Howard Bashman has made available the supplemental answers that Judge Alito submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to written questions, all of which are from committee Democrats. (Note that his is a quite large pdf file.) One or two of these answers are quite disappointing, almost as depressing as the questions. A couple of examples:
7. SENATOR BIDEN: In a case you briefed while in the Solicitor General’s Office, the Wygant case, you argued that a school system could not lay off employees in a way that avoids disproportionately firing minorities. Your brief said the argument against this diversity program was “the same” as the argument in favor of diversity in Brown v. Board of Education. Please explain this to me.
RESPONSE: Wygant involved a school district layoff plan that the Supreme Court held violated the Equal Protection Clause. The brief on which I worked as an Assistant to the Solicitor General did not equate this plan with the invidious racial discrimination at issue in Brown. Rather, the Wygant amicus brief simply stated that the starting point of the argument in both cases was the fundamental proposition that the Equal Protection clause guarantees equal treatment under the law for persons of all races. The Wygant amicus brief then went on to explain why the particular layoff plan at issue in that case was unconstitutional. Thus, while the government’s amicus briefs in the two cases started by asserting the same fundamental equal protection principle, the Wygant amicus brief did not suggest that the argument in Wygant was the same as the argument in Brown.
8. SENATOR BIDEN: You compared the same case to Plessy v. Ferguson, the infamous 1896 case that validated “separate but equal.” Are you saying that ejecting a black man from a railroad coach in order to separate the races is equivalent to requiring a school to maintain diversity?
RESPONSE: The Wygant amicus brief referred to Plessy in a passage that recounted how the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment was distorted in the late nineteenth century, and the brief noted that Plessy involved a flagrant violation of the fundamental principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause. While the Wygant amicus brief argued that the layoff plan at issue in that case was unconstitutional (as the Supreme Court later held), the Wygant brief never suggested that the racial segregation in Plessy was “equivalent” to the Wygant plan.
I hardly know where to begin here, since Sen. Biden’s questions are interesting primarily in what they reveal of contemporary Democratic dogma and Judge Alito’s “responses” are disingenuous at best, even allowing somewhat for the fact that the purpose of these responses is more to obfuscate than educate. But let’s start with the questions.
First, regarding the question, neither Brown nor Wygant nor Plessy ever mentioned “diversity,” or had anything to do with it. I’m sure that, if he gave the matter some thought, not even Sen. Biden would argue that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring “diversity” among passengers on railroad cars. Also note the very interesting slip — at least I assume it was a slip — in Question 8 where Sen. Biden refers to “requiring a school to maintain diversity.” So far as I know there is no — nor has there ever been any proposed — legislation, state or federal, requiring schools to place their thumbs on the racial scales in order to promote “diversity.” Does Sen. Biden know something we don’t?
Aside from the fact that “diversity” was not an issue in any of these cases, I haven’t found the passage in the Wygant brief that Judge Alito helped write that argues, according to Sen. Biden, that “the argument against this diversity program was ‘the same’ as the argument in favor of diversity in Brown v. Board of Education.” What the brief does argue, repeatedly and very well, is, to take just one example, introducing Section II of the brief, that:
LAWS THAT DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF SOME MINORITY GROUPS MUST SATISFY THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS AS OTHER FORMS OF STATE-SPONSORED RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION
In Wygant v. Jackson Board Of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986), the school board of Jackson, Michigan, signed an agreement with the teacher’s union providing that in case layoffs were necessary the number of minority teachers retained would not be allowed to fall below the percentage of minority students in the schools. Here is how Justice White, who was no flaming reactionary and who concurred (as did Saint Sandra) in finding the school board policy unconstitutional, described the facts:
The School Board’s policy when layoffs are necessary is to maintain a certain proportion of minority teachers. This policy requires laying off nonminority teachers solely on the basis of their race, including teachers with seniority, and retaining other teachers solely because they are black, even [476 U.S. 267, 295] though some of them are in probationary status. None of the interests asserted by the Board, singly or together, justify this racially discriminatory layoff policy and save it from the strictures of the Equal Protection Clause. Whatever the legitimacy of hiring goals or quotas may be, the discharge of white teachers to make room for blacks, none of whom has been shown to be a victim of any racial discrimination, is quite a different matter. I cannot believe that in order to integrate a work force, it would be permissible to discharge whites and hire blacks until the latter comprised a suitable percentage of the work force. None of our cases suggest that this would be permissible under the Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, our cases look quite the other way. The layoff policy in this case — laying off whites who would otherwise be retained in order to keep blacks on the job — has the same effect and is equally violative of the Equal Protection Clause.
Note, as did the Supreme Court majority, that not only was the school board policy a rigid quota (which proponents of preferences routinely but falsely maintain they oppose), but it was a particularly unjustifiable form of quota: the percentage of minority teachers that must be maintained did not equal the percentage of qualified minority teachers in the relevant labor pool but the percentage of minority students in the school. As Justice Powell wryly observed in his opinion for the Court, this formula could even have resulted on occasion in allowing a greater reduction in the number of minority teachers than a labor pool quota would have allowed. Do the Democrats really want to defend race-based firing based in turn on such a hard and silly quota? Maybe somebody should ask them.
Senator Biden could not get his mind around the belief that the racial discrimination involved in Wygant had anything at all in common with the racial discrimination involved in Brown. His confusion could (or at least should) have been cleared up if he had read the introduction to the brief’s major argument, and Judge Alito’s response would have been much stronger if he had simply quoted it:
As amicus curiae in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the United States argued that the Fourteenth Amendment “established the broad constitutional principle of full and complete equality of all persons under the law, and that it forbade all legal distinctions based on race or color.” The schoolchildren and their parents and guardians took the same position, contending that “the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from making racial distinctions in the exercise of governmental power.” We make the same argument in the present case. [Emphasis added]
Judge Alito also could profitably have quoted from Justice Powell’s opinion for the Court in Wygant:
… public employers, including public schools, also must act in accordance with a “core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment” which is to “do away with all governmentally imposed discriminations based on race.” Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S., at 432 .
Racial preferences, of course, thrive on racial distinctions; without them they would not be possible. Just once it would be nice to see a Democrat forced to admit out loud that he no longer believes in that “core purpose.”
Next, inevitably, comes Sen. Schumer.
2d.: SENATOR SCHUMER: According to a famous law review article by Alexander Bickel, a man you described as very influential in your academic awakening to constitutional law, it was acceptable to pass explicit segregationist laws at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Is that therefore Constitutional today?
RESPONSE: “[E]xplicit segregationist laws” are plainly unconstitutional and violate the fundamental principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause. Notably, moreover, the historical conclusions reached in Professor Bickel’s article have been disputed. See McConnell, Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions, 81 Va. L. Rev. 947 (1995).
Again, tendentious question; short, weak, evasive, non-substantive reply.
