Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".

That's more or less what my Boomer peers said as well Chris, in 1972 and '73. Our Silent teachers didn't actually pass out condoms, but my classmates and I were certainly treated to a healthy dose of tittilating literature and soft-porn "educational" flicks. The lesson learned by many of us was that adults not only thought sexual promiscuity was OK, but that was actually expected of us. Pregnancy was discussed as something easily preventable by using "protection", and besides, if it were to happen so what? -- you could always get an abortion, right? And STDs-- mostly curable at the time and collectively known as "VD" -- were casually dismissed as "just a part of growing up", like chickenpox or the mumps.

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college. And another generation -- the Millennials-- that is far, far from being out of those mean woods yet.

How sad.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".

That's more or less what my Boomer peers said as well Chris, in 1972 and '73. Our Silent teachers didn't actually pass out condoms, but my classmates and I were certainly treated to a healthy dose of tittilating literature and soft-porn "educational" flicks. The lesson learned by many of us was that adults not only thought sexual promiscuity was OK, but that was actually expected of us. Pregnancy was discussed as something easily preventable by using "protection", and besides, if it were to happen so what? -- you could always get an abortion, right? And STDs-- mostly curable at the time and collectively known as "VD" -- were casually dismissed as "just a part of growing up", like chickenpox or the mumps.

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college. And another generation -- the Millennials-- that is far, far from being out of those mean woods yet.

How sad.

Mike:

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal.

It is also legal and protected, to my certain knowledge (having lived both places), in Washington and California. I don't know what other laws exist in other states.

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

Mike:

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal.

It is also legal and protected, to my certain knowledge (having lived both places), in Washington and California. I don't know what other laws exist in other states.

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

Mike:

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal.

It is also legal and protected, to my certain knowledge (having lived both places), in Washington and California. I don't know what other laws exist in other states.

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college.

<cough><cough><cough>

Ahem, as I asked Brian in another thread, please don't include me in your sweeping generalizations. I'll agree my generation comes close to this description, but since your comments were directed at me I feel forced to personalize the subject:

There was only one.
We were already in college.
I married her.

Nice world, eh?

I think it's going to hell, but the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college.

<cough><cough><cough>

Ahem, as I asked Brian in another thread, please don't include me in your sweeping generalizations. I'll agree my generation comes close to this description, but since your comments were directed at me I feel forced to personalize the subject:

There was only one.
We were already in college.
I married her.

Nice world, eh?

I think it's going to hell, but the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college.

<cough><cough><cough>

Ahem, as I asked Brian in another thread, please don't include me in your sweeping generalizations. I'll agree my generation comes close to this description, but since your comments were directed at me I feel forced to personalize the subject:

There was only one.
We were already in college.
I married her.

Nice world, eh?

I think it's going to hell, but the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

I think it's going to hell, but the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

Man, am I permitted to say this? Um, you go, dude! :wink:

Originally Posted by Chris'68

I think it's going to hell, but the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

Man, am I permitted to say this? Um, you go, dude! :wink:

Originally Posted by Chris'68

I think it's going to hell, but the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

Man, am I permitted to say this? Um, you go, dude! :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, only the specific statute in Texas was "struck down". Individual court decisions do not repeal all similar law, no matter how sweeping the decision. By definition, each law must be acted on individually by a lawful authority ("due process of law").

So, unless the state legislature removed or replaced the law, or a state or federal court struck down the law by citing precedent in a pending case, existing law in each state would stand as-is until such time as one of these two situations occurred. And since no law enforcement official or prosecutor with any brains is going to try to enforce a law bound to be overturned on appeal, only pending cases at the time of the decision would continue to be reviewed by lower courts. Eventually, the legislature would end up being the only avenue to remove the law from the books. This is how all those strange and anachronistic laws end up being laughed at for still being on the books 100 years after they were last enforced.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, only the specific statute in Texas was "struck down". Individual court decisions do not repeal all similar law, no matter how sweeping the decision. By definition, each law must be acted on individually by a lawful authority ("due process of law").

