I figured out why republicans are against birth control and abortion

[nehalem256]

"Man and Women follow equally their Life Course!!!!"

Are there too many notes? That is in plain English.

I'll try to elaborate but I have before said basically the same thing only adding 'life course' this effort in an attempt to direct your thinking to the fundamental issue of being because that is what this is all about.

I think you'd agree that there are two kinds of people... sexes if you will. Each has a life course that they are uniquely designed to follow. Boys can't be girls [except in beauty pageants and only after some serious alterations that still don't completely enable a change in life course] and likewise Girls follow theirs not as boys but as girls.

Equality then is providing for both to equally follow that course. You want to parse that difference to find inequality. That can't be done because the life course of either sex by virtue of its life course follows a different path. To follow their separate or different path equally is what the Term Equality means in this case.

This above condition is much much different than looking at say... two males wishing to follow their genetically produced brain/mind. One male wants to shoot guns all day and the other wishes to knit... You can loosely see that their life course is dissimilar in that regard but may be quite similar otherwise... a Boy is not only possessed with a different functioning mind than a Girl but also their genetic differences structurally produce a far greater difference across the board... ergo, their life course are different to the extent of those differences that by chance occur.

Now, in the case of our two boys they should equally be able to enjoy their pleasure or Right of shooting or knitting... The great chasm between the sexes by definition produces far greater differences in the enjoyment of their pleasures or Rights and they should also enjoy them Equally. Hence, Each Sex Equally follows their Life Course... it is different but it is Equal.

EDIT: I could add the obvious. Abortion decisions by the court recognize whether they articulate it or not that the Life Course of a Woman forces consideration in the Context of Privacy. The Privacy bit flows from the recognition of Equality of Life Course...
Or in baby speak.... IF men had babies then their Life Course would be similar to woman and the discussion would be moot.

The problem is that abortion has nothing to do with allowing women to follow their life course. If anything it has to do with allowing them to alter their life course and live a more masculine life course.

 

[LunarRay]

Its called Justice.

If you've a passion for Justice that is a strong battery indeed. I've noticed that you do have a passion. I like to see passion in anything.
Way back when I had a passion for aspects of the law... [My focus was on Business... the UCC and Contracts and like that...] Justice crept in to my observations on every level... An enormous factor Justice is...
Justice is what we're told it is. In this country we may have differing opinions about what we're told Justice is but we have to understand the reasoning behind that notion of Justice. That is what I've been trying to point out.
You have said quite a few times, "I know what the law is, but...". In that notion is the disconnect. IF you know what the law is then you know what Justice is.
As a particular issue moves from one court to another and finally to SCOTUS we often find brilliant minds see it differently. But finally SCOTUS tells us what Justice is.
You have found injustice in some aspect of marriage or simply sex act implications. When you are in an opposing point of view with the Law you claim it to be injustice and it is not. Your contrary view is Injustice no matter how much passion you pour into it. It is Just when you are told to support a decision made by a woman who exercises her Rights... Because our SCOTUS said it is... You say it is Inequality when a woman follows her life course as you follow yours but it is Equality because the Court said so.

Just like Bush v Gore in 2000... many said it is unjust.... but who became president? And why? SCOTUS decides what is Justice and sometimes folks don't agree but that don't create injustice... It creates disagreement only.

 

[LunarRay]

The problem is that abortion has nothing to do with allowing women to follow their life course. If anything it has to do with allowing them to alter their life course and live a more masculine life course.

As usual you are wrong again... your premise is wrong and inconsistent with the findings, rationalization and conclusions the Court has provided... Abortion is squarely in the Life Course of a woman and not in that of a man. The woman is not at all attempting to live anything but a woman.

Men usually don't have abortions.

 

[nehalem256]

As usual you are wrong again... your premise is wrong and inconsistent with the findings, rationalization and conclusions the Court has provided... Abortion is squarely in the Life Course of a woman and not in that of a man. The woman is not at all attempting to live anything but a woman.

Men usually don't have abortions.

Men don't usually wear strap ons. But that doesn't mean that if a woman wears one she is not trying to take the life course of a man.

A woman gets an abortion so she can live like what feminists perceive a man's life course to be.