No one, and certainly not Judge Alito, has let Senators Biden and Schumer and all their Democratic allies in on the dirty little secret that their worship of Brown rings false, that racial preferences rest on the shoulders of Plessy. Indeed, I find it odd, and continually surprising, that Plessy has become an unquestionable bête noir and Brown has become an unassailable icon, even though, as I have argued here many times (such as here and here), the entire modern edifice of racial preference is built on the necessary assumption that Plessy was correct in its holding that racial discrimination is not necessarily unconstitutional and that Brown’s affirmation of the principle that “the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from making racial distinctions in the exercise of governmental power” is inoperative. As I wrote here,
the legal theory underlying the Plessy decision is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require colorblindness and hence that racial discrimination can in many circumstances be reasonable and hence constitutional. Thus it is the preferentialists today, not the critics of preferences, who unwittingly echo the Plessy argument.
If the Plessy court had accepted Justice John Marshall Harlan’s eloquent assertion, in dissent, that “our Constitution is colorblind,” Brown would have been unnecessary. And if Brown meant what the United States and its Supreme Court have said over and over again — that the 14th Amendment bars “all legal distinctions based on race or color” — then racial preferences would be illegal as well, as they should be.
Although written answers to tendentious questions in a nomination proceeding may not be the best forum (or, on the other hand, it may be), Republicans are generally too passive and too reluctant to make what is not only a principled and profoundly persuasive but also a politically popular argument in defense of official colorblindness. The sad but true fact is that today’s Democrats no longer believe in the principle articulated so well by the United States and the petitioning school children in Brown, i.e., that “the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from making racial distinctions in the exercise of governmental power,” and the telltale tail of their abandonment of that principle should be pinned on the donkey at every available opportunity.
The hearings are about performance, not substance anymore. Since Democrats borked Bork, no one can be honest. That’s why you have the nonsensical hearings with senators doing 80% of the talking.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Since Democrats borked Bork, no one can be honest.”
Bork “borked” Bork. Honesty doesn’t make an extremist more palatable. It just makes him or her transparent.
–Cobra
Then-Chief Justice Warren Burger said of Bork, “I do not think in more than 50 years since I was in law school that there has ever been a nomination of a man or woman any better qualified than Judge Bork.”
“Bork “borked” Bork. Honesty doesn’t make an extremist more palatable. It just makes him or her transparent.”
Yes, I’m sure renting A Day at the Races and Ruthless People truly is something of national urgency when picking a Supreme Court Justice. It really didn’t have anything to do with him being honest (and right) enough to declare that the Constitution contains no general right to privacy so as to send NOW and Planned Parenthood into fits. This, of course, led to the terrible Kennedy (let’s cherry-pick international law to interpret the Constitution, flying in the face of the Founding Fathers!) nomination. Thank God for Samuel Alito.
>>>”He has also written several books, including Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, in which he argues that the social movements which began with the civil rights movement in the 1950s and continued with the sexual revolution and the rise of feminism in the 1960s, led to dangerous social and moral decline in the U.S. He believes that these movements have in effect eliminated the moral standards necessary for civil society, and have led to a society whose values are inherently opposed to Western civilization, a view echoed by Pat Buchanan in The Death of the West. Bork also advocates a modification to the Constitution which would allow Congressional supermajorities to override Supreme Court decisions.”
Borkamerica
Sharon, I could give a fig if Bork rented a “Day at the Races”, or some of Clarence Thomas’s backroom “behind the curtain” flicks. This joker Bork wants to turn back the clock to the 50’s, and has admitted so in his own writings.
Now, if you also want to go back to the 50’s with him, that’s your right. Myself and millions of other Americans do not wish to do so.
If the scheme is to obfuscate, give blank answers and dance around the issues as both Alito and Roberts did during their confirmation hearings, but wink and nod to the right wing base that they are secret “Bork-fans”, well, you now see why honesty is at a premium during these affairs.
–Cobra
“Sharon, I could give a fig if Bork rented a “Day at the Races”, or some of Clarence Thomas’s backroom “behind the curtain” flicks.”
The movies Bork rented were blasted by Ted Kennedy. It was also part of the reason that Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act. Special interest groups ran ads blasting Bork for renting the above mentioned movies. You don’t give a fig? They did.
“This joker Bork wants to turn back the clock to the 50’s, and has admitted so in his own writings.”
Exactly which part of the 1950s are you objecting to? You don’t think moral standards are important to society or that the post-modern view as expressed by leftists is anti-Western culture and destructive?
“If the scheme is to obfuscate, give blank answers and dance around the issues as both Alito and Roberts did during their confirmation hearings, but wink and nod to the right wing base that they are secret “Bork-fans”, well, you now see why honesty is at a premium during these affairs.”
And when Alito gives an honest answer, as he did to the super duper precedent question about Roe, the leftwing whines that he’s not being “forthcoming.” So, please, save your complaints about honesty for the Democrats.
“Exactly which part of the 1950s are you objecting to?”
I’d object to the part that the civil rights movement changed. You know. Segregation. The movement that Bork says he doesn’t like. Also to the parts that feminists changed.
In other words, you do NOT believe in stare decisis?
“On Brown v. Board of Education:
“By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases . . . The Court’s realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.””
p. 82, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law
“In other words, you do NOT believe in stare decisis?”
What are you talking about?
Democrats and liberals have spent a lot of time in the Alito hearings discussing the importance of stare decisis (the idea of precedent). To have a Brown v. Board, the Court had to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson. Yet when Alito would not hold Roe as a super duper precedent, the Democrats on the committee exclaimed that they could not vote for him. Where’s the consistency?
“To have a Brown v. Board, the Court had to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson.”
Did it overrule it?
“Where’s the consistency?”
Do you see any other differences between roe, which defends the right to privacy, and plessy, which takes away equality.
Also, i don’t know why you think civil rights means just Brown. It means much more. The fight began with brown. Not ended.
actus,
Which are “the parts [of the 50s] that feminists changed”? You mean the vapid housewifely existence of all American women, wielding their nifty new vacuum cleaners twice daily for lack of anything better to do between the yearly baby pop-outs? You really mustn’t believe everything you read in Betty Friedan. I suppose Rosie the Riveter was just a conservative myth.
Re stare decisis, the idea is just that it’s better not to meddle with settled law unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In other words, “you shouldn’t overrule decisions, except when you should.” Unsurprisingly, opinions on what falls into the latter bin differ.
No one doubts that there are famous cases wrongly decided and then rightly overturned; the dispute has been mostly about which they are. And no one disputes that there are some things so long settled and so institutionalized in American life that striking them down now is ridiculous. (The idea that paper money is unconstitutional, because the Constitution gives the government only the power “to coin Money,” is the sort of thing I’m talking about.) Roe, I fancy, is well on the other side of the line. There is much lively argument about abortion, and no settled view of what policy (in the absence of judicial fiat) ought to be.
