Brett Kavanaugh Has A Troubling Record On Religious Liberty

[Suppressed]

You seriously do not understand what equality before the law is.  It is not about some sort of Procrustean sameness of benefits received.

@Oceander, perhaps you should explain what it actually is, then.

[INVAR]

@Oceander, perhaps you should explain what it actually is, then.

Apparently "Equality" is what THEY say it is.

Some animals are more EQUAL than others - and here our "Counselors" are arguing that very fact before us.

[Oceander]

@Oceander, perhaps you should explain what it actually is, then.

Why don’t we stick with simple things:  it doesn’t mean that the government has to give out free rubbers to men if it gives out free contraceptives to women. 

If it did, then there would be no basis on which the government could draft men, but not women, for the military. 

[HoustonSam]

Why don’t we stick with simple things:  it doesn’t mean that the government has to give out free rubbers to men if it gives out free contraceptives to women. 

If it did, then there would be no basis on which the government could draft men, but not women, for the military.

That would have been an excellent point before the Obama administration.  But now that women are eligible for combat duty, in fact there *is no* basis on which the government can draft men, but not women, for the military.  Retaining that distinction now means that women, simply because they are women, are allowed to avoid a duty that men could be compelled to fulfill, which is *not* equality before the law.  If women have the "right" to move into combat roles, but not the duty to be called up if needed, then we don't have equality before the law.  So I'm afraid your example demonstrates my argument more effectively than yours.

[Oceander]

That would have been an excellent point before the Obama administration.  But now that women are eligible for combat duty, in fact there *is no* basis on which the government can draft men, but not women, for the military.  Retaining that distinction now means that women, simply because they are women, are allowed to avoid a duty that men could be compelled to fulfill, which is *not* equality before the law.  If women have the "right" to move into combat roles, but not the duty to be called up if needed, then we don't have equality before the law.  So I'm afraid your example demonstrates my argument more effectively than yours.

Nonsense.   The mere fact that the law may have changed does not change the more fundamental concept of equality before the law. 

Like I said before, you clearly do not know what you’re talking about. 

[HoustonSam]

Nonsense.   The mere fact that the law may have changed does not change the more fundamental concept of equality before the law. 

Like I said before, you clearly do not know what you’re talking about.

Well if your position really is that men and only men can be compelled to fulfill a duty, specifically that of fighting and dying, then women and only women can similarly be compelled to fulfill a duty, specifically that of carrying a child to full term.

[Oceander]

And before we get too far down the road of nonsense, again, there is no inconsistency between recognizing that the right to control your body and its reproductive functions gives women the right to abort a previable fetus and the requirement that the sperm donor pay child support.  They are both equal before the law:  if the fetus were to implant itself in the male, then he, too, would have the right to remove it until viability.  And after the child is born, both woman and man are equally obligated to pay for the support of the child so long as it is alive, until and unless their parental rights and obligations are formally cut off by an adoption. 

There is no inequality.  Each has the same rights and obligations with respect to the child at any particulR point in time. 

[Oceander]

Well if your position really is that men and only men can be compelled to fulfill a duty, specifically that of fighting and dying, then women and only women can similarly be compelled to fulfill a duty, specifically that of carrying a child to full term.

Nonsense.  If military conscription violates a fundamental right, then it would be unconstitutional, just as violating a woman’s fundamental right to control her body and its reproductive equipment in favor of a nonviable fetus is unconstitutional. 

So far as I know, military conscription has never been held to be unconstitutional.  But, the case can always be put forward with appropriate facts in the future if you wish. 

[HoustonSam]

Nonsense.  If military conscription violates a fundamental right, then it would be unconstitutional, just as violating a woman’s fundamental right to control her body and its reproductive equipment in favor of a nonviable fetus is unconstitutional. 

So far as I know, military conscription has never been held to be unconstitutional.  But, the case can always be put forward with appropriate facts in the future if you wish.

"Constitutional" is simply a label.  An important label to be sure, one that we should respect and one for which we should insist on high and rigorous standards.  But it is not synonymous with consistent, just, fair, or rational.

However you want to describe it, you've taken the position that women have rights fundamentally that men do not have, simply because they are women.  They have the women-only right to contraception at taxpayer expense; they have the women-only right to abort a man's child or to hold him financially accountable for that child, and either without his consent; and they have the women-only right to refuse military service in time of war.

