Radical right wing court
mark94
Arizona
With the addition of Kavanaugh, the protesters tell us we now have a radical, right wing court. If we did, here are some of the things that would be on the top of their list:
(1) ban abortion nationwide as a violation of the right to life protected by the due process clause;
(2) rule that publicly-provided (but not funded) education is unconstitutional because it inherently involves viewpoint discrimination by the government
(3) overrule an 1898 precedent and completely abolish birthright citizenship;
(4) Use the First Amendment as a sword to require “fairness” in the left-dominated media.
(5) interpret the Commerce clause as originally intended, an ability for Congress to mediate conflict between states, not unlimited power to regulate all commerce.
(6) Rule Social Security an unconstitutional expansion of Federal power to redistribute wealth.
Not only is the Supreme Court not about to do any of these things, I don’t think any of these things would even get one vote on the current Court.
Moreover, merely bringing the scope of Congress’s constitutional back to where it was, say, in 1935, which was already much broader than the original meaning of the Commerce power, probably wouldn’t get more than one or two votes.
What you are looking at right now is a conservative Court that will only affect society on the margins, not a “radical right-wing” Court.
(1) ban abortion nationwide as a violation of the right to life protected by the due process clause;
(2) rule that publicly-provided (but not funded) education is unconstitutional because it inherently involves viewpoint discrimination by the government
(3) overrule an 1898 precedent and completely abolish birthright citizenship;
(4) Use the First Amendment as a sword to require “fairness” in the left-dominated media.
(5) interpret the Commerce clause as originally intended, an ability for Congress to mediate conflict between states, not unlimited power to regulate all commerce.
(6) Rule Social Security an unconstitutional expansion of Federal power to redistribute wealth.
Not only is the Supreme Court not about to do any of these things, I don’t think any of these things would even get one vote on the current Court.
Moreover, merely bringing the scope of Congress’s constitutional back to where it was, say, in 1935, which was already much broader than the original meaning of the Commerce power, probably wouldn’t get more than one or two votes.
What you are looking at right now is a conservative Court that will only affect society on the margins, not a “radical right-wing” Court.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
109 comments
When there is a perceived political change on the horizon - there’s usually significant political craziness on both sides of the issue.
The truth is generally less liberal than the left wants - and generally less right than the conservatives want.
I hope the democrats don’t pursue impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh. I think that would be a wasted effort.
Based on the evidence - Kavanaugh is a reasoned and principled judge. There is no reason to expect him to be any less reasonable or principled as a Justice. I wish him the best.
As far as there not being a single supporter of any of the conservative issues mentioned in the initial post - I think that is a stretch.
The 20 boys who accused Sandusky at Penn St after 20 years? Definitely lying progressives.
The 250 gymnasts who accused Nassar after 20 years? Definitely lying progressives.
The 250 boys who accused the Catholic Church in Philadelphia after 30 years? Definitely lying progressives.
Shut the fuck up.
Soon the only women who will be able to get abortions will be the mistresses of politicians and televangelists.
The promotion of abortion (by democrats) as a woman’s right is horrific - and wrong. It is the killing of an unborn fetus. There is nothing reasonable about allowing it to continue.
I hope that this changes soon.
This issue should not be considered the right to choose vs the right to life - it’s simply the right to kill the unborn vs the right to life.
It befuddles me how liberals oppose executions (of convicted murderers) but yet how they want the right to kill (innocent) unborn fetuses?
This could get bad. Like riots in the street bad.
An embryo or fetus has no rights. It has no rights until it is born. This was the case when the founding fathers wrote out constitution. How does forcing a woman against her will to carry a non-viable fetus against her will, how does not violate libertarian Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?? No one has the right to make her a slave against her will, for the State to co-op her body for 9 months. The Burger Court got it right when it said she loses her right to evict the fetus from her womb once the fetus is viable. This is consistent with the libertarian stances on trespass and murder.
Sometimes I think those older ultra-conservative customers who are high income and high net worth are divorced from some of the daily struggles and realities many of us face. A young 20 y/o woman who becomes pregnant may feel that her life is over. Young parents may feel priced out of the market, of raising a family. Unwanted pregnancies are one inevitable result of women’s sexual liberation. For now, for a small group, (young, scared group) abortion is the least terrible of 3 horrible choices. Though, I think history will paint us as being on the wrong side of abortion when it’s all done.
It depends how to see the issue: oppression or barbarism or coercion (three parties).