 

[nehalem256]

If you've a passion for Justice that is a strong battery indeed. I've noticed that you do have a passion. I like to see passion in anything.
Way back when I had a passion for aspects of the law... [My focus was on Business... the UCC and Contracts and like that...] Justice crept in to my observations on every level... An enormous factor Justice is...
Justice is what we're told it is. In this country we may have differing opinions about what we're told Justice is but we have to understand the reasoning behind that notion of Justice. That is what I've been trying to point out.
You have said quite a few times, "I know what the law is, but...". In that notion is the disconnect. IF you know what the law is then you know what Justice is.
As a particular issue moves from one court to another and finally to SCOTUS we often find brilliant minds see it differently. But finally SCOTUS tells us what Justice is.
You have found injustice in some aspect of marriage or simply sex act implications. When you are in an opposing point of view with the Law you claim it to be injustice and it is not. Your contrary view is Injustice no matter how much passion you pour into it. It is Just when you are told to support a decision made by a woman who exercises her Rights... Because our SCOTUS said it is... You say it is Inequality when a woman follows her life course as you follow yours but it is Equality because the Court said so.

Just like Bush v Gore in 2000... many said it is unjust.... but who became president? And why? SCOTUS decides what is Justice and sometimes folks don't agree but that don't create injustice... It creates disagreement only.

No I say it is inequality when the law forces a man to support a woman's life course. By your logic abdicating responsibility for the child a woman bore and he didnt want is following his life course. Why are you opposed to allowing a man to follow his life course?

Bush v Gore is not a question of justice. In any practical sense the Florida vote was a tie because it was impossible to determine within the margin of error who won. A better example would be people who fought for the abolition of slavery. At the time the constitution said owning black people as slaves was "just". Which by your logic would put those fighting for the abolition of slavery in the wrong :\

 

[LunarRay]

No I say it is inequality when the law forces a man to support a woman's life course. By your logic abdicating responsibility for the child a woman bore and he didnt want is following his life course. Why are you opposed to allowing a man to follow his life course?

Bush v Gore is not a question of justice. In any practical sense the Florida vote was a tie because it was impossible to determine within the margin of error who won. A better example would be people who fought for the abolition of slavery. At the time the constitution said owning black people as slaves was "just". Which by your logic would put those fighting for the abolition of slavery in the wrong :\

Elections are determined by votes... not by some margin of error. I'm not sure how elections are determined where you live but here a sample is not extrapolated to a win.

I think we've covered the Slave issue ad nauseum... I think the Civil War had something to do with those Amendments that seems to have settled the issue... and if the South had won a much different history would have evolved to today... But, that all has not to do with the fact that women and men have different life courses to follow... nothing you say can alter that because men and women are different in the aspect under discussion... You don't grasp what Life Course is... I guess.... It is, in this context, men don't have babies and women do.... ergo, the course their lives take must be different. The only way it could be the same is for there to be no difference between them and to think otherwise suggests you've yet to notice that they are. Equality in this context relates to the pursuit of those two paths.


That you can't conjure up in law what you propose as truth forces you to abdicate from the central theme out to something not relevant to the issue usually by some contorted premise that is not possibly supportive of your conclusions. The analogies fail if they don't relate to the issue or if there is no logical nexus between the premise and conclusion....

 

[sportage]

Republicans aren't against abortion and birth control...
Ever seen a 13 year old child of any republican walking around PG?
Nope?
And u never will. That's how class warfare works. Or one of it's benefits.
Laws 4 U .... Not 4 us ....

 

[nehalem256]

Elections are determined by votes... not by some margin of error. I'm not sure how elections are determined where you live but here a sample is not extrapolated to a win.

If you have 10 million votes, and one person is leading by 500ish votes, but when you count the votes multiple times you get different answers... what does that tell you?

I think we've covered the Slave issue ad nauseum... I think the Civil War had something to do with those Amendments that seems to have settled the issue... and if the South had won a much different history would have evolved to today... But, that all has not to do with the fact that women and men have different life courses to follow... nothing you say can alter that because men and women are different in the aspect under discussion... You don't grasp what Life Course is... I guess.... It is, in this context, men don't have babies and women do.... ergo, the course their lives take must be different. The only way it could be the same is for there to be no difference between them and to think otherwise suggests you've yet to notice that they are. Equality in this context relates to the pursuit of those two paths.