You are free to call this "equality before the law", and in fact each of these things might be completely constitutional, but readers will draw their own conclusions on whether they are consistent, just, fair, or rational.  And if women-only rights exist, then we are forced to consider that men-only, or whites-only, or straights-only, or Christians-only, rights might exist as well.

[Frank Cannon]

Here's my bottom line - neither the right nor the left supports abortion per se (as opposed to the right, or liberty, to choose abortion).   

You're out of your effing mind. Abortion is encouraged by the Left. Look around.....

[Oceander]

"Constitutional" is simply a label.  An important label to be sure, one that we should respect and one for which we should insist on high and rigorous standards.  But it is not synonymous with consistent, just, fair, or rational.

However you want to describe it, you've taken the position that women have rights fundamentally that men do not have, simply because they are women.  They have the women-only right to contraception at taxpayer expense; they have the women-only right to abort a man's child or to hold him financially accountable for that child, and either without his consent; and they have the women-only right to refuse military service in time of war.

You are free to call this "equality before the law", and in fact each of these things might be completely constitutional, but readers will draw their own conclusions on whether they are consistent, just, fair, or rational.  And if women-only rights exist, then we are forced to consider that men-only, or whites-only, or straights-only, or Christians-only, rights might exist as well.

I haven’t taken any of those positions.  You’re swinging at an empty straw man (perhaps because you have no actual argument to present).

Both the man and the woman have exactly the same rights and obligations with respect to the result of their intercourse:  until the fetus is viable, each has the right to remove it from his or her own body - neither can be conscripted into becoming a walking incubator for the sake of a nonviable fetus.  The fact that the fetus doesn’t implant in the man, and therefore that he cannot force the woman to abort the fetus if she does not want to does not make them unequal before the law because giving the man the power to force the woman to abort against her will would be to give him greater rights than she has.  It is you who is arguing for inequality, not me. 

Once the fetus is viable, neither can abort it, and therefore they are, still, on equal terms under the law.

Finally, once the child is born, they are both equally responsible for paying for it.  Again, they are equal before the law.  To give the man the right to not pay for his responsibilities would, again, be to give him more rights than the woman has.  And so yet again, it is you who is arguing for inequality, not me. 

The problem you have is the asymmetry of biology; but that was not created by law, and by itself does not give rise to inequality before the law.  It is simply a fact. 

[Bigun]

Chuckie and his gang's buttholes are puckered so tight right now you couldn't drive a straight pin up there with a 16 pound sledge and instead of enjoying that you are here doing your chicken little routine!  CHILL people!!

[Emjay]

Chuckie and his gang's buttholes are puckered so tight right now you couldn't drive a straight pin up there with a 16 pound sledge and instead of enjoying that you are here doing your chicken little routine!  CHILL people!!

Love the visual, @Bigun

[txradioguy]

Chuckie and his gang's buttholes are puckered so tight right now you couldn't drive a straight pin up there with a 16 pound sledge and instead of enjoying that you are here doing your chicken little routine!  CHILL people!!

They would react like this if Trump had nominated someone to the left of Ginsburg. 

It's an act.  Almost a Pavlovian response to anything ANY Republican does.  It's not just because it's Trump.

And we bow to their mercy every single time.

[HoustonSam]

I haven’t taken any of those positions.  You’re swinging at an empty straw man (perhaps because you have no actual argument to present).

Both the man and the woman have exactly the same rights and obligations with respect to the result of their intercourse:  until the fetus is viable, each has the right to remove it from his or her own body - neither can be conscripted into becoming a walking incubator for the sake of a nonviable fetus.  The fact that the fetus doesn’t implant in the man, and therefore that he cannot force the woman to abort the fetus if she does not want to does not make them unequal before the law because giving the man the power to force the woman to abort against her will would be to give him greater rights than she has.  It is you who is arguing for inequality, not me. 

Once the fetus is viable, neither can abort it, and therefore they are, still, on equal terms under the law.

Finally, once the child is born, they are both equally responsible for paying for it.  Again, they are equal before the law.  To give the man the right to not pay for his responsibilities would, again, be to give him more rights than the woman has.  And so yet again, it is you who is arguing for inequality, not me. 