Once again, you are ducking the issue I present. Both are court cases which are extremely important to certain constituencies. Only one (Brown) is actually supported by the Constitution, yet Democrats were very, very upset that Justice Alito would not promise them not to overturn Roe. They did not focus on civil rights litigation because there was nothing in his record to show he would not apply the law as it is written. Yet their justification for voting against him was based on his defiant adherance to Constitutional principles.
You brought up segregation. I gave you a quote from Bork on Brown v. Board, the seminal case of that decade. I notice you haven’t even discussed it. Here’s another:
“Once the Court begins to employ its own notions of reasonableness in order to decide which classifications should be treated like race, it cannot avoid legislating the Justices’ personal views. The most honest and intelligent judge the nation has ever known could not avoid it if the clause is so read . . . When a judge assumes the power to decide which distinctions made in a statute are legitimate and which are not, he assumes the power to disapprove of any and all legislation, because all legislation makes distinctions.”
p. 65
The dems actually submitted questions???
Too bad they didn’t give Miguel Estrada the same consideration.
— stare decisis–
I’m no lawyer – Miranda Right’s recent ruling would fall under this????
“Which are “the parts [of the 50s] that feminists changed”
Women in the work force. Reproductive freedom. Women entering elite social institutions, like management of firms, the ivy league, the closing wage gap, prohibiting sex discrimination, etc..
“You brought up segregation.”
Bork brought it up when he was against the civil rights movement.
“Once again, you are ducking the issue I present.”
I addressed the issue. I told you the difference between Roe and Plessy.
Sharon writes:
>>>”The movies Bork rented were blasted by Ted Kennedy. It was also part of the reason that Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act. Special interest groups ran ads blasting Bork for renting the above mentioned movies. You don’t give a fig? They did.”
I don’t speak for Ted Kennedy. I speak for Cobra. In an age where the President openly brags about having the right to wiretap anybody he pleases without a warrant, and where the President’s Justice Department is actively data mining what could amount to be millions of search engine records, do you see the irony of the public knowing Bork’s video rentals?
Perhaps Alito’s deference to executive power doesn’t disturb you, but it does me. I actually like the concept of three co-equal branches of government, and so did the Founding Fathers.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Both are court cases which are extremely important to certain constituencies.”
Which constituencies are Plessy and Brown NOT “extremely important” to?
–Cobra
I don’t speak for Ted Kennedy. I speak for Cobra. In an age where the President openly brags about having the right to wiretap anybody he pleases without a warrant,
Unfortunately you sound just as duplicitous as Ted Kennedy. The President never said he has the right to wiretap anyone he please and you know it. He said that he has the right to wiretap anyone who is conversing with an Al Qaeda member. There is a very big difference between those two statements.
and where the President’s Justice Department is actively data mining what could amount to be millions of search engine records, do you see the irony of the public knowing Bork’s video rentals?
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan there you go again. What does the accumulation of statistics have to do with the gathering of information on a specific individual? The answer of course is nothing. Do you think if you make enough wild charges you will fool people?
Perhaps Alito’s deference to executive power doesn’t disturb you, but it does me. I actually like the concept of three co-equal branches of government, and so did the Founding Fathers.
If you really believe that, then I don’t understand how you think Congress can pass laws to restrict the powers that are given to the President in the Constitution?
Richard writes:
>>>”Unfortunately you sound just as duplicitous as Ted Kennedy. The President never said he has the right to wiretap anyone he please and you know it. He said that he has the right to wiretap anyone who is conversing with an Al Qaeda member. There is a very big difference between those two statements.”
The records show FISA court has no problem giving warrants to wiretap folks who have suspicious foreign conversations:
>>>”Electronic Surveillance at an All-Time High in 2004. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Annual Report (pdf) reveals that there were 1758 applications for secret surveillance in 2004, an all-time high. None of the applications for secret suveillance warrants were denied. In 2004, as in 2003, more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which have more stringent standards. A report on federal wiretap warrants in 2004 reveals that state and federal courts authorized 1,710 interceptions in 2004, an increase of 19 percent over 2003 and more than in any previous year. Federal officials made an all-time high 730 intercept applications in 2004, a 26 percent increase over 2003.”
Wants some fries with that warrant?
I WANT our government monitoring folks who converse with REAL terrorists, and apparently the FISA court does, too. So why must the President go around the court with no checks and oversight? I know, I know. Just trust big government to do the right thing.
Richard writes:
>>>”What does the accumulation of statistics have to do with the gathering of information on a specific individual? The answer of course is nothing.”
Again, you have this trust factor with big government. Oh, yes…ALL they’re interested in is the accumulation of statistics. Nobody’s really going to “flag” people’s emails, internet searches, and cell phone conversations for key words and then filter down the information back to the source, right?
Oh no….never happen. The technology exists to data mine millions of communications simulataneously.
That’s another reason why I have a problem with Alito, a man who is extremely intelligent, knows all of this, yet still defers to Executive power, which makes him frightening in these times.
–Cobra
actus, summing up how things have improved for women since the 50s:
Women in the work force.
See, I told you Rosie the Riveter was a conservative myth.
Reproductive freedom.
Quite right. Women who in the 50s couldn’t conceive and wanted to now have all sorts of recourse they didn’t then. They can find out if the problem is genetic; if it’s theirs or their husband’s; if in vitro fertilization has any chance of success if hormonal approaches don’t succeed. And most of this is covered by standard health insurance. Women have more freedom to reproduce than they’ve had in recorded history.
Oh . . . not what you meant, right? “Reproductive freedom” actually meaning “freedom not to reproduce,” and all that. Sorry.
Women entering elite social institutions, like management of firms,
Ooh, a firm! An “elite social institution!”
the ivy league,
OK, with you there, though the “sister schools” to a couple of the Ivies weren’t exactly dog meat.
the closing wage gap,
At least you believe it’s closing. NOW doesn’t seem to think it’s ever budged.
prohibiting sex discrimination, etc.
I am all for prohibiting sex discrimination. I am not for, say, treating skewed male/female ratios as prima facie evidence of sex discrimination, or changing the job requirements of physically demanding jobs (e.g. firefighting, military service, &c.) so that more women can pass the tests. To the extent that feminists have accomplished the latter, they’ve done a lot of damage IMO.
“I WANT our government monitoring folks who converse with REAL terrorists, and apparently the FISA court does, too. ”
But the debate isn’t about whether there should be monitoring, but whether it should be done legally or not.
“Oh . . . not what you meant, right? “Reproductive freedom” actually meaning “freedom not to reproduce,” and all that. Sorry.”
Both. Of course. Freedom means both.
“Ooh, a firm! An “elite social institution!””
Well. Management. Specially the executive levels.
“I am all for prohibiting sex discrimination. I am not for, say, treating skewed male/female ratios as prima facie evidence of sex discrimination, or changing the job requirements of physically demanding jobs (e.g. firefighting, military service, &c.)”