There's an oxymoron for ya.
Judge Kavanaugh is a strict constructionist judge. For those of you that went to school later than 1975 that means that Judges do not set laws, write law nor set policy contrary to trends started by LBJ & Jimmy Carter judges. By the Constitution the Supreme Court is only allowed to rule whether a law meets the criteria laid out in the constitution for laws.
Strict constructionists are also less likely to overturn decisions made by previous courts(precedent).
Abortion will not change in the foreseeable future other than the possibility that tax payers may not be forced to subsidize it.
The First Amendment will be more strictly interpreted, there will be no "fairness laws" for EITHER side.
(there have been numerous attempts to shut down conservative talk radio and website under the guise of fairness because the left can't hold an audience(hence the low ratings of CNN etc.).
If birthright citizenship changes it will have to come from Congress and will likely come before the court. Every other 1st world country has way more strict rules for citizenship than we do as well as the right to any government benefits.
It is likely that we will see some laws to protect voters rights such as proof of citizenship and residency. Indiana has had that law in place for several years and it has gone before the previous supreme court several years ago and passed. Picture state issued ID's are available for free and the local BMV upon your moving into the state. Was put in place 2.5 years ahead of the first election enforcement to allow everyone enough time to get one. Unfortunately is was not in place before Obama fraudulently carried IN in 2008.
Everyone forgets (including some judges) the courts do not have the power to mandate laws. The job is the legislature's who (in recent years) have stopped doing their jobs and have let the courts and executive branches make the laws.
The left has done this because if they actually had to run on their records they would be thrown out of office for destroy the schools, raising taxes, expansion of government, allowing welfare to get out of control, malfeasance (the list is endless). By allowing judges, governors and president to rule by fiat they wash their can say look I had nothing to do with your 60% tax burden it was tehm even though they arranged it all.
I think Kavanaugh is more of a libertarian than anything else.
And the SCOTUS, as well as the senators who voted him through, will have blood on their hands for every woman who dies from a back alley abortion.
If an embryo or fetus cannot live outside of the woman's uterus, it has no human rights and is honestly just a parasite at that point. Women are not incubation machines. Although I personally would never have an abortion, I would NEVER agree with any law that takes away a woman's right to her own body. And quite honestly, it's both laughable and sad at the same time that so many men, whose bodies will never have to go through a pregnancy, have so much to say on why a woman shouldn't have a choice to her own body.
I'm sure all the guys here who fuck strippers bareback would be elated if they got one pregnant and she refused to have an abortion. /sarcasm. Hello child support and alimony for the wives who divorce them after that. Pff.
And again, I'll reiterate: if it cannot live outside of the woman's uterus, it has no human rights. Its existence is entirely dependant upon the women's body.
Sorry for any typos, I'm on lunch break from my real estate class and trying to study and tuscl at the same time. My point still stands.
The last time I considered myself "pro-life" was several years before I ever even started having sex, when I was a naive kid who didn't know anything about reproductive rights.
Whatever. You get my point.
There, I'm done. I sound like Nicoke now. But my point still stands.
Unprotected sex can easily lead to pregnancy. The next choice should never be abortion. The sad truth is the abortion procedure is used as a method of contraception - and those folks (who use it as such) have blood on their hands.
The conception of a baby should be a joyous experience - that is enjoyed by both parents. In a society considered evolved and tolerant - we should not be penalizing the ones who have no defense (sadly considered parasites by Dominic77).
Weve spent trillions of dollars and accomplished nothing. The welfare program needs to be restructured to encourage families to stay together while preparing recipients to be self sufficient.
Conservatives do not want children to die. They want them to thrive rather than to be victims of a failed government program.
Nina, correct. The mothers say if you won't let me abort, then who will pay my prenatal care, who will pay for the delivery, etc. Who will pay to raise my baby. I get their plight. But asking for handouts or welfare is not going to fly anymore. The Johnson Great Society is over. In fact, Roosevelt's New Deal may also be over. Because to do that at the government level requires taxation theft, and wealth transfer.
We really should raise our daughters and sons to be adults who make responsible choices and so that there are less abortions.
