In response to:

Vulgarizing Sexual Politics Down

Happy Jake Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 9:22 AM
I want to know one thing: Sex is an elective act. You can choose to do it or not. You can (and should) choose whom to do it with. Further, unlike food, water, and air, you don't need sex to survive as an individual. Pregnancy can only result from sex, thus, pregnancy is an elective act. If you do not want to become pregnant, not having sex is an absolutely effective, absolutely free-of-charge way to avoid pregnancy. If you want to have sex and you don't want pregnancy, you can, of course, contracept. It is certainly morally wrong, but then so is sex between anyone but a woman and her husband. In any case, contraception is available, legal, and relatively inexpensive....
Happy Jake Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 9:26 AM
... So here's my question: If (1) pregnancy can only result from sex (2) and the overwhelming majority of sex is elective (3) and not having sex is absolutely sure to prevent pregnancy (4) and abstainance is absolutely free (5) and sex is not a requirement to sustain an individual's life, then explain to me what the compelling national interest is in forcing you to pay for my irresponsible behavior?
essie2 Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 10:10 AM
Haven't you heard, Jake? It's all about the feelings...nothing more than [the] feelings.

We've lowered the bar until any bottomdwelling scum-sucker can cross it.
More than a century and a half ago, when early suffragettes fought to win the vote, they campaigned for equality as a source of independence and dignity, a means for a woman to stand equally with a man. The vote would uphold a woman's capacity to be fully human under the law, and from the law the culture would change. The early feminists assumed a moral superiority over men, which is why so many were active in the temperance movement.

Others muted the differences between men and women and were satisfied to preach absolute equality. But they all reckoned...