So one victory is that we’re having the latter debate (what precisely constitutes sex discrim, how do we fight it, and how do we measure or achieve equality) vs. the former (should we ban discrim based on sex, should there be equality).
Your claim that these things aren’t a big deal is different than bork’s: that the net effect has been negative. Look at the life of the median woman today, and compare it to her in the 50’s. The preference for today has to do, at least in part, with the feminist movement.
“Perhaps Alito’s deference to executive power doesn’t disturb you, but it does me. I actually like the concept of three co-equal branches of government, and so did the Founding Fathers.”
It’s very odd that you should make this statement given your antipathy to Robert Bork. If you like the idea of 3 co-equal branches, then you should really have supported Robert Bork because he said:
On Lochner v. New York:
“In his 1905 opinion, Justice Peckham, defending liberty from what he conceived to be ‘a mere meddlesome interference,’ asked rhetorically, ‘[A]re we all . . . at the mercy of legislative majorities?’ The correct answer, where the Constitution is silent, must be ‘yes.’ Being ‘at the mercy of legislative majorities’ is merely another way of describing the basic American plan: representative democracy. We may all deplore its results from time to time, but that does not empower judges to set them aside; the Constitution allows only voters to do that.”
p. 49
“If you like the idea of 3 co-equal branches, then you should really have supported Robert Bork because he said:”
So we should like bork because he disagreed with Lochner? Puh-leeze. Everyone thinks lochner is wrong. Except, of course, for some of dubya’s recent wingnutty judicial nominees.
— The preference for today has to do, at least in part, with the feminist movement.–
That’s true. Now they’re getting their degree, working a little and staying home w/the kids instead of just getting married and staying home w/the kids.
In short, they’re still staying home w/the kids.
“So we should like bork because he disagreed with Lochner? Puh-leeze. Everyone thinks lochner is wrong. Except, of course, for some of dubya’s recent wingnutty judicial nominees.”
Actus always takes the narrowest interpretation possible, I notice, if he thinks it bolsters his argument. Of course, this is usually a good thing in a judge, but a bad thing in a debate. It’s pretty obvious that you should agree with Bork for more than disagreeing with Lochner; his point is universal. He has stated repeatedly that judges overstep the boundaries of the Constitution when they decide cases based on their opinions rather than the text of the Constitution. Of course, this viewpoint drives liberals nuts, since, on the one hand, they love the idea of the Constitution as a living document and on the other hand, they want Supreme Court justices that strictly adhere to precedent…when it concerns Roe.
It’s fascinating that you revile the 1950s. Are you channeling Betty Friedan? Of course, I notice you don’t discuss the much, much lower rates of divorce, illegitimacy, and STDs. And, of course, there was no AIDS.
“He has stated repeatedly that judges overstep the boundaries of the Constitution when they decide cases based on their opinions rather than the text of the Constitution.”
Judges shouldn’t do that. The problem is he’s wrong on the text.
“In short, they’re still staying home w/the kids.”
Again. Its not that you are against what’s happened since the 50’s, just that you think not much happened. But if you want to tell me that women are staying home just as much before, go ahead.
“It’s fascinating that you revile the 1950s.”
I like their cars. I don’t like their segregation, their poverty and the status of women in society. At least not in the way that it has improved since then.
“Of course, I notice you don’t discuss the much, much lower rates of divorce, illegitimacy, and STDs. And, of course, there was no AIDS.”
I’d like to know about illegitimacy and teen pregnancy. The divorce rate is pretty easy to explain with changing divorce laws: people just stayed in bad marriages (a victory for people who think marriage is a prison, I guess). Its is something new.
–But if you want to tell me that women are staying home just as much before, go ahead. —
I’m not the 1 telling you, actus, you haven’t been reading.
Your out is “just as much as before.”
The spawn of the libbers are staying home in greater numbers than their mothers because they don’t want their kids raised like they were. There are always exceptions to the rule, like my mom who had to work. And I don’t have to.
As to divorce, studies are showing that kids need 2 parents, they carry a lot of residual baggage from it, and even a marriage that isn’t as happy is better than divorce. We’ve been living thru the experiment.
Then there’s this via Marginal Revolution:
…Haltzman believes conventional marital therapy often tries to make men more like women — you know, getting in touch with their feelings, talking about their feelings, feeling their wives’ feelings, etc. But this approach is doomed to failure, he says, largely because men and women are equipped with such different hardware from the neck up…”
AND
Moynahan pointed out in the 80s black families were better off in the 50s because there were nuclear black families.
Compared to today, everyone was poor in the 50s.
My mom was born during the Depression and grew up in a 20×20 converted garage w/an outhouse until she was 12. 1 pair of shoes at a time. Christmas presents of which there were few were opened very carefully and my grandmother would iron the paper to reuse it the next year. And my dad was a little better off, he had indoor plumbing. His “house” was also a little bigger.
“The spawn of the libbers are staying home in greater numbers than their mothers because they don’t want their kids raised like they were.”
What their parents won for them is the choice to make, Not the forcing of one of the choices. There are all sorts of reasons to make that choice. And I don’t think its quite as simple as not liking the way you were raised.
“Haltzman believes conventional marital therapy often tries to make men more like women — you know, getting in touch with their feelings, talking about their feelings, feeling their wives’ feelings, etc. But this approach is doomed to failure, he says, largely because men and women are equipped with such different hardware from the neck up.”
I have no idea what your beef with this has to do with what i’m talking about. I don’t know much about marital psychology, whose actions are ruining that specific marriage, or the merits of this ‘different hardware’ psychotalk.
“Moynahan pointed out in the 80s black families were better off in the 50s because there were nuclear black families.”
I’m so sure. What are the numbers on household income, on percentage in poverty, compared to today?
actus he wrote about it in the 80s.
I believe it was in a book.
“What their parents won for them is the choice to make, Not the forcing of one of the choices. There are all sorts of reasons to make that choice. And I don’t think its quite as simple as not liking the way you were raised.”
Actus, surely you are old enough to remember the way “housewives” (the term before stay-at-home mom came into vogue) were treated by feminists in the 1970s? Gloria Steinem said in 1987 (!) that when a woman gets married she becomes a “semi-non-person.” She railed for close to 3 decades about how terrible marriage was for women because of the inequality it created. This was, of course, before she decided to get married.
Sure, there are many things about women’s lives that are much better today because of the civil rights and women’s movements of the 1950s-1970s. Married women can own property in their own names (buying it after marriage, I mean). The have the freedom (most would say the obligation) to work outside the home for most of their adult lives, even while farming out the raising of their children to others. They can divorce for no reason at all and wind up much poorer than when they were originally single.
But there are many things much worse, as well, including a dearth of marrying men for 20-something women wanting to get married and raise a family. The sexual revolution may have given women the right to behave like unpaid hookers, but it has produced a generation of men who wonder why they need the legal entanglement of matrimony when they can have a live-in maid/prostitute combo.
“I believe it was in a book.”
That helps a lot.