@TiredTraveler
I actually think I agree with nearly all points. Including calling Justice Kavanaugh a libertarian. I see what you mean by strict Continutionalist not wanting to legislate from the bench. I think that is best. But I was willing to fight dirty to keep the Burger's Court decision because it is so important to many but not all women that I know. Even if some of those women have "rocks in their heads" from the feminist and Women's movement agendas (really both are special interest groups and not activist groups === we've been duped!) :)
Just like they portray Trump as racist as Hitler. Sure he's a dick and at least a little racist but a Hitler or White Supremacist is not even close to the truth. People are always going over the top with their criticisms and portrayals of their political opponents. Just like you could hear conservatives calling Obama a communist.
The 20 boys who accused Sandusky at Penn St after 20 years? Definitely lying progressives.
The 250 gymnasts who accused Nassar after 20 years? Definitely lying progressives.
The 250 boys who accused the Catholic Church in Philadelphia after 30 years? Definitely lying progressives.
What we don't have in this case is anything remotely equal to backup.
So comparing the two says more about your state of mind than anything factual.
One of the really odd items that I read ( with my own eyes) and then it seems to have been stricken from the statements was her cell phone call she made provided to her by one of her friends that had it in her purse.......ever see a cell phone in 1982? Ever think about the size the thing must have been if this friend had one?
Oddly enough those of us in the technology world ( if they saw the statement before it did a Keyzer Sozee and vanished) would tell you Uh Oh..... you just went down the road of BS.
And that is just one reason why you don't trash a guy and go liberal nutbag over any one person that can not produce evidence.
I’ve often found the Progressive Era, temperance movement, Prohibition Era and Amendment, women’s Suffrage, et al. an interesting thing. I used to wonder, “What started all of this?” But I can find it was men behaving badly. One was domestic violence. Another was is a man left a woman either because he walked out or because he died prematurely (e.g., Industrial accident at work) the woman (and child) were left destitute and she’s need to beg to survive.
We’ve corrected a lot of that. Women realized that suffrage was needed if they wanted to change anything. OK. We’ve tried some progressive things to fix it. Some worked, like women being able to work, support herself just as any man. Many jobs are open to women and barriers have been removed in most cases and lowered in others. We have welfare. We have access to healthcare. We understand domestic violence is a serious crime. In a lot of ways things are better for women today than in 1890 or 1919.
WOC still have some issues but that seems tied to generational or structural poverty that the progressive policies either helped create or made worse. But that’s not my fight.
@skibum609 said: “constituted the crime of infanticide.”
But it’s not infanticide because it’s not an infant. I would like to see less abortions, though. We also used to have laws against masturbation or “spilling the seed” because the church (before the U.S. was created) used to think semen contained the entire baby because they didn’t know then of the woman’s contribution of genetic material. They only know what they saw.
Things have changed in 240 years. Social mores are different today. We have sex and pregnancy out of wedlock as a norm. We have divorced fertility with pregnancy via birth control (the pill, the condom). Different things are acceptable today than there back then.
@skibum609 said: “Simple solution? Protect yourself and don't get pregnant. That poor 20 year old girl who murders her child to spare her own life? Oh well, all acts have consequences,”
I generally agree with that. I know from 15 to 25 I was deathly afraid of getting a woman pregnant. I had doubts I would be able to support a child or raise a family. I find the solution of “oh well” insufficient but that’s life. There are lots of men that are really pieces or shit (present company excluded) who will not support a child, ever. There are plenty of women how are pieces of shit, too. That’s not any of us. Oh well is right! It’s bone crushingly hard at times I have found.
You don't have to be religious to be against abortion.
Women should have the right to choose. Rape is wrong. Women should gave the right to choose who they sleep with but then also be responsible for the results of it.
As for a fertilized egg being a parasite, it wouldn't have occurred if not for the woman to choose to take the risk of getting pregnant.
That being said...
I am for states deciding the issue themselves.
While I can't envision encouraging a lady to have an abortion, I would not vote against it because i believe there are situations that are justified (rape, incest, serious medical complications to the mother, to name some but not birth control), and only the life endangerment of the mother being a reason after a determined period.
It would be too much for the legal system to determine on a case basis.
I do not, however, want any of my tax dollars being put towards it and I think we should be able to have a discount on health insurance if we opt to not have it covered on our plan.
I thought one party constantly send the message that selfishness is good and a virtue. That a lot of economic good comes from selfishness. That social good (at the family level or at the church congregation level) is the result of selfishness. Hard work, sweat, toil, reap what you sow and all that.
