I said that argument has validity. Also, is there a need to capitalize that way?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

You are mistaken.

Justice Gorsuch agrees that Roe v Wade is prescedent.....
In plain English ...that's means right to privacy regarding abortion is law....That law is set in stone.
It will not be questioned.

From this Fox News article:


Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent' | Fox News

The guy has the rest of his life ahead of him on the court. Now that selection is over, he's free to do as he pleases and the other two branches would be helpless to really stop him. We just have to wait and see. That's what happens when we allow the court to be the final arbiter of the constitution, we become a nation of robed oligarchs.

Ideally, I would like to see abortion enumerated if we're really going to proclaim it as an undeniable right of the people. Only then would the court truly have to submit to it for all time without angering the entire nation (well, hopefully).

 

[minnie616]

The guy has the rest of his life ahead of him on the court. Now that selection is over, he's free to do as he pleases and the other two branches would be helpless to really stop him. We just have to wait and see. That's what happens when we allow the court to be the final arbiter of the constitution, we become a nation of robed oligarchs.

Ideally, I would like to see abortion enumerated if we're really going to proclaim it as an undeniable right of the people. Only then would the court truly have to submit to it for all time without angering the entire nation (well, hopefully).

Even in the Casey decision even with an extreamly conservative SCOTUS the Justices still had to recognize the right to privacy and could not over rule Roe Wade , the best the could up was undue burden and that came back and bit the Texas lawmakers in the Whole Woman's Supreme Court case in June 2016.

Re: Casey:

The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions.

 

[soylentgreen]

I would never advocate that anyone pressure a woman to abort -- that should be her decision alone.

But, I would allow males a small window of opportunity to opt-out, say within three months after they learn of the pregnancy. If they don't opt out then -- they're committed -- but if they do, they can go on about their lives without a child.

No, they do not get to opt out. What difference is there between that and a drunk driving a car and killing someone and then giving the drunk a chance to opt out because it really was not his fault. He did not intend to kill any more than a man intends to get a women pregnant.

You are only paying lip service to the idea that it is a womens choice if you are also saying that the man can choose to completely ignore that choice. It is her choice and if you believe that then you must accept the consequences of that choice and not demand the right to ignore it.

Regardless of what the woman chooses or does. The man is still responsible for his actions. It is not something he can put onto the woman simply by saying it is her choice therefore her responsibility. His actions were also accountable for the pregnancy occurring just as hers was. Taking responsibility for those actions does not disappear just because it is the right of the woman to choose the outcome.

 

[HowardBThiname]

No, they do not get to opt out. What difference is there between that and a drunk driving a car and killing someone and then giving the drunk a chance to opt out because it really was not his fault. He did not intend to kill any more than a man intends to get a women pregnant.

They don't get to opt-out now, you're correct about that. But I'd be willing to bet that one day, they'll be able to.

You are only paying lip service to the idea that it is a womens choice if you are also saying that the man can choose to completely ignore that choice. It is her choice and if you believe that then you must accept the consequences of that choice and not demand the right to ignore it.

This doesn't make much sense. A woman is free to choose to opt-out if she likes, and I think everyone (for the most part) supports her choice. What isn't supported is that her choice should dictate 18 years of another person's life (the biological father).

True equality supports both parties having a choice. Obviously, neither one of them has a choice forever, only for a short window of time. Once the kid is here -- it's here and they'll have to deal with that.

Regardless of what the woman chooses or does. The man is still responsible for his actions. It is not something he can put onto the woman simply by saying it is her choice therefore her responsibility. His actions were also accountable for the pregnancy occurring just as hers was. Taking responsibility for those actions does not disappear just because it is the right of the woman to choose the outcome.

In reality -- they are BOTH responsible. Yes, the woman will always have a greater choice, for example, the man cannot choose to keep the baby if she doesn't want to carry it, but that doesn't mean that the man should be at the whim of the woman's choice. By allowing him a short time in which he can opt out, two things would happen. First, the woman would know ahead of time (before sex) that the man could legally walk, so she could take better precautions. Second, those men who murder pregnant girlfriends/wives because they don't want the responsibility of a child would have no reason to do so, because they could walk away.

In the long run, of course, both parties should be responsible for taking birth control precautions. To protect themselves.

 

[Lursa]

They don't get to opt-out now, you're correct about that. But I'd be willing to bet that one day, they'll be able to.

A woman is free to choose to opt-out if she likes,

True equality supports both parties having a choice.

.

True equality isnt always possible, no matter how much you wish it.

I wish men got equally pregnant. Too bad for me.