“She railed for close to 3 decades about how terrible marriage was for women because of the inequality it created. This was, of course, before she decided to get married.”
That’s may have been what she was fighting for. But what she won was the choice. Women now choose this. They can now more easily have financial lives outside of — or even in — marriage. Do you agree that it is seen as more of a choice now?
Although, I’d say the economics of it still make it that a lot of women who have families and work aren’t really choosing to work, but are doing it because they need the money to raise their kids. Average real wages have decreased since the 70’s, making a single earner family less wealthy than before. I don’t know exactly why this has happened.
“a live-in maid/prostitute combo.”
I assume you’re not referring to my live in girlfriend like that. Since you don’t know her. Of course, I don’t know how many men or women you know about that you’re talking about it like this.
But I will say this to the ladies out there: don’t marry the guy who is only looking for a maid and whore in a wife. Don’t move in with them either. And rightfully blame them for being jerks — don’t let them avoid their irresponsibility. Don’t blame what some woman said in the 50’s or 70’s. Blame the jerk that thinks women should be maid/whores.
actus,
Re “reproductive freedom,” I am wondering what men’s “reproductive rights” are, or indeed whether they’ve got any. So far as I can see, one sex has an unfettered right to bonk away without the slightest risk of parental responsibilities following, and one doesn’t. Also, one sex has the ability to produce offspring when and only when desired, without long-term association with anyone else, and the other doesn’t.
You might call this equality, but I wouldn’t. Basically, women now have every advantage of fertility, and no disadvantages, while men keep the disadvantages (e.g., potential parental responsibilities following on sex) without the advantages (e.g., getting to raise a child of your own in the absence of a partner of the opposite sex).
Don’t tell me that it’s just the biological facts, because the biological fact is that women get pregnant and ordinarily give birth unless someone intervenes. There are lots of things that could be done to “level the playing field.” Single men and gay male couples could get preferences for adoptions, or subsidies for surrogate-mothered babies. Male birth control research could be subsidized. Men might be allowed to “drop” a fetus (renounce any responsibility for it) in the same way that women now can “drop” a baby at a hospital, no questions asked. Women who demand child support from, oh, say, minor children they’ve statutorially raped might not get their child support awards upheld. That sort of thing.
Look at the life of the median woman today, and compare it to her in the 50’s. The preference for today has to do, at least in part, with the feminist movement.
Hmmm. I was born in ’67, so have no first-hand experience of the ’50s, let alone of the ’50s’ “median woman,” but again, I have to say, don’t rely too much on Friedan. I recommend Florence King’s Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady, a memoir set largely in the 50s, and one I imagine rather more faithful to the reality than was Friedan’s “comfortable concentration camp.”
Anyway, here I sit, working from home and doing the laundry and vacuuming the floor and cooking dinner, reading whatever I like and writing whatever I like, rather like your 50s “median woman,” whoever she may be. And you know, I rather like it. (And as the “work from home” is journalism and criticism, and even you know women were already doing such stuff very prominently in the 50s, don’t try to call me out on that.)
“I am wondering what men’s “reproductive rights” are, or indeed whether they’ve got any.”
Well. There are certain choices that men may make, as you know your birds and the bees (we educate kids on these more now than in the 50’s). And none of these lead to him getting pregnant and having to carry a child to term. Some of them do lead to other responsibilities, after reproduction has taken place.
Some people think that this is unfair. That there is something unfair about women being able to terminate a pregnancy while men cannot. What are our choices concerning this? We can let men terminate pregnancies too. Or we can not let women terminate pregnancies. Or we can require that both consent. Or we could keep the status quo.
I think the way to go is the way we’ve got it. For a variety of reasons. If you’d like I can go over what is wrong with each of the other options. But you are smart enough to figure it out too.
“So far as I can see, one sex has an unfettered right to bonk away without the slightest risk of parental responsibilities following, and one doesn’t.”
Both sexes can use birth control. And both sexes face the responsibility of pregnancy. Some more than others.
“without the advantages (e.g., getting to raise a child of your own in the absence of a partner of the opposite sex).”
Men can do this. There are surrugate mothers out there.
“I recommend Florence King’s Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady, a memoir set largely in the 50s, and one I imagine rather more faithful to the reality than was Friedan’s “comfortable concentration camp.””
Why follow a memoir? Look at the numbers, at the choices. Do you believe that glass ceilings existed? Do you believe they’re gone?
“And as the “work from home” is journalism and criticism, and even you know women were already doing such stuff very prominently in the 50s, don’t try to call me out on that”
More or less so than today?
I’m just fascinated at this view you have that not much has changed.
actus,
We can let men terminate pregnancies too. Or we can not let women terminate pregnancies. Or we can require that both consent. Or we could keep the status quo.
Or we can do what I actually suggested, which is, now that carrying a fetus to term is entirely voluntary, let the father-to-be renounce fatherhood and related obligations just the way the mother-to-be can renounce motherhood and related obligations. It’s bizarre that a new mother can more or less leave an infant in a shoebox at a hospital and wash her hands of it, no questions asked, while a father can have his wages garnished for a couple decades if she prefers to raise the child herself.
Men can do this. There are surrogate mothers out there.
Well, we can compare the difficulties — and costs — of surrogate motherhood vs. sperm donation if you like. What I said was that a serious effort to make male and female “reproductive rights” more or less equal would mean, among other things, making it more or less as easy for a man to have a child without the permanent presence of a woman as vice versa. That would mean male preferences in adoption as well as subsidy of surrogate motherhood, which is something like an order of magnitude costlier than buying some sperm at the local clinic.
Re Florence King, don’t know whether you know the book or not, but my point was that its author succeeded in getting an exceedingly fine classical education during the 50s. Did she run into sexist a’holes who tried to talk her into just being a nice little woman and finding a husband? Of course she did. Did she pay them any particular notice? Only enough to put wicked portraits of them in the book.
My suspicion is that a lot of those 50s girls with their “Mr.S. degrees” got more positive content out of their college stay — I mean in terms of stuff that stays in the head and succors you later on — than most college kids of both sexes do today. Of course, someone just said the same recently in a prominent article, so if I say it I’ll look as though I’m plagiarizing . . . nonetheless, it’s true. If I had to choose between “Getting a liberal education as a means to find a husband” and “Getting a liberal education as a means to find a job,” I know which I’d pick, not least because it’d be likely to involve a lot more liberal education, in several senses.
I’m just fascinated at this view you have that not much has changed.
I didn’t say that, nor imply it. Very nearly everything has changed. I’m just saying that the 50s as vast intellectual wasteland, imprisoning every woman in America in a spiritual desert, is complete and utter b*s*. Women had lives in the 50s, actus; they even (horrors) had lives centering on children. I have never understood why educating thirty of your neighbors’ children is one of the noblest jobs in the world, while educating three of your own is supposed to be soul-sucking drudgery, not on a par with such “elite social institutions” as upper management. I say this, btw, as one with no children of my own.