But BEFORE the civil war by you logic the abolitions were in the wrong. They were fighting to end people's rights to own slaves... how dare they 🙄

 

[nehalem256]

That you can't conjure up in law what you propose as truth forces you to abdicate from the central theme out to something not relevant to the issue usually by some contorted premise that is not possibly supportive of your conclusions. The analogies fail if they don't relate to the issue or if there is no logical nexus between the premise and conclusion....

No its quite apt. White southerners thought that blacks should be their slaves. Liberals think men should be slaves to supporting women's reproductive choices.

 

[LunarRay]

If you have 10 million votes, and one person is leading by 500ish votes, but when you count the votes multiple times you get different answers... what does that tell you?


But BEFORE the civil war by you logic the abolitions were in the wrong. They were fighting to end people's rights to own slaves... how dare they 🙄

They didn't count the votes... not all of them... and when they did finally count the votes long after the election ... Gore had more votes and would have won had it occurred before the statutory deadlines. Gore lost and it was a just situation given the facts and the law. Moonbeam and you may appeal to some higher authority but it is not relevant to the real authority decisions.

By my logic the law was what it was and if Slavery was legal then it was... You apparently are appealing to some higher authority and in this Society the Supreme Court determines and is the highest authority...
So... Was it legal? IF it was then it was. Folks didn't HAVE to own Slaves but if they did that was their prerogative under law. They may still not agree with the law but they must follow it or be consequence ready.

You might strengthen the election view by recognizing that 11,000 voters from areas favorable to Gore were disenfranchised.... You should read the USCCR 2000 election findings. [United States Commission on Civil Rights]

 

[nehalem256]

They didn't count the votes... not all of them... and when they did finally count the votes long after the election ... Gore had more votes and would have won had it occurred before the statutory deadlines. Gore lost and it was a just situation given the facts and the law.

You mean when they counted the vote of people who failed to vote successfully Gore had more "votes". 🙄

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No its quite apt. White southerners thought that blacks should be their slaves. Liberals think men should be slaves to supporting women's reproductive choices.

Yeah, you're overstepping the bounds of rationality here.

All that men who want to avoid being "slaves to women's reproductive choices" have to do is take better care where they put their genitals. That's not an option that was available to blacks in the south.

The problem is that abortion has nothing to do with allowing women to follow their life course. If anything it has to do with allowing them to alter their life course and live a more masculine life course.

In another thread you basically said that women should be forced to have abortions if they don't want to pay for the cost of raising a child entirely on their own. You're making little sense.

 

[LunarRay]

You mean when they counted the vote of people who failed to vote successfully Gore had more "votes". 🙄

The various recounts subsequent to the SCOTUS decision by 'independent' counters produced results that under Florida Law and District Law had Gore winning... You can interpret 'independent' and 'win' as you may. There were many other obstacles to voting in Gore favored districts like machines, road blockages, names removed from the rolls... all sorts of interesting other factors... see the USCCR report.. or just Mary
F. Berry's executive report.

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah, you're overstepping the bounds of rationality here.

All that men who want to avoid being "slaves to women's reproductive choices" have to do is take better care where they put their genitals. That's not an option that was available to blacks in the south.

Conservatives would say exactly what you are saying about women and abortion :hmm:

And it seems like you are touting abstinence... but liberals say that is impossible :hmm:

In another thread you basically said that women should be forced to have abortions if they don't want to pay for the cost of raising a child entirely on their own. You're making little sense.

Maybe they should pay better attention to what they are putting in their genitals huh :biggrin:

 

[nehalem256]

The various recounts subsequent to the SCOTUS decision by 'independent' counters produced results that under Florida Law and District Law had Gore winning... You can interpret 'independent' and 'win' as you may. There were many other obstacles to voting in Gore favored districts like machines, road blockages, names removed from the rolls... all sorts of interesting other factors... see the USCCR report.. or just Mary
F. Berry's executive report.

And the initial counts conducted under florida law had Bush winning. So if you count something multiple times and arrive at different counts, which count is correct? 😕

 

[cybrsage]

And the initial counts conducted under florida law had Bush winning. So if you count something multiple times and arrive at different counts, which count is correct? 😕

The correct one is the one where the dems win. Any recount after that must be illegal and prevented. Until the recount shows the dem wins, we must recount over and over and over.

Oh, and do not forget to "find" a lot of ballots in the trunks of people's cars - the majority of which "voted" for the dem...