I wish women were equally as strong as men, overall. Too bad for me.

Men are equal with women in this: BOTH must accept the consequences if a pregnancy occurs. Both can decide this BEFORE they have sex. That is 100% equal.

It is the consequences that are different, because of biology. So if men want equality, then they need to choose BEFORE.

And women cannot opt out of consequences to a pregnancy. I've listed them a million times: a kid, a miscarriage, abortion, death. And women can die or have permanent health damage with the first 3 too.

I'd like that to be equal too: if a woman dies during a miscarriage or delivery...the father must be killed too. Would men, or anyone, agree to that to make sure that it's *equal?* I mean, if equality is really that important?

 

[jaeger19]

Oh, really? I think you're mixing your stereotypes here. :roll:

Nope.. I have personally seen this.

We have had anti abortion folks protest outside some of our clinics that provide woman's health and will counsel abortion if necessary.

I have seen these same folks that protest abortion.. then decide that their 6 year old doesn't need medical attention but should have faith healing. We called health and welfare and we were informed by the state that these folks have fought for the right to do faith healing rather than medical treatment.

The 6 year old boy died by the way.. and he could have easily been healed with medical treatment.

 

[jaeger19]

. A woman is free to choose to opt-out if she likes, and I think everyone (for the most part) supports her choice..

Yeah.. she cannot "opt out".. she has consequences of being pregnant..

Ending the pregnancy still has risks.

no such thing happens to the man.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Yeah.. she cannot "opt out".. she has consequences of being pregnant..

Ending the pregnancy still has risks.

no such thing happens to the man.

So, you're basing your entire argument that a man's wishes should not be a consideration based on physical risk to the mother? If so, what about the increased physical risk to her of injury or death, which can occur at the hands of the biological father who doesn't want the responsibility?

Obviously a man like that should be in prison, but why risk it at all?

 

[HowardBThiname]

True equality isnt always possible, no matter how much you wish it.

I wish men got equally pregnant. Too bad for me.

I wish women were equally as strong as men, overall. Too bad for me.

Men are equal with women in this: BOTH must accept the consequences if a pregnancy occurs. Both can decide this BEFORE they have sex. That is 100% equal.

It is the consequences that are different, because of biology. So if men want equality, then they need to choose BEFORE.

And women cannot opt out of consequences to a pregnancy. I've listed them a million times: a kid, a miscarriage, abortion, death. And women can die or have permanent health damage with the first 3 too.

I'd like that to be equal too: if a woman dies during a miscarriage or delivery...the father must be killed too. Would men, or anyone, agree to that to make sure that it's *equal?* I mean, if equality is really that important?

Of course not everything can be equal, given biological differences, but why should that stop us from trying? Allowing a man to opt-out does not come with any biological or physical consequences for the woman. It just puts them on a more equal footing.

I don't think anyone thinks it's good for a child to grow up with parents who resent him/her.

 

[jaeger19]

So, you're basing your entire argument that a man's wishes should not be a consideration based on physical risk to the mother? If so, what about the increased physical risk to her of injury or death, which can occur at the hands of the biological father who doesn't want the responsibility?

Obviously a man like that should be in prison, but why risk it at all?

Well yes. the man has no such risk but was just as responsible for the pregnancy.

I don't buy the argument of increased risk of injury or death of a biological father that does not want the responsibility. As I pointed out.. that's not a valid argument.. since when woman report abuse they are often at increased risk of retaliation from their abuser.. and according to your premise.. the state should be telling woman not to report being abused.. so they don't get beaten.

Studies show that the overall the risks to the mother and child.. psychologically, financially and physically that come from the biological father being absolved of any financial, or social responsibility is much higher than some perceived risk because an abusive man is going to be more abusive if he is made responsible.

Seriously man.. what you propose is basically extortion by abusive males. What message are you sending? "If you don't want to be responsible for pregnancy, men.. be sure to frighten your partner enough that she doesn;t want you to be responsible for your child because she fears abuse"?

Sorry.. don't buy it.

 

[jaeger19]

Of course not everything can be equal, given biological differences, but why should that stop us from trying? Allowing a man to opt-out does not come with any biological or physical consequences for the woman. It just puts them on a more equal footing.

I don't think anyone thinks it's good for a child to grow up with parents who resent him/her.

Actually it does have biological and physical consequences for the woman. Multiple studies show the physical and biological consequences of a single mother raising a child without support financially or socially. not only that.. there are physical and mental consequences for the child as well when the biological father "opts out".