I don’t know why women decide to abort. Or why politicians oppose abortions generally, but support abortions for rape and incest. Seems like if you’re pro-life, it would be all or nothing. Why should the baby of a rapist or the result of incest have any less rights to life than any other child. Hell, you might even be 50/50 in cases of the health of the mother. Why does the mother take precedence of the child in that case, unless both are at risk. Still some would say it’s in God’s hands, do nothing, let it unfold according to His plan.
Up until about 2 years ago, I didn’t understand why some politicians didn’t support abortion exceptions for rape and incest. Now I understand why. It makes sense if you’re really pro-life.
@cashman1234 posted: “In a society considered evolved and tolerant - we should not be penalizing the ones who have no defense (sadly considered parasites by Dominic77)”
I never called them parasites. Get your facts straight. I never said anything of the fetus or the birth of a baby. I will go on record that a fetus or the birth of a baby is a joyous thing. I’m quite envious of people who are able to do that. I realized early on (perhaps in error over estimating how much it takes to care and raise and educate a child) that I wouldn't make enough $$$ to provide. That will never be me.
All I ask for is some empathy because I might not be able to care and raise the child with advantages that are anywhere near close to your children enjoy. It’s really bone crushingly tough out there. I know I have been trying. I know the answer is “oh well” and “choices have consequences” because they do! I never once got a girl pregnant. I have had children I couldn’t afford. I acted responsibly and expect others to do the same.
I never called them parasites.
A baby can live on its own outside of a uterus just the same as any other person can. Babies will not die just because they are outside of a uterus. Sure, they need nutrients, but so do all humans. Babies are not reliant on a uterus; fetus and embryos are. Find a woman who is three months pregnant, take the fetus out of her, and it will wither away and die. If you cannot understand the concept of embryos and fetuses being dependent on the woman's body to survive, you have no business arguing for or against a woman's right to choose.
I believe we must be responsible for our actions. We choose to have sex - and we must step up an be responsible for the outcome of sex. Abortion is the ultimate shirking of responsibility. It’s ireeversible - and it’s a horrible practice.
And if a woman decides to have an abortion, you can hold her responsible for it and let her feel like a shitty person for the rest of her life. That doesn't mean you should take away the right to choose. I know women who've had an abortion, and I do not judge most of them for it (except the ones who use it as birth control), because I've never been in that situation. I imagine if I ever had an abortion I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself and would be severely depressed, remorseful, and needs years of therapy to cope with it. But it should still be my choice. It is my body.
Responsibility for actions also seems to be applied to people very differently on this board which itself is a microcosm of society as a whole
The truth is - in deciding to abort - it removes all opportunity from the unborn. There is no good that comes from this act.
To choose a career in place of life - is a poor trade. It speaks of selfishness to a level that should not be condoned.
You can claim that the life exists only due to your body’s support of it, and that would be true.
I don’t judge the people who abort, but I don’t support the act. This is viewed as an “out” for many folks who don’t understand there are options. Many folks are unable to conceive, and they would welcome a baby. Life is precious and it shouldn’t be discarded before it is given a chance.
“What we don't have in this case is anything remotely equal to backup.
So comparing the two says more about your state of mind than anything factual”
My post was in response to skibum who did not limit his comments to the 3 kavanaugh accusers. He said all progressives were liars and 100% of the ‘women’ making long ago claims were democratic contributors. Then he threw in cucks just in case he hadn’t quite stoked the fire enough.
The point of my post is that just because there is no corroboration and the claim is about an assault long ago does not mean it’s not credible. We have 100’s of cases that show that victims of assault often don’t come forward. I agree it’s hard to prosecute a single claim of she said, he said but the fact that it happened long ago and they didn’t tell anyone, on its own, is not a reason to disbelieve someone.
Independent of that point, Kavanaugh seems like a dick.
Read the damn thing. It's clear we are not taking an originalist read (which I'm fine with, originalism is stupid)
daddyfatstack posted: “Real question for all the "evangelical I hate abortion, unborn has rights folks." How can you in one sentence be caring humans full of empathy and love for that unborn child, then in the next sentence turn to a bigoted, unchristian/unloving, hate the poor and everyone who doesn't think like you for your fellow humans that are walking this planet?
I’m not evangelical nor on that side of the argument. But I can answer that in eight parts. My wife is from this part of the country (small town, farmers, etc).
tl;dr Protestant Work Ethic.
1) They’re conserved that white women are murdering white babies and making us less-white.
2) They think the poor should pay for their consequences.
