The law has NEVER required that states permit abortion until a minute before birth and no serious effort has ever been made to require them to do so. If you are arguing your case in good faith it is a very disturbing example of how the right wing has been successful in promoting extreme, legal, historical and biological ignorance among the general population and not just their committed partisans.

The fact that their entire program relies on an assertion that could only be taken seriously by a lunatic SHOULD be a source of reassurance. Why am I not reassured.

lets hope the democrats aren't planning on making a similar concession to the anti-sex/anti-contraception/anti-abortion right

when so many of them display a COMPLETE inability to identify with or even understand men liking it. Better get your stories straight.

We NEED somebody TALKING THE NEWS who isn't a faux robot or someone on the MSM trying to imitate them. Technology has elliminated the possibility of a print only world. It makes sense not to leave the largest arena in the exclusive possession to the other side.

if they believe that democrats and republicans aren't much different when it comes to the economic policies which will affect them AND as long as the idea that straight white men are in some general sense a priviliged class that "owes" women, minorities, gays "something" if only "gratitude" for these groups generously willing to let bygones be bygones, they might think: "If I'm going to be economically fucked anyway, why add insult to injury by asking to be culturally and socially pissed and shit on too" (The democrats answer of course is that is DOES matter economically, although not as much as it should, and that the demographic and technological changes that have reduced mens status are going to happen regardless of who is in power. By voting Republican they are really just adding economic injury to inevitable cultural loss).

since sex costs men nothing (in the time frames in which biological evolution operates) the male reactions range from indifference to extremely positive, but since the wrong sex can cost women everything they instinctively have a much larger repertoire of much more intensely negative reactions.

there are always going to be people who are considered more and less attractive. In fact a lot of things that in the past would have been considered major beauty pluses, straight healthy teeth, undisfigured skin, etc. are now just taken for granted, and the social beauty competition continues. No matter how healthy and good looking people get this probably won't ever change.

if she has a conflicted relationship with weight most people must have an actively psychotic one.

So would you rather have them drunk with money (admittedly that might be interesting), or not drunk without money, or not drunk with money, or just not drunk, or what. Are you one of those "traditional Christian men" we are seeing and hearing so much about lately?

it is because they are trying to retain patriarchal dominance (or else they have personal problems) but when women react to men not doing what they want it is justified anger at being abused. How many times am I going to have to explain this to you people?

The point is that even though many think this way they STILL ARE taken seriously.

When a man ends up married or in a relationship with a woman who isn't interested in having sex with him he feels the same way, except for the rather being alone part, usually.

everyone agrees that the commited racist south with it's nostalgia for jim crow and the confederacy and it's modern excuses and justifications: "morals" "guns" "traditional values" etc. are hopeless. The only disagareement is over how in charge this group is and if they are in charge how long they will continue to be.

Good to see a feminist admit that this is the position that men are in and the position that feminists want them in, well not exactly good I guesss, but something.

ka?

something to be accepted about yourself if you have a choice

than something unrelated, since organisms tend to be adapted to particular hosts. Obviously this isn't always true but it tends to be.

If the seething mass of contempt, resentment and hostility that is the predominantly seem female attitude towards men constitutes women HIDING their negative feelings I'd had to see them revealed.

historically this is true but given current c-section rates not to mention labor(ha) saving biotechnology we may be able to dispense with BOTH it's entry and exit role, to the delight of many all along the social spectrum.

nothing.

apparently there are quite a few born female who could use a little reassignment, or at least additional assignment.

but on the other hand the only justification for any of this is that NEURObiology "she's a woman trapped in a man's body" is EVERYTHING.

about immature women, those who haven't figured out what they want yet.......(then later).......

women get mid-thirties, their looks fade and assholes are not interested in them, they want a nice guy to marry

Transsexuals beg to differ that they have "chosen" "any" gender they like. In fact the case of transsexualism is apparently about the ONLY place where it is (somehwat) intellectually respectable in "progressive" circles to discuss the possibility that gender may BE significantly innate. The resulting cognitive dissonance is highly entertaining and at least potentially enlightening.

I guess.

You don't understand, they are VERY UPSET that people end up with kids they don't want and can't take care of, sadly and tragically however this is the terrible price that MUST BE PAID in order to deter people from having sex.

these people will have to be resettled somewhere else, what will happen then.

this is the person that the party of high standards, personal responsibility and traditional values thinks belongs next in line to the very aged, mentally and physically, McCain. Pathetic.

the creepy reality.