Experimental studies in breastfeeding women have shown that acute physical and mental stress can impair the milk ejection reflex by reducing the release of oxytocin during a feed. If this occurs repeatedly, it could reduce milk production by preventing full emptying of the breast at each feed.

Bivariate analyses showed that, compared to married mothers, single mothers were more likely to have suffered an episode of depression (12-month prevalence) and to report higher levels of chronic stress

,

Children with single mothers showed an increased risk regarding parent-reported poor health status [boys: odds ratio (OR) 1.39 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06–1.82), girls: 1.73 (1.28–2.33)], psychological problems [boys: 1.90 (1.38–2.61), girls: 1.58 (1.03–2.42)], overweight [only boys: OR 1.23 (1.01–1.50) and asthma [only girls: OR 1.90 (1.15–3.15)].

 

[nota bene]

Nope.. I have personally seen this.

We have had anti abortion folks protest outside some of our clinics that provide woman's health and will counsel abortion if necessary.

I have seen these same folks that protest abortion.. then decide that their 6 year old doesn't need medical attention but should have faith healing. We called health and welfare and we were informed by the state that these folks have fought for the right to do faith healing rather than medical treatment.

The 6 year old boy died by the way.. and he could have easily been healed with medical treatment.

You're clearly referring to one family and stereotyping from there.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Well yes. the man has no such risk but was just as responsible for the pregnancy.

I don't buy the argument of increased risk of injury or death of a biological father that does not want the responsibility. As I pointed out.. that's not a valid argument.. since when woman report abuse they are often at increased risk of retaliation from their abuser.. and according to your premise.. the state should be telling woman not to report being abused.. so they don't get beaten.

You don't have to "buy it." You can keep your head buried in the sand. But, you're not doing women any favors by ignoring what's happening.
Murder Is One of Top Causes of Death for Pregnant Women - ABC News

Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths (washingtonpost.com)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449445/

Studies show that the overall the risks to the mother and child.. psychologically, financially and physically that come from the biological father being absolved of any financial, or social responsibility is much higher than some perceived risk because an abusive man is going to be more abusive if he is made responsible.

Link please?

Seriously man.. what you propose is basically extortion by abusive males. What message are you sending? "If you don't want to be responsible for pregnancy, men.. be sure to frighten your partner enough that she doesn;t want you to be responsible for your child because she fears abuse"?

Sorry.. don't buy it.

Not "seriously man," rather "seriously woman."

For some odd reason, some women just don't get how this kind of inequality is a good thing for them. Let's put the higher rate of murder for pregnant women aside for a moment and concentrate on looking at the situation logically.

We can agree that women should not be punished for an accidental pregnancy by taking away their choice of whether to abort, have the baby and keep it, or put it up for adoption.

But then we come to the accidental father. While he should be responsible perhaps for the woman's medical bills, should she decide to abort or to give birth, that's really where his responsibility should end. Because, he should have the same right to opt-out. Being a real feminist means being in favor of true equality, and I'm not seeing a lot of that here.

Consider women who go to sperm banks. While there is a male donor there -- it's a woman's decision to become pregnant and to raise the child. She doesn't go after the sperm donor for support after all. She understands that the baby created by her egg and his sperm is really HER choice. He doesn't even have an option of being involved. He's done. While that man has consented to the act of masturbation, he has not consented to raising a child for 18 years, even if his sperm fertilize an egg.

The same thing should hold true for naturally fertilized eggs. The man (and woman) should both have a choice of whether to opt-out of parenthood. If the woman chooses to have the baby, the man should be on the hook for her medical costs, including birth costs, but that's it.

There is a good reason why murder is the number one cause of death for pregnant women -- ideas similar to the ones you're talking about.

 

[jaeger19]

You're clearly referring to one family and stereotyping from there.

Nope.. just giving an example..

Most anti abortionists are also adamant that the government stay out of their medical decisions when it conflicts with their religion.

 

[jaeger19]

You don't have to "buy it." You can keep your head buried in the sand. But, you're not doing women any favors by ignoring what's happening.
Murder Is One of Top Causes of Death for Pregnant Women - ABC News

Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths (washingtonpost.com)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449445/.

Oh its not about whether woman get abused... they most certainly do. the question is whether your theory.. which is that they are less likely to be abused if they are extorted by their abusers to have the biological father "opt out" of responsibility.. has any validity.

and basically your theory doesn't have validity.

Like I said.. your premise is like having the state counsel women that they should not report abuse.. because it increases their risk of retaliation by their abuser.

We can agree that women should not be punished for an accidental pregnancy by taking away their choice of whether to abort, have the baby and keep it, or put it up for adoption.

