Better to have abortion riots now rather than later ...

[togor]

I like to quote the words of the late Professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese:
"By declaring 'reproductive freedom' to be women's exclusive right, it dismisses the claims of men and cancels their obligations to the next generation."
And it has given us a generation-several generations-of men whose attitude towards fatherhood is best summed up by the one "deadbeat dad" interviewed by Newsweek
in 1992, who, when asked what sort of relationship he expected to have with his sons if he refused to pay child support, replied:
"None."
And I doubt if all the women living off welfare and using their children as "meal tickets" have any sympathy for Loretta Lynn' s sentiments.

The fact that you have to play the welfare card shows you're really just acting on a hodgepodge of grievances. You want the babies born but you damn well as a taxpayer don't want to deal with the consequences.

You're the poster child of hypocrisy on this issue.

[lyman]

The fact that you have to play the welfare card shows you're really just acting on a hodgepodge of grievances. You want the babies born but you damn well as a taxpayer don't want to deal with the consequences.

You're the poster child of hypocrisy on this issue.

if you were connected in any way to the world he quoted, you would realize just how absolutely wrong you are, and how folks opinions like yours have made the comments he made possible,
which would be even worse than hypocrisy,


but you are not, the whitebread wanna be diverse or die world you are connected to just plays the liberal game, , as long as it is not seen except on the nightly news or maybe a Vox article

[togor]

if you were connected in any way to the world he quoted, you would realize just how absolutely wrong you are, and how folks opinions like yours have made the comments he made possible,
which would be even worse than hypocrisy,


but you are not, the whitebread wanna be diverse or die world you are connected to just plays the liberal game, , as long as it is not seen except on the nightly news or maybe a Vox article

I knew when I was writing this post you were going to come in straight at me, because the thing you cannot stand around here is clarity brought to topics you want to keep muddied.

But his reasoning speaks for itself. The contradiction cannot be ignored. If he can't bring himself to see it, so what. It's still there! And yeah, if someone points it out, well that's the down side of leaving glaring contradictions out there for all to see.

And if I misunderstand, and he isn't:

1) opposed to abortions AND

2) opposed to taxpayer support of unaborted births

There is nothing stopping him from setting me straight.

Until that happens, it's a giant contradiction that will get called out.

[barretcreek]

From a friend.

This says something important, given that McConnell is not given to careless remarks. Certainly he knows that a federal abortion ban would defy the same principle that forms the basis for overturning Roe.

McConnell says national abortion ban is 'possible' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a recent interview that a nationwide abortion ban is "possible" if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

https://apple.news/AtrnD62flQ6ic6n8CjijPEw

Yeah, be inconsistent. Be contradictory even. Ginsburg evidently gave a speech in the early '90s espousing the view Roe was a poorly written decision even though she agreed with the basic end. She felt it needed to be clarified and rigidly defined.