3) They think promiscuous women should pay for their consequences. Sexual liberation was a fucking social mistake. Despite what RickDugan does in SCs and OTC on Tuscl, I guarantee he’s raising his daughters to not sleep around, to get married to a great husband father and provider, and to probably be a virgin until marriage (I bet).
4) Poor and minorities should not have children they cannot support
5) Why? The Protestant Work Ethic (from Martin Luther) that’s why! This country the catholic and protestant denominations say was built on Protestant Work Ethic.
6) If you’re poor and can’t provide for your spouse and children then you are lazy. Because Protestant Work Ethic. No welfare for you!
7) They hate welfare, because for whites in protestant denominations, the Government gives money to people who “aren’t like them.” Like them, means white, protestant denomination, rural, works, adheres to traditional values.
8) Trust me. They love them some welfare, they love them some WIC, or medicaid. I’ve heard this more than once, “See, you’ve paid into it all your life! So it’s yours, you’ve earned it. It’s okay that it goes to you. See it should go people like us. It shouldn’t go to them.”
Real truth.
@flagooner
flagooner posted: “I do not, however, want any of my tax dollars being put towards it”
True. It’s really unnecessary. An abortion costs like $500. The man and the women or their families or a friend of the girl, etc should be able to come up with $500 and get in a car (or train or plane) to an abortion facility. I used to think gov’t should fund this because not all women have money. Then I realized we’re arguing over $500. At that point I lost sympathy for government sponsored abortions.
Real talk. If you’re a girl, you’re pregnant, and between you and those close to you you don’t have $500, you’re in serious trouble. I can even come up with that.
@daddyfatstacks
daddyfatstacks posted: “It seems that "caring for the most defenseless of all of us" is at best a subjective thought exercise as history has shown it to be a false statement. The most defenseless are always eradicated, enslaved or subjegated.”
True that! I’m reminded on Tuscl nearly monthly about: The Law Of the Jungle. The strong eat first. …. or eat at all. In fact caring for defenseless sounds like some libtard /progressive /leftwing /bleedingheart victimization ideology, am I right?
I though this group was the party of “oh well … tough”. no?
@cashman1234
cashman1234 posted: “I apologize to Dominic77”
^^^Apology accepted. (you didn’t have too. Thank you)
cashman1234 posted: “The truth is - in deciding to abort - it removes all opportunity from the unborn. There is no good that comes from this act. “
^^^It is a terrible choice. But the mother’s free will doing best. For some people it is the least terrible of 3 very horrible choices. The very pit of despair.
cashman1234 posted: “To choose a career in place of life - is a poor trade. It speaks of selfishness to a level that should not be condoned.”
^^^It is a poor trade. No one says otherwise.
cashman1234 posted: “You are acting as God and terminating a life.
^^^And criminals do it a 1000X times a day in other ways, too. A lot of that is uniquely urban problems. We also do it as nation with our constant wars and military interventions, too.
You are 100% right about the libtard thinking that appears to have infested the pure conservative ways.
Separation of church and state.
Views of god should not be a part of law making or law amendments.
So I guess for anyone against a woman's choice, just don't have sex. Or just have sex with men and tell all women who don't want kids not to have sex.
daddyfaststacks posted: “real question for all the "evangelical I hate abortion, unborn has rights folks." How can you in one sentence be caring humans full of empathy and love for that unborn child, then in the next sentence turn to a bigoted, unchristian/unloving, hate the poor and everyone who doesn't think like you for your fellow humans that are walking this planet?”
^^^I should ADD something I forgot. It’s not just religion. But a lot of these people live in rural, farms, or very outer ring suburbs (exbubs?) or small towns. They see these problems are mainly urban problems. (Esp. gun violence). And they feel that urban areas are siphoning money away from rural areas. So there is sort of the resent for urban areas and people.
Also the liberals and progressives in the coastal cities seem to have a smug, elitist attitude about them. That isn’t helping bring people how might be liberal, into the fold.
Plus rural areas just have different problems than urban areas. So different they might as well be two different countries!
Sadly Nina it’s an unborn life, and you are acting as an executioner, in your decision to kill an unborn life.
Okay, i feel better now.
The father kids, are absent, dodge child support payments, state efforts to collect do not work, are never in the kids lives. And that’s most fathers I’ve seen. Maybe I grew up around utter garbage and ditto my friends. But that’s what I know.