But then we come to the accidental father. While he should be responsible perhaps for the woman's medical bills, should she decide to abort or to give birth, that's really where his responsibility should end. Because, he should have the same right to opt-out. Being a real feminist means being in favor of true equality, and I'm not seeing a lot of that here.

Sorry but logical fallacy. Having to be "responsible" for a child is not a "punishment". As has been already pointed out.. the woman is going to have a consequence.. a responsibility because she got pregnant. that's not "punishment".. that's simply a consequence of her actions.

She is not "opting out" of those consequences. What we agree is that she should not have ADDITIONAL punishment for getting pregnant by the STATE. So if she chooses to have the baby.. she still has the responsibility to clothe it, to treat it right.. and so on.

If she chooses to have the abortion.. she still has the consequences of getting an infection, any mental anguish and so on.

But then we come to the accidental father

First.. hard to say "accidental".. it takes two to tango.. we are not talking immaculate conception here.

Yes.. the father has a responsibility just as the woman does. and the reality is that he has LESS consequences than the woman based on the biology. He is not going to die from the child already. Basically he has a responsibility by the state.. only to help with expenses of the child.. THAT"S IT. and you want to let the man opt out of even that.. placing the burden solely on the female...

that's not equality.

Consider women who go to sperm banks. While there is a male donor there -- it's a woman's decision to become pregnant and to raise the child

That's right.. solely her decision.

In the case of two people having a child.. its BOTH of their decisions and their responsibilities.

A person decides to shoplift.. they get caught.. they get consequences.

Two people decide to shoplift.. one steals the item the other distracts the clerk... they get caught.

ARe both held responsible? Or would you contend that one could claim "well since my partner COULD have done it on their own.. I am not responsible?".

Yeah.. I think not.

Yes.. there is a good reason that murder is the number one reason of death for pregnant women.

One large reason is that only relatively healthy woman generally have children. Another is that woman who are pregnant also are less likely to engage in risky behaviors like motorcycle riding, or sky diving etc.

Basically the reason is because you have statistically removed the population of women that die from other causes. NOT because pregnant woman are being especially targeted by abusers because their abusers are being asked to provide assistance to a child that has not been born yet. .

 

[Removable Mind]

Of course not everything can be equal, given biological differences, but why should that stop us from trying? Allowing a man to opt-out does not come with any biological or physical consequences for the woman. It just puts them on a more equal footing.

I don't think anyone thinks it's good for a child to grow up with parents who resent him/her.

Once a child is born, everything that happened prior to that moment matters not. All of the blaming, whining, bitching and moaning matters not. But there is one thing that does matter. The general welfare of a new kid on the block.

Kids don’t ask to be born to irresponsible parents. They can’t fend for themselves. They don’t have a political voice. Tens of thousands of kids who are wards of the state...probably hate being in the system worse than having an asshole parent who resents them or wished they were never born.

Mommy and daddy, put your parent panties on and get ready for the state to implement its Constitutional duty to protect the child AND THE taxpayers.

Unless the State makes it a Constitutional mandate to pay for a parent who wants to OPT OUT, these don’t wanna be parents will pay whatever their States statutes demands and be prepared to be subject to whatever the State’s statutes demand.

End of story....adult equality is down the drain.

Nobody thinks that a child’s basics needs should be denied.

 

[jet57]

Women of the USA: why do you insist on entertaining the fantasy that forced motherhood is bad but forced fatherhood is good?

The Vice President of the United States is calling to take away rights which allow you to choose what to do with your body. This autonomy on a physical level is part of what makes us human. But it is also a choice of how to behave in society, and whether or not we should be parents.

It seems quite clear to me that men and women should both be allowed to have sex with one another without risking a prison sentence, if the other chooses to enforce non-custodial support.

Why do you suppose that women still want to financially abuse men in this way? Are women really so vindictive that they are willing to risk it all just to snub men? Or are they too meek and mild mannered to stand up for themselves?

I know how that feels. I once tried to present evidence in court of the unconstitutionality of forced fatherhood. The judge refused to admit it. It really hurts to go to a place where one expects to find honor, civility, respect, wisdom and justice, and find ignorance and obstinate discrimination in its place. But I feel my situation is slightly different. Whereas I presently am incapable of rightly exercising autonomy, woman can and do disavow motherhood. Therefore, advocacy I do is not in defense of an existing legal protection of men. Unfortunately, I believe women have grown smug and self righteous. They do not understand that their rights are at risk because of their egotistical complacency. If women stood up for what was right for all people, and not just all women, they could speak to a much wider audience.