“Or we can do what I actually suggested, which is, now that carrying a fetus to term is entirely voluntary, let the father-to-be renounce fatherhood and related obligations just the way the mother-to-be can renounce motherhood and related obligations.”
Ah. But that is not what she does — though it is a common quip. She ends the obligations of BOTH people. You want to let the father end just HIS obligation — leaving the mother AND the child to fend for themselves. Unless you want to have the father end both obligations. Leaving the child to fend for itself.
“Re Florence King, don’t know whether you know the book or not, but my point was that its author succeeded in getting an exceedingly fine classical education during the 50s.”
And back in 1492 a woman was in charge of spain, later a woman did important science on radiation. But things have changed for women since then. And they’re better.
“If I had to choose between “Getting a liberal education as a means to find a husband” and “Getting a liberal education as a means to find a job,” I know which I’d pick, not least because it’d be likely to involve a lot more liberal education, in several senses.”
And today, more people can pick.
“Very nearly everything has changed. I’m just saying that the 50s as vast intellectual wasteland, imprisoning every woman in America in a spiritual desert, is complete and utter b*s*.”
Keep on arguing against ghosts. Because that wasn’t me.
actus,
Ah. But that is not what she does — though it is a common quip. She ends the obligations of BOTH people. You want to let the father end just HIS obligation — leaving the mother AND the child to fend for themselves. Unless you want to have the father end both obligations. Leaving the child to fend for itself.
Well, the point is that there is a child only because she wanted one, right? Because not having a child to care for, as I said, is incredibly easy. Past abstinence, there’s birth control; past birth control, there’s abortion; past that there’s adoption, or the “baby-drop” business. The point is that, so far as I know, it’s pretty well impossible for a woman to be held responsible for the care of a newborn child unless she wants to keep custody of it. On the other hand, it’s entirely possible for the child’s biological father to be held responsible for supporting it till adulthood, even if he didn’t want a child and doesn’t want custody. (Actually, you don’t even have to be the biological father to get dinged for child support if it’s your ex-wife that bore the child; if you assumed it was your own child, very soon the law will too, DNA and so forth notwithstanding.)
But things have changed for women since then. And they’re better.
Oh, actus. They’re better, and they’re worse. “Better” in the sense of more women in more and more prominent commercial and political positions (which is apparently what you find interesting — women have always dominated “elite social institutions,” and that hasn’t changed at all), “worse” in sundry subtler ways.
“Well, the point is that there is a child only because she wanted one, right?”
Well, she wanted to subject her body to carrying a pregnancy.
“The point is that, so far as I know, it’s pretty well impossible for a woman to be held responsible for the care of a newborn child unless she wants to keep custody of it.”
Really? You think she can’t be made to pay child support for a father that cares for the child? I agree women don’t earn as much as men, so its less likely they’ll be asked to contribute.
“(Actually, you don’t even have to be the biological father to get dinged for child support if it’s your ex-wife that bore the child; if you assumed it was your own child, very soon the law will too, DNA and so forth notwithstanding.)”
They do call it family law, not fatherhood law.
But lets say it is as you say. What do you want to do about? Let fathers walk away from women and their kids? That’s your solution? Or something else?
“women have always dominated “elite social institutions,” and that hasn’t changed at all”
Tell that to Alito and his friends at CAP. Or maybe the senate in general. Or even voting booths.
actus,
Really? You think [a mother of a newborn] can’t be made to pay child support for a father that cares for the child? I agree women don’t earn as much as men, so its less likely they’ll be asked to contribute.
You don’t get “asked” to contribute child support, actus; you get compelled, and it doesn’t matter what you make, except in the sense that it affects what you might be expected to pay. But you’re quite right: If a woman gave a newborn into the care of its father, she would likely be responsible for child support if he sought it. It’s just that we’re talking about a scenario that almost never happens. Later divorce, father getting sole custody, mother paying child support: sure. But mother handing over custody at birth and paying child support from the get-go? That has to be vanishingly rare, actus.
They do call it family law, not fatherhood law.
Indeed they do. And what’s a little spot of adultery among family? Seriously, I don’t see why the mother of a child whose husband didn’t father it shouldn’t be required to declare who the father actually was and then go after him for child support, if she needs it. Most men who’ve raised kids of adulterous relationships love them anyway and want to succor them, but not wanting to is pretty understandable, especially when the law otherwise says “you begat it, you’re responsible for it,” or words to that effect.
(My own sneaking suspicion is that wives aren’t commanded to name the biological fathers in such cases because many won’t know their names, first or last.)
But lets say it is as you say. What do you want to do about? Let fathers walk away from women and their kids? That’s your solution? Or something else?
Well, in my scenario it was more “women and other men’s kids,” and it would seem incumbent on the women to pester the other men in question for child support if they needed it. DNA testing, of course.
You have no problem with “let mothers walk away from their newborn children,” so I’m not exactly clear why this troubles you. I’d say that a father who can walk out of his kids’ lives without qualms is no great loss. You think he is a great loss — a great financial loss — and want him to pay up, even if the kids are provably not his.
Not liking anyone in this scenario, understand. But if it comes to the care of the children, the mother should seek child support against the biological father, or, failing that, mimic the other gazillion single mothers in this country, who bizarrely enough manage to raise children anyhow.
Re “elite social institutions,” obviously that phrase doesn’t mean to you what it means to me. Around here, that doesn’t confer the idea of the Senate and the Supreme Court and “upper management.” The San Francisco Opera Gala is more what comes to mind.
“But mother handing over custody at birth and paying child support from the get-go? That has to be vanishingly rare, actus”
Sure. But why? because mothers want their kids? or because fathers don’t want them? or because divorces don’t happen like this?
“And what’s a little spot of adultery among family? Seriously, I don’t see why the mother of a child whose husband didn’t father it shouldn’t be required to declare who the father actually was and then go after him for child support, if she needs it.”
My guess is that there are two goals: not just finding the actual father, but also finding income for the kid. So having a constructive father is good enough. But I don’t know anything about family law. Your system sounds nice. But until whoever this guy is is found and is made to pay up, the child has no money. So it doesn’t surprise me that there is this constructive fatherhood.
“especially when the law otherwise says “you begat it, you’re responsible for it,” or words to that effect.”
See i’m not so sure that that’s what it says.
“You think he is a great loss — a great financial loss — and want him to pay up, even if the kids are provably not his.”
My understanding is this requires him to already have been paying.
“You have no problem with “let mothers walk away from their newborn children,””
how? Adoption?
“Re “elite social institutions,” obviously that phrase doesn’t mean to you what it means to me. Around here, that doesn’t confer the idea of the Senate and the Supreme Court and “upper management.” The San Francisco Opera Gala is more what comes to mind.”
I’m thinking people in our society who make decisions. Mayors. Governors. Senates. CEOs, management, Stockholders. Union bosses (more so in the 50’s than today).