That’s why I was shocked to when I went to a better school and most kids had two parents, they all had the same last names (the dad’s) and the dad was something like Engineer and mom a substitute teacher. Their moms and dads were 10-15 years older, etc. Instead a single moms who are waitresses.
If it would make a difference (in the girl’s decision making), I’d pay for everything so that the pregnancy wouldn’t be a financial
drain on her.
If the girl was unable to act as a mother, I’d find a means to do what was best. I’m getting close to retirement, so maybe I’d retire early, to be a full time dad.
If the mother didn’t want me in my child’s life, I’d respect her wishes. I’d make sure child support was paid regardless.
I’m not a deadbeat or sperm donor. I’ve been fortunate, and I made a good living, and it’s important to provide for one’s family.
My father wasn’t around much for me. He thought I was (what they called slow - at the time), so he and my mother took me to my grandparents house and left me. I was lucky, as they were great folks and I wasn’t actually slow. They were the adoptive parents of my mother.
My mother is an orphan who grew up in an notorious orphanage in western Connecticut. She was adopted late - as a teen - by my grandparents.
So, I don’t find it appropriate to toss folks away, as I’ve seen it first hand. The life we create should never be viewed as a burden or something to be discarded.
Abandonment is horrible, but at the same time there are many heterosexual couples who are unable to have kids, want them, and would make great parents.
The woman who decides to be careless needs to live with the pregnancy, it was her choice to begin with. All choices have consequences. If I eat to many donuts I get fat. If I let a kid play with a gun and they get shot, my fault. If I drive drink and hurt someone, well maybe there is a way out. I have rights and choices. Leave me alone. No way! Same with abortion.
Are you okay with the morning after pill?
When the dust settles on Dr Ford, the supreme court may take on Obamacare and the constitutionality of protecting preexisting conditions. Life and death for 10s of millions, and some of the TUSCL geezers who post here. There will be consequences to having a partisan hack on the SC.
____
That's just patently untrue.
Instead of obsessing about poor people, why not focus on rich tax cheats like Trump and Trump's father who defrauded the government of several hundred million in inheritance taxes
All other thoughts I have posted is just my opinion that I wanted to add. When it comes down to it, this website is for one reason and we are all on level playing ground, here to learn, share experiences and have fun.
Depending on your answer, the next question will either be whether it’s okay to “terminate” a one month old baby, or abort an 8 month old fetus in the womb. Or, 7 months.
If the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors is difficult to pinpoint, then the safe path is to avoid the behavior.
That statement is not only untrue, but doesn't take into account that condoms ARE birth control.
And flagooner, my separation of church and state argumemt was absolutely relevant since I was responding to someone who said having abortions is "playing god," and god has no place in law making and law amendmemts because in the US we aren't legally bound by religion. Prove me wrong.
Separation of church and state isn't in the constitution but merely refers to passage in the first ammendment that prohibits the state from establishing a religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Most of our laws come from Judeo Christian beliefs and traditions.
I'm no lawyer, but that's pretty basic knowledge.
Nice try trying to prove me wrong (not really though), but I stand uncorrected. "Prohibiting the state from establishing religion" (which in this case, the State is the US), goes hand in hand with what I was saying, anyway. You suck at trying to correct people because you are helping to prove my point.
I’m team pro choice. But I’m not interesting in debating something like that. Well maybe if I was in a troll mood right now but that’s it.
@Cashman
I find your point of view very interesting. I DO NOT want to invalidate the reason you have your opinion. I just want to give my personal backstory as well and explain how I came to an opposite conclusion.
I grew up under two parents with severe mental problems. They both flew throughout life without any medical attention for their conditions.They were (and still are) very loving and well-meaning as people.
But their problems sometimes caused them to behave in ways that objectively would be considered emotionally abusive. There would be wild swings in behavior towards me that would be out of proportion of my actual actions. (Both in my favor and not in my favor)
They are people who are very flawed, but do the best they can to be supportive. They have done good for me too. Such as get me a car and pay for my insurance and phone. I say this to emphasize they are good people.
Sure, I like to exist to read good books, travel, spend time in nature, have interesting comversations with others, and just live in general. I have every intention of designing the best life for myself that I see fit.
But just like I believe it’s good to be a bit selfish (as long as you don’t wrong others in the process), I wonder whether my parents (mother especially) could have better been able to heal themselves without hiding behind the excuse of having to focus on me.
They are each other’s own worst enemy and should have divorced each other. I wonder if they did that if it would have forced them to better self-actualize.
