Let me know if you think it is after you crossed a line of departure with a condition one weapon in a declared area of hostility.
I understand your post but ..... also know that when the ERA "issue" arose back in the 1960s-1970s .... the catalyst was a sense on the part of many that males were treated "better" than women. Folks believed women didn't receive equal consideration and treatment in all matters thus diminishing their rights vis-a-vis those enjoyed by men. Ergo .... the movement was given the name Equal "Rights" Amendment ... not Equal "Treatment" Amendment. My comment to which you responded was not really a serious comment.
So the SCOTUS ruling on Presidential Immunity is going to work out well for Biden here. Trying to use the powers of the President to add an Amendment to the Constitution that has not met the requirements is probably not legal.
All sports where everyone plays on the same team, no male or female designation. The best ones get on the teams, period. Boxing, basketball, baseball, football, weightlifting, etc. That’s my definition of absolute equality.
please, at least try, to make sense of this statement for me. saying men don’t have the same right to have abortions is like saying men don’t have the same right to have periods.
He wrote, “when it comes to abortions” not “having abortions.” In my estimation, the meaning is clear: women have 100% of the rights even though they do not have 100% of the responsibilities. A woman can have an abortion without the consent of the father of the child. Conversely, a woman can decide to have a child, obligating the father financially, without the father’s consent. Now we can argue all day long whether or not those are just circumstances, but you cannot really argue that they are equal circumstances.
Sure. Now family courts should address issues as “Spouse 1” and “Spouse A” with any testimony filtered thru AI so no one can decipher who the father or mother is. Equal.