Now, if you also want to go back to the 50’s with him, that’s your right. Myself and millions of other Americans do not wish to do so.
Of course, that’s not at all true. The problem is that you think that most Americans do wish to do so. If you didn’t think so, then the Court wouldn’t be at issue at all.
“Perhaps Alito’s deference to executive power doesn’t disturb you, but it does me.
What “deference to executive power”?
I actually like the concept of three co-equal branches of government, and so did the Founding Fathers.”
No, you don’t. You want judicial supremacy when it leads to abortions or gay marriages or race preferences. You want legislative supremacy when it leads to heavy regulation of the economy. You want executive supremacy when a liberal is the executive. In short, your approach is simply outcome oriented. You criticize Lochner but praise Roe; there’s no principle there. You like certain policies, and you want whichever branch is most likely to give you those policies to reign supreme at that time.
“No, you don’t. You want judicial supremacy when it leads to abortions or gay marriages or race preferences. You want legislative supremacy when it leads to heavy regulation of the economy. You want executive supremacy when a liberal is the executive.”
No problem with a little bit of comingling.
actus,
My guess is that there are two goals: not just finding the actual father, but also finding income for the kid. So having a constructive father is good enough. But I don’t know anything about family law. Your system sounds nice. But until whoever this guy is is found and is made to pay up, the child has no money. So it doesn’t surprise me that there is this constructive fatherhood.
It’s not the case that “the child has no money.” What, the child merely has a mother? Well, we all know that women are uniformly penniless. And welfare has been not merely “reformed” but razed to the ground, right, so that homeless infants are supposed to starve. I mean, there’s that big image of Ayn Rand on Mount Rushmore to tell you so.
My point, actus, is that if we take men as being responsible for the pregnancies they occasion, maybe we shouldn’t make them also responsible for the ones they didn’t. It seems to me that if the husband of an adulterous wife wants to take on the children as his own, knowing they aren’t his, fine. But he ought to have to know, and agree.
I still have a problem with the fact that if a guy has sex with a woman and she ends up pregnant, he has absolutely no say whether she can abort his kid, but she can get the court order him to pay child support because she decided to keep it. And what about they guys who thought the woman was sterile, on birth control, etc., and she’s just tricking him so she can have a baby?
I had a law professor try to tell me once that abortion “equalizes the consequences of sex.” If it hadn’t been apparent to me before, it certainly was then that she had never had kids. I told her, “Abortion can’t equalize the consequences of sex. You have a problem with the consequences of sex, talk to God.”
‘It’s not the case that “the child has no money.”‘
no money coming in from the father. Sorry.
“My point, actus, is that if we take men as being responsible for the pregnancies they occasion, maybe we shouldn’t make them also responsible for the ones they didn’t
Are we making them responsible for pregnancies? or for the children they raise? If the latter it makes more sense. I get the feeling that this stuff kicks in once the guy has been supporting the kid.
I’ve actually known guys that this happened to & you are right. Once a guy has been named as the father, he’s provided support (by not divorcing the mom & having paternity tests done), there’s a prima facie case that he IS, in fact, the dad & has to provide support. BTW, there are lots of men who will stick with the mom because they love the kid, even if they suspect they are not the dad. Usually, it ends up being the woman who has found a new guy she likes better that files for divorce. It’s at that point, if they guy has REALLY been suspicious, that he might go for the paternity test. But again, this is terrible for the kid, since the guy he’s grown up with IS his dad to him. Truly tragic.
“I still have a problem with the fact that if a guy has sex with a woman and she ends up pregnant, he has absolutely no say whether she can abort his kid, but she can get the court order him to pay child support because she decided to keep it.”
And I have a problem with the fact that a guy can have sex with a woman and leave her to deal with making a choice to abort the baby or not. And what is the solution to these problems we have?
actus,
And I have a problem with the fact that a guy can have sex with a woman and leave her to deal with making a choice to abort the baby or not. And what is the solution to these problems we have?
You really ought not deliver these shocks to the readers on a weekend morning. Until now, I’d no idea that you thought of a fetus as a “baby.”
“You really ought not deliver these shocks to the readers on a weekend morning. Until now, I’d no idea that you thought of a fetus as a “baby.””
Well, I don’t think a woman’s right to choose will change depending on the semantics.
Whether what’s being killed is a “baby” or not is hardly “semantics,” actus. I am going to hazard a guess that, if asked whether you thought killing babies was wrong, you’d say “yes.”
“Whether what’s being killed is a “baby” or not is hardly “semantics,” actus. I am going to hazard a guess that, if asked whether you thought killing babies was wrong, you’d say “yes.””
Of course. Now ask me if terminating a pregnancy is that.
I think you get the point that the guy can have sex with a woman and leave her with teh decision to have an abortion or a baby. And its not fair. But what am I going to do about it? pick over the words I use?
Why, yes, I’d advise you to “pick over” your words with care on this topic, because everyone else will. Use the phrase “abort the baby” in other fora and you’ll have a lot of people less reasonable than I am at your throat. And language really does matter in these things. I’ve noticed, for example, that people who always carefully say “fetus” sometimes slip and refer to “the life of the mother.” “Mother of what, exactly” [I always want to ask], “since you’re insisting there’s no child?” You see how complicated it can get.
“Mother of what, exactly” [I always want to ask], “since you’re insisting there’s no child?” You see how complicated it can get.
Its not that complicated. This debate won’t be won by convincing people with their words, but by the ethics and values of the deed.
Not as complicated as you like getting with your ‘she terminates her responsibilitions why can’t the man’ ruse.
“And I have a problem with the fact that a guy can have sex with a woman and leave her to deal with making a choice to abort the baby or not. And what is the solution to these problems we have?”
How about this: don’t kill the baby if the father agrees (in court) to take responsibility for the baby and raise it. That sounds pretty fair to me. Of course, I’m senile enough to call it a baby and think killing it is wrong in most senses.