They could have gone their own way and dealt with the “emptiness” of life without a dysfunctional family to hide behind. And perhaps would have been more forced to seek the help they needed.
They were unable to take care of me. The extended family on my mother’s side of the family resentfully took me in and had me stay with my grandma my last year of high school.
By Christmas, I was forced to move out and find somewhere else to live. (I wasn’t even 18 yet or had any paperwork done on me to label me independent. But the burden was placed on me to do so.)
And so I did, somehow. I moved into a house owned by a 40something year old man and rented a bedroom (found off Craigslist). Nobody gave a shit that most of society would consider that sketch AF. But that was the option I had and I wanted to finish out my last semester of high school in one place.
By May however, I was lucky. I ended up moving in with my high school friend and her whole family. This was because I was complaining about my “landlord” and upset I had to be there.
Her mom and grandparents didn’t question my motives. They just instantly allowed me to move out and move in with them instead. And didn’t demand anything.
So when I read the statement “I don’t find it appropriate to toss folks away, as I’ve seen it first hand. The life we create should never be viewed as a burden or something to be discarded.”
...I considered that a moot point based on my *own personal* experience. And many others who comes from unstable backgrounds.
I view my presence as a child, based on others inability to care for me, very much a burden and something to be discarded.
Not my fault of course, but that doesn’t change the reality of it.
And I only stopped being a “burden” when I was almost a legal adult anyways. And my parents were very physically attractive and intelligent people. They *could* have made a better life for themselves.
If by magic, I knew for sure that my parents could have improved themselves had I never existed, I wouldn’t have take it personally if I had been aborted.
I didn’t choose the troll life. The troll life chose me.
I thought about that as well, many times, when I was young. I knew my parents felt stress, and I know my father took it out on me, as I wasn’t the son he wanted. My sister was smarter and she brought them great joy - and she was able to stay with my parents.
I’ve got a good relationship with my sister now. It took a long time.
I’ve dealt with many mental health issues, and I’ve worked to keep myself together emotionally. However, I now see those issues were there when I was younger.
I think it’s important to be strong at all times, and to make every effort so that your children know they are loved. When bringing a child into the world, its nothing less than a wonderful blessing, and they should always be viewed as such.
Too lazy to type it all out again: Choice argument is utter bullshit. I personally find abortions distasteful and repugnant. That said I think it should be legal and available across the country.
Aye. That’s the problem with topics like abortion. There’s too many “good points” both sides make. Including yours.
That’s why, despite that I can be insolent when debating other topics, I determinedly stay cordial when it comes to an issue like abortion.
And from the sounds of it, despite your flawed past, you pushed through the difficulties pretty nicely.
A frozen embryo will remain an embryo until it finds a host (uterus). And yes, they can be "tranferred from woman to another" which is called IVF and still involves *gasp* a UTERUS. Embryos need a UTERUS to develop into a human. It is science, but it's not rocket science.
And what is your point of bringing up frozen embryos, anyway? Plenty of frozen embryos go unused. If you are saying that an embryo is a human (lmao), then by that logic, freezing embryos and not using them must be murder, right?
_______________
That happens every time you make an appearance.
25 years ago, we didn't have your information on the effective percentage of condom, pill, and combined. Or that information wasn't that readily available. So I know I didn't really know. We did know about the rhythm method or the family planning method and the window conception can happen. So we planned around that. As for condoms/pills and their effectiveness, we had to be sure. IF we'd had had those stats we might not have supported abortion as an option. But when dealing with an emotional female. She'll insist on 100%. No matter how many 9s you have there. Because sometimes she's irrational. Though you can work around that and charm her.
I'd probably agree with you that a lot of abortions are needed by callously reckless people and not responsible people on birth control.
I remember how much of a struggle both financially and mentally it was for my single mom to raise us. At 15 she said, she told me if I wanted adult things, I'd have to find a way to pay for them on my own (car, insurance, college). She should barely afford what she did to provide what she could. After living and struggling for so long (18 years) I wasn't ready to jump into that for another 18 years until I was set up, so I could at least provide for wife & kids. At 25 I did a reality check. Sober that with my income unlikely to grow beyond meager, I'd likely never afford to be a provider, and little options, I resigned that it wouldn't be in the cards for me.
I guess it is true as children you end up valuing as adults the same things that your parents valued. For me it was the constant struggle to provide.
IDGAF