Posted on 10/31/2005 7:34:44 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Around here an "openly gay, pro-choice...progressive feminist" believes Bush = Hitler, and they really mean it. No way they'd vote for him.
"My first thought is that he isn't the father."
Nutshell.
Nope. Almost exactly the opposite, in fact. The Constitution spells out a few, limited number of powers of the federal government. Everything else is reserved to the states or to individuals. So the silence of the Constitution, far from meaning that given legislation is unconstitutional, is strong evidence that it is permissible.
How much of that is believable? She's either a dingbat or she's lying.
I'll bet the openly gay, pro-choice, "progressive feminist" parts are right.
But she is pro-death penalty and a gun owner.
Exactly,
Tammy doesn't understand that there is a big difference between having the opinion that a law is a bad idea and making the claim that a law is constitutionally prohibited.
Ailito may share her belief that the law in question is a bad policy call, I hope not, but he may. However, this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the Constitution prevents the people of PA from making such a law.
If a woman is married to a guy, and she decides to abort the kid he helped produced, doesn't he at least deserve a notice???
The obvious constitutional issue aside, this is common sense, but common sense and Constitutional adherence aren't liberal strong points.
"at the same time quietly support the status quo of first trimester abortions being readily available"
Thats actually my position. But mainly b/c condoms fail and, if I had a 19-yr-old Condi Rice, I wouldn't want her future destroyed because of an accident [even though I know she assumed the risk by making a choice to have intercourse]
Read my post #38 for some insight into why this isn't 'common sense' in the minds of a lot of folks.
That is also why women never criticize other women for "letting themselves go" (sexually or physically). They know it could be them. In fact some probably plan on it being them one day. Just my personal opinion.
************
The financial aspect of the issue is the least of it.
Well, don't overstate the 'destroyed,' either. She can put the child up for adoption, for example. The bad situation need not lead to destruction of the mother's life.
That being said, I think women know that they can screw up and get caught with their panties down. That's why you have polls that show most women think abortion is wrong, yet most women are clearly not animated to change the status quo.
If its a choice between doing something they think is wrong, and coming clean and having an angry husband on her hands who might dump her pregnant arse onto the street, leaving her with a pretty unseemly story to tell her less-than-sympathetic family and friends, I think most women choose to quietly get rid of the problem.
Sad but true. Most Freepers have no grasp of this dynamic and it leads them astray on the issue. This is why women really freak out if their access to abortions is seriously threatened.
Well, I don't think we should be passing laws and enacting constitutional protections which provide an advantage to the few people who don't follow the rules at the expence of the many who do.
Most women don't get pregnant in extra-marital affairs.
On the other hand, unless her husband is sterile, or they have been living as monks, how would he know who got her pregnant??
I don't think DNA tests are required on murdered babies yet.
Also, I know several women that had abortions in their youth. All of them regret them and are traumatized by the fact that they ended an innocent life.
And they can keep it without his consent and require him to pay for it as well. They have their cake and eat it too. They want the right to choose as long as they are the only one with the right.
I view it as murder, I am just am pointing out the usual liberal hypocrisy.
I don't know about that - in my experience other women tend to be more biting & critical of a sexually adventerous woman. Heck, they tend to be more critical of women in very sexual attire.
Men enjoy the benefit of women who are more sexually loose, and can appreciate the sexual attire a lot more than women do.
This issue is another one entirely. I don't think very many women plan on an inconvenient pregnancy like I describe, but a lot of women in otherwise happy & functional relationships know that they could be caught with their panties down, a situation that utterly threatens the life and status quo that they value.
It's not good, but it's present in the back of the minds of most women, I think.
this is where libertarians and lesbians never fail to disappoint
(see Boortz)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.