The problem you have is the asymmetry of biology; but that was not created by law, and by itself does not give rise to inequality before the law.  It is simply a fact.

That's a brave attempt to portray the rights and responsibilities during pregnancy as equal, but the fact remains that the woman is completely supported by law in unilaterally either aborting the man's child or obligating the man to the child's financial support.  The man has no corresponding unilateral legal right to deny the woman her child or obligate her to support it.  Clearly a woman has rights that a man does not - the right to make the decision.

All the abortion shibboleths - "her body, her choice", "it must be her decision", "keep your hands off my body", "it's part of my body" - reinforce this reality.

When there is a corresponding movement benefiting men - "his wallet, his choice", "it must be his decision", "keep your hands out of my wallet", "it's my money from my labor" - and a corresponding constitutional right, then you'll have an argument.

[Oceander]

That's a brave attempt to portray the rights and responsibilities during pregnancy as equal, but the fact remains that the woman is completely supported by law in unilaterally either aborting the man's child or obligating the man to the child's financial support.  The man has no corresponding unilateral legal right to deny the woman her child or obligate her to support it.  Clearly a woman has rights that a man does not - the right to make the decision.

All the abortion shibboleths - "her body, her choice", "it must be her decision", "keep your hands off my body", "it's part of my body" - reinforce this reality.

When there is a corresponding movement benefiting men - "his wallet, his choice", "it must be his decision", "keep your hands out of my wallet", "it's my money from my labor" - and a corresponding constitutional right, then you'll have an argument.

You can dance all you want to, but that doesn’t change the fact that the “problem” you have relates to biology - different facts - and not to different legal rights. 

The man and the woman have exactly equal rights.  They each have the fundamental right to control their own biological equipment and to prevent the government from commandeering that equipment during the period the fetus is nonviable.  That you cannot deny. 

The fact that the man cannot do anything about it once he’s shot his wad and impregnated the woman has nothing to do with legal rights or standing before the law and everything to do with different biology, with different facts. 

And once the child is born, they both have exactly the same obligation to support the child’s upbringing, either by raising the child or by paying for its support.  They are equal. 

What you want is inequality.  You want to give the man greater rights than the woman has because you want to give him the right to control her body in defiance of her own wishes. 

It’s a shame you can’t see that, but I don’t really expect you to. 

[HoustonSam]

You can dance all you want to, but that doesn’t change the fact that the “problem” you have relates to biology - different facts - and not to different legal rights. 

The man and the woman have exactly equal rights.  They each have the fundamental right to control their own biological equipment and to prevent the government from commandeering that equipment during the period the fetus is nonviable.  That you cannot deny. 

The fact that the man cannot do anything about it once he’s shot his wad and impregnated the woman has nothing to do with legal rights or standing before the law and everything to do with different biology, with different facts. 

And once the child is born, they both have exactly the same obligation to support the child’s upbringing, either by raising the child or by paying for its support.  They are equal. 

What you want is inequality.  You want to give the man greater rights than the woman has because you want to give him the right to control her body in defiance of her own wishes. 

It’s a shame you can’t see that, but I don’t really expect you to.

At this point we're just talking past each other.  I'm satisfied to let readers reach their own conclusions, with my position as I've stated it.

[edpc]

You can dance all you want to

Can I leave my friends behind?

[INVAR]

Can I leave my friends behind?

'Cause if your friends don't dance, and if they won't dance

..then they're - no friends of mine.

[edpc]

[Jazzhead]

In spite of all the grief you catch on this board @Jazzhead I respect your intelligence too much to let you get away with that evasion.  You have not addressed my point.

Do men and women have *the same* rights to practice self-determination in their reproductive freedom, or do women have rights that men simply do not have, including access to taxpayer-funded contraception and the unilateral right to abort the man's child or hold him financially accountable for that child, either without his consent?

And if the latter, how is this equality before the law?

Hi, @HoustonSam

@Oceander has already addressed the concept of equality before the law;  I don't have much more to add except that the obligation to provide financial child support is merely indicative of the obligation of BOTH parents to support a child.  That obligation can be avoided, of course, by marrying the mother and sharing her burdens.   The least an absent man can do is provide some dollars;  what the kid really needs is someone to serve as a role model and father figure.