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time' | TheHill

Mike Pence is an idiot.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Even in the Casey decision even with an extreamly conservative SCOTUS the Justices still had to recognize the right to privacy and could not over rule Roe Wade , the best the could up was undue burden and that came back and bit the Texas lawmakers in the Whole Woman's Supreme Court case in June 2016.

Re: Casey:

The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions.

"the justices still had to..."

False, the justices don't have to anything. They could rule that the sky is actually yellow and black folks aren't citizens anymore and under the current power we give them, they'd be able to do it (of course if they want that far I'm sure the people would revolt and throw them out, or maybe, just maybe the senate would try to impeach the justices).

You would love to think that abortion is set in stone, it simply isn't until it is specifically enumerated under the constitution. Until then, abortion is at the mercy of the courts, who have so far allowed it to pass.

 

[minnie616]

"the justices still had to..."

False, the justices don't have to anything. They could rule that the sky is actually yellow and black folks aren't citizens anymore and under the current power we give them, they'd be able to do it (of course if they want that far I'm sure the people would revolt and throw them out, or maybe, just maybe the senate would try to impeach the justices).

You would love to think that abortion is set in stone, it simply isn't until it is specifically enumerated under the constitution. Until then, abortion is at the mercy of the courts, who have so far allowed it to pass.

Not so.

I would also like to point out that several right to privacy precedents were set before Roe v Wade.

The more precedents, the harder it is to overturn a SC ruling. Even with a differt set of Justices.

It will be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including right to privacy regarding child rearing rights , such as the right for parents to send their children to private or religious schools instead of public schools.

The following Surpreme Court decisions would most likely become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lursa]

"the justices still had to..."

False, the justices don't have to anything. They could rule that the sky is actually yellow and black folks aren't citizens anymore and under the current power we give them, they'd be able to do it (of course if they want that far I'm sure the people would revolt and throw them out, or maybe, just maybe the senate would try to impeach the justices).

You would love to think that abortion is set in stone, it simply isn't until it is specifically enumerated under the constitution. Until then, abortion is at the mercy of the courts, who have so far allowed it to pass.

It seems even the 2A is in jeopardy...at least people keep threatening it...and that is enumerated in the Const. So not sure that is anymore ensured.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

It seems even the 2A is in jeopardy...at least people keep threatening it...and that is enumerated in the Const. So not sure that is anymore ensured.

I agree, but I do believe enumeration makes it harder to mess with. Specific enumeration allows the masses to read the law simply and understand it and absorb it.

Most Americans have no ****ing clue on what the abortion precedents are, let's be real here.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Not so.

I would also like to point out that several right to privacy precedents were set before Roe v Wade.

The more precedents, the harder it is to overturn a SC ruling. Even with a differt set of Justices.

It will be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including right to privacy regarding child rearing rights , such as the right for parents to send their children to private or religious schools instead of public schools.

The following Surpreme Court decisions would most likely become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.

[/QUOTE]

Again, nothing is ever too hard because SCOTUS was allowed to declare itself the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you until you understand that.

SCOTUS has absolute power to wave its hand and completely overturn Roe V Wade. Whether they should doesn't matter in that regard, I'm merely stating that they can.

 

[Lursa]

Of course not everything can be equal, given biological differences, but why should that stop us from trying? Allowing a man to opt-out does not come with any biological or physical consequences for the woman. It just puts them on a more equal footing.

Men are on perfectly equal footing with women, it just may be different for different issues. Allowing a man to opt out has financial consequences for *everybody* ...so that's some ridiculous concession to enable men to shirk something they are 50% accountable for because they can no longer have sex without consequences. (Which is not remotely equal...since women CANNOT)

I don't think anyone thinks it's good for a child to grow up with parents who resent him/her.

And you think this opt-out law would create behavior change? That's BS. The kid remains that man's kid whether or not he pays. He'll most likely end up knowing the man...there's nothing to keep them from being in contact. Hey! How much more fun would it be to opt-out and then start meeting the kid when it's older!? Will there be a restraining order forbidding men who opt-out from ever contacting their kid? I doubt it.

How much less chance will he ever have to meaningfully connect with that kid if he screws over the mother the kid loves for 2 decades? And what effect does that have on the kid? Same old story all thru history: 'your dad ran out on us.' Always good for a kid's self-esteem. :roll: Great example for boys. Great when the dad is still around anyway...just a deadbeat.

But hey...it's all about the male ego, their lives, and their inability to make a decision that will affect the rest of THEIR lives and they KNOW it before they decide to have sex with that woman. It's ALL OK as long as the man "believes" it's "equal." :roll: