How many years have you spent hating yourself because doing your very best falls way of providing well for your children? You are thinking like a man not a woman and that is the national problem.
Oh really? And is that as true during good economic times as it is during bad economic times when there are not enough jobs for the people who need them? Is it equally true in all states if the people have economic opportunity or not? Is it true for high school dropouts who didn't have a real chance to do better because of circumstances beyond their control? How about when the father or the mother is an addict and or an abusive person? What if the father disappears and leaves a teenage mother alone to raise a child? Hopefully, I am not the only one who does not live a dream world of what should be.
I know someone who was a teenage victim of her mixed-up father who caused her to need an abortion and later decided he wanted to be a she.
Absolutely right @StarSong.
That was not BS.
When Oregon was mostly pioneers a journalist interviewed them before they all died and some of the women spoke of their distress that we made a big fuss over slavery but ignored the women held in slavery because we called it marriage. Back in the day girls were married off at age 14. It had nothing to do with love but was servile. Unfortunately for many women, the condition of their survival was unbearable but they had no choice. I had the good fortune of knowing some of them and they were very glad to survive longer than their husbands who they hated.
Our liberty must not be denied by well-meaning people because they are not living in the circumstances of the person making the decision. Take that away from us and we are in slavery.
Once again, the Constitution is what it is. It is the duty of well meaning SC judges to impartially interpret the meaning of the words of the Constitution. If those words prove inconvenient or offensive in today's world, then by all means amend -- which has been done twenty-seven times, but to just reinterpret genuine meaning to satisfy a group or Party and avoid the inconvenience of amendment is dangerous and ill advised. This could in effect turn our SC justices into a legislative body -- a body that in different hands could use its power to enact "legislation" that many who previously supported this misuse of power might find highly alarming. Beware the vicious dog you create -- it might well turn on you.
I answered the question. Sorry you're not happy with it.
This is from a guy who insisted the Washington Post was Washington Times; that New York Times was the NY Post and wouldn't back down and got angry when I pointed out the difference. It took @JimBob1952 to soothe @Timewise 60+ into recognizing the facts; didn't have the moxie to tell me I was right. When he realized he was wrong he excused himself by calling it a "brain fart" which he appears to have a lot of.
You absolutely did not answer the question! Let us begin with the needs for life, food, clean water, and shelter. In modern times we have added medical to that.
Who raised them? Or who supported them so you could stay home and raise them? Was that in an inner-city ghetto or a rural town with almost no economic opportunity?
I worked and raised my kids. I took shift-work so I could be home as much as possible. I lived where life was affordable.
Oh, so your children were old enough to leave alone. But what if it was a baby who could not be left alone? Surely you would have had to have help. Or perhaps you don't think someone helped you raise the children, even though someone did? A sister, a grandparent, a paid childcare provider, and the school system.
Abortion is legal in Florida, where this took place.
My wife left us when our youngest was 9 months old. When I needed a sitter, it was either my mom or my sister or sister-in-law. I didn't date or go out for an evening for years except for pizza and a movie with the kids once or twice a month and visits with family.
I think men can care for children. In elementary school my best male friend was the eldest of six children. His mother died and his dad raised the kids. He was a lawyer so it was probably easier for him financially but still many problems like illness etc. can occur and men can and do handle it. Financial help for men in such circumstances would be a plus.
I am not religious -- Agnostic at best, but I treasure the Constitution. Our founders had a legitimate fear of an overly powerful central government -- thus the 1st Amendment which is virtually unique around the world. I agree with your opinion of abortion rights, but rather than scrap the Constitution, perhaps it needs to be amended in that regard. I would support that. In any event, the Court has NOT overturned Roe v Wade, at least not yet, so perhaps we should reserve our outrage on that issue.
There's a common assumption that men aren't or even can't be as nurturing as women. I think most of us just nurture differently. And some men nurture their kids (and other people's kids, too) pretty much the same as a mother does, even if they lack the hormones.