Your basic objection appears to be that the woman is the gatekeeper with respect to the obligations that follow;  as a matter of biology she decides whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, and the father's financial obligations only accrue if she decides to avoid abortion.   Unfortunately, that dynamic leads directly to many abortions - the father directly pressures his partner to "take care of it",  or just leaves the women in the lurch, alone and without good choices.   Some woman,  despite being abandoned, still decide to do the right thing and bear and keep the child.   That a man in such circumstance ends up with a State-coerced financial obligation is just not something I have much sympathy for. 

Seconds of pleasure . . .   

 

[HoustonSam]

Thanks @Jazzhead.

That obligation can be avoided, of course, by marrying the mother and sharing her burdens.

While that is the right thing to do, it more likely increases the financial obligation significantly, such that it goes far beyond the distinct needs of the child.  But this is just a quibble on my part, the fundamental issue is not amenable to accounting principles.

The least an absent man can do is provide some dollars;  what the kid really needs is someone to serve as a role model and father figure.

I agree with this entirely; I'm not trying to excuse men who in fact abandon their children and the mothers of those children.

Your basic objection appears to be that the woman is the gatekeeper with respect to the obligations that follow;  as a matter of biology she decides whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, and the father's financial obligations only accrue if she decides to avoid abortion.

That's a pretty good summary.  The law puts all choice in the hands of the woman and the man is completely subject to her unilateral decision.  I'lll not relent in my position that this is not equality.

Unfortunately, that dynamic leads directly to many abortions - the father directly pressures his partner to "take care of it",  or just leaves the women in the lurch, alone and without good choices.   Some woman,  despite being abandoned, still decide to do the right thing and bear and keep the child.   That a man in such circumstance ends up with a State-coerced financial obligation is just not something I have much sympathy for.

Fair enough.  I don't advocate coercion by the man, and I'm not trying to excuse men who abandon their responsibilities.  Like you, I have little sympathy for them.  But neither do I have sympathy for the argument that a woman has a moral right to abandon her end of those responsibilities at the cost of a human life.

Seconds of pleasure . . .

For *both* parties.

[Oceander]

Hi, @HoustonSam

@Oceander has already addressed the concept of equality before the law;  I don't have much more to add except that the obligation to provide financial child support is merely indicative of the obligation of BOTH parents to support a child.  That obligation can be avoided, of course, by marrying the mother and sharing her burdens.   The least an absent man can do is provide some dollars;  what the kid really needs is someone to serve as a role model and father figure.

Your basic objection appears to be that the woman is the gatekeeper with respect to the obligations that follow;  as a matter of biology she decides whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, and the father's financial obligations only accrue if she decides to avoid abortion.   Unfortunately, that dynamic leads directly to many abortions - the father directly pressures his partner to "take care of it",  or just leaves the women in the lurch, alone and without good choices.   Some woman,  despite being abandoned, still decide to do the right thing and bear and keep the child.   That a man in such circumstance ends up with a State-coerced financial obligation is just not something I have much sympathy for. 

Seconds of pleasure . . .   

 

[Jazzhead]

That's a pretty good summary.  The law puts all choice in the hands of the woman and the man is completely subject to her unilateral decision.  I'lll not relent in my position that this is not equality.

@HoustonSam

I think you need to take up your beef with God, not the law.   The law puts all choice in the hands of the woman because the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth is all hers.   Why do you think that is unfair given the biology involved?  Do you think that permitting the man as a legal matter to share in the decision will reduce the number of abortions?   As I suggested above, I think the opposite is true - too many abortions occur precisely because of the decision made by the man (to abandon his partner or directly threaten her to take care of her problem.)

[Oceander]

@HoustonSam

I think you need to take up your beef with God, not the law.   The law puts all choice in the hands of the woman because the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth is all hers.   Why do you think that is unfair given the biology involved?  Do you think that permitting the man as a legal matter to share in the decision will reduce the number of abortions?   As I suggested above, I think the opposite is true - too many abortions occur precisely because of the decision made by the man (to abandon his partner or directly threaten her to take care of her problem.)

Exactly.