http://www.20six.co.uk/BxOh-free-naked-older-women/ – BxOh free naked older women http://www.20six.co.uk/BxOh-free-naked-older-women/
http://www.20six.co.uk/dXlL-blond-cum-shots/ – dXlL blond cum shots http://www.20six.co.uk/dXlL-blond-cum-shots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/hSic-cumshot-photos/ – hSic cumshot photos http://www.20six.co.uk/hSic-cumshot-photos/
http://www.20six.co.uk/WPQB-free-tit-cumshots/ – WPQB free tit cumshots http://www.20six.co.uk/WPQB-free-tit-cumshots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Lulc-free-bdsm-erotica/ – Lulc free bdsm erotica http://www.20six.co.uk/Lulc-free-bdsm-erotica/
http://www.20six.co.uk/CrDX-japanese-art/ – CrDX japanese art http://www.20six.co.uk/CrDX-japanese-art/
http://www.20six.co.uk/tqQh-free-cumshot-galleries/ – tqQh free cumshot galleries http://www.20six.co.uk/tqQh-free-cumshot-galleries/
http://www.20six.co.uk/xMaT-redhead-free-cum-shots/ – xMaT redhead free cum shots http://www.20six.co.uk/xMaT-redhead-free-cum-shots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/CLZd-chinese-foods/ – CLZd chinese foods http://www.20six.co.uk/CLZd-chinese-foods/
http://www.20six.co.uk/fwMg-teenie-blowjobs/ – fwMg teenie blowjobs http://www.20six.co.uk/fwMg-teenie-blowjobs/
http://www.20six.co.uk/ZiqI-cumshot-orgy-gallery/ – ZiqI cumshot orgy gallery http://www.20six.co.uk/ZiqI-cumshot-orgy-gallery/
http://www.20six.co.uk/pHKR-tit-cum-shots/ – pHKR tit cum shots http://www.20six.co.uk/pHKR-tit-cum-shots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/fwbj-cum-shot-facial-samples-videos/ – fwbj cum shot facial samples videos http://www.20six.co.uk/fwbj-cum-shot-facial-samples-videos/
http://www.20six.co.uk/CnpE-chinese-pregnancy-sex-predictor/ – CnpE chinese pregnancy sex predictor http://www.20six.co.uk/CnpE-chinese-pregnancy-sex-predictor/
http://www.20six.co.uk/gCJH-all-free-vaginal-cumshots/ – gCJH all free vaginal cumshots http://www.20six.co.uk/gCJH-all-free-vaginal-cumshots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/gdVI-huge-cum-facials/ – gdVI huge cum facials http://www.20six.co.uk/gdVI-huge-cum-facials/
http://www.20six.co.uk/LSRX-leg-fetish/ – LSRX leg fetish http://www.20six.co.uk/LSRX-leg-fetish/
http://www.20six.co.uk/wbAU-sexual-torture-war/ – wbAU sexual torture war http://www.20six.co.uk/wbAU-sexual-torture-war/
http://www.20six.co.uk/kNVG-teen-high-school-cum-shots/ – kNVG teen high school cum shots http://www.20six.co.uk/kNVG-teen-high-school-cum-shots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/dBbH-free-cumshots-blowjobs-mature-women/ – dBbH free cumshots blowjobs mature women http://www.20six.co.uk/dBbH-free-cumshots-blowjobs-mature-women/
http://www.20six.co.uk/YodV-huge-tit-cum-shots-free/ – YodV huge tit cum shots free http://www.20six.co.uk/YodV-huge-tit-cum-shots-free/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Eypo-bdsm-nudist/ – Eypo bdsm nudist http://www.20six.co.uk/Eypo-bdsm-nudist/
http://www.20six.co.uk/xJuC-money-shots-cum-free/ – xJuC money shots cum free http://www.20six.co.uk/xJuC-money-shots-cum-free/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Bgta-redhead-cumshot/ – Bgta redhead cumshot http://www.20six.co.uk/Bgta-redhead-cumshot/
http://www.20six.co.uk/NETc-blond-blowjobs/ – NETc blond blowjobs http://www.20six.co.uk/NETc-blond-blowjobs/
http://www.20six.co.uk/LtKk-blowjob-cumshots/ – LtKk blowjob cumshots http://www.20six.co.uk/LtKk-blowjob-cumshots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/VfYE-whipping/ – VfYE whipping http://www.20six.co.uk/VfYE-whipping/
http://www.20six.co.uk/CDTI-free-mature-porn-tgp/ – CDTI free mature porn tgp http://www.20six.co.uk/CDTI-free-mature-porn-tgp/
http://www.20six.co.uk/ECDd-free-bdsm-picture/ – ECDd free bdsm picture http://www.20six.co.uk/ECDd-free-bdsm-picture/
http://www.20six.co.uk/EZut-bondage-dvd/ – EZut bondage dvd http://www.20six.co.uk/EZut-bondage-dvd/
http://www.20six.co.uk/AIWN-asian-pride/ – AIWN asian pride http://www.20six.co.uk/AIWN-asian-pride/
WBR thdFQDIYEnMAJxOCa
“How about this: don’t kill the baby if the father agrees (in court) to take responsibility for the baby and raise it. That sounds pretty fair to me.”
So you want a man to control a woman’s uterus with his wallet. But under oath. sounds very fair.
“So you want a man to control a woman’s uterus with his wallet. But under oath. sounds very fair.”
No, silly. I don’t want women to unilaterally decide what happens to men’s children.
“No, silly. I don’t want women to unilaterally decide what happens to men’s children.”
I know. By having the man unilaterally decide what happen’s to a womans uterus once he impregnates her. Righto. That’s how you resolve the issue: male veto over abortion. Very fair indeed.
“I know. By having the man unilaterally decide what happen’s to a womans uterus once he impregnates her.”
He’s not unilaterally deciding what happens to her uterus. He’s having a say in what happens to his child.
“Righto. That’s how you resolve the issue: male veto over abortion. Very fair indeed.”
One can assume the child thinks that is very fair.
“He’s not unilaterally deciding what happens to her uterus. He’s having a say in what happens to his child.”
He’s vetoing an abortion.
“One can assume the child thinks that is very fair.”
Indeed. I mean, the guy swore in court — ‘so help me god’ — that he would pay for the kid. Does he have to pay rent in that uterus?
“He’s vetoing an abortion.”
He’s vetoing the killing of his kid.
“Indeed. I mean, the guy swore in court — ‘so help me god’ — that he would pay for the kid. Does he have to pay rent in that uterus?”
Only if she has to pay rent for his…ahem.
“He’s vetoing the killing of his kid.”
Somehow I didn’t think it was about fairness in the relationship of the pregnant woman but about the abortion debate itself.
“Only if she has to pay rent for his…ahem.”
Sounds like he’s asking for payment after the fact.
“Somehow I didn’t think it was about fairness in the relationship of the pregnant woman but about the abortion debate itself.”
You can’t separate the relationship between the parents from the act of killing the kid. Just as you are trying to separate the womb from what is in the womb.
“Sounds like he’s asking for payment after the fact.”
Exactly how is that? You said he was renting her womb. I say they are equally responsible for creating a child but only one of them is given the right to unilaterally decide whether they become parents or not. And if you want to talk money, she can force him to pay child support for at least 18 years if she makes a decision not to kill the kid. It’s logical that he should have some veto power over the killing of his kid if he would otherwise be held responsible for him/her.
“You can’t separate the relationship between the parents from the act of killing the kid.”
Sure you can. You can say that abortion is legal and then have a discussion over how the abortion is decided.
“And if you want to talk money, she can force him to pay child support for at least 18 years if she makes a decision not to kill the kid.”
So can he.
“It’s logical that he should have some veto power over the killing of his kid if he would otherwise be held responsible for him/her.”
Its logical that awoman should have veto power over what happens in her uterus if she is solely responsible for that uterus. Some think its fair to have men control women’s bodies. Some think its not.