So, unless the state legislature removed or replaced the law, or a state or federal court struck down the law by citing precedent in a pending case, existing law in each state would stand as-is until such time as one of these two situations occurred. And since no law enforcement official or prosecutor with any brains is going to try to enforce a law bound to be overturned on appeal, only pending cases at the time of the decision would continue to be reviewed by lower courts. Eventually, the legislature would end up being the only avenue to remove the law from the books. This is how all those strange and anachronistic laws end up being laughed at for still being on the books 100 years after they were last enforced.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, only the specific statute in Texas was "struck down". Individual court decisions do not repeal all similar law, no matter how sweeping the decision. By definition, each law must be acted on individually by a lawful authority ("due process of law").

So, unless the state legislature removed or replaced the law, or a state or federal court struck down the law by citing precedent in a pending case, existing law in each state would stand as-is until such time as one of these two situations occurred. And since no law enforcement official or prosecutor with any brains is going to try to enforce a law bound to be overturned on appeal, only pending cases at the time of the decision would continue to be reviewed by lower courts. Eventually, the legislature would end up being the only avenue to remove the law from the books. This is how all those strange and anachronistic laws end up being laughed at for still being on the books 100 years after they were last enforced.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

....the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

didn't let her abort? i don't mean to pry, but did you really mean that? because it implies that that's what would have happened had you not stopped it.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

....the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

didn't let her abort? i don't mean to pry, but did you really mean that? because it implies that that's what would have happened had you not stopped it.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

....the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

didn't let her abort? i don't mean to pry, but did you really mean that? because it implies that that's what would have happened had you not stopped it.


TK

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college.

geez, kevin, you make it sound like there's nothing special or intimate to share with a lover besides one's body. even if that were true, it's not really something that one can "squander".

"oops... sorry, honey.... i'm all out of sex."


TK

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college.

geez, kevin, you make it sound like there's nothing special or intimate to share with a lover besides one's body. even if that were true, it's not really something that one can "squander".

"oops... sorry, honey.... i'm all out of sex."


TK

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college.

geez, kevin, you make it sound like there's nothing special or intimate to share with a lover besides one's body. even if that were true, it's not really something that one can "squander".

"oops... sorry, honey.... i'm all out of sex."


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mike:

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal.

It is also legal and protected, to my certain knowledge (having lived both places), in Washington and California. I don't know what other laws exist in other states.

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

I had thought if Roe v Wade were overturned we would revert to the pre-1973 situation, but I really don't know how that works. The only state I thought which had legalized abortion before 1973 was New York. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mike:

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal.

It is also legal and protected, to my certain knowledge (having lived both places), in Washington and California. I don't know what other laws exist in other states.

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

I had thought if Roe v Wade were overturned we would revert to the pre-1973 situation, but I really don't know how that works. The only state I thought which had legalized abortion before 1973 was New York. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mike:

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal.

It is also legal and protected, to my certain knowledge (having lived both places), in Washington and California. I don't know what other laws exist in other states.

Any law that conflicted with the Roe decision has been struck down. Would a reversal revive them, where explicit legislation replacing them hasn't been passed? Or would they remain nullified, pending new legislation?

I had thought if Roe v Wade were overturned we would revert to the pre-1973 situation, but I really don't know how that works. The only state I thought which had legalized abortion before 1973 was New York. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris'68

....the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

didn't let her abort? i don't mean to pry, but did you really mean that? because it implies that that's what would have happened had you not stopped it.

You understood me perfectly the first time I said it, TK. I wasn't implying anything - I'm telling you flat-out.

"Well, since... <insert excuse here> ...I could just get an abortion...."

I heard this routine at least five times during each pregnancy. And just in case there are some out there who think I "misunderstood" or who think "she said 'could', not 'should' or 'will'...", this is the same woman who, a couple of years later and after I'd spent 6 months in exile following her change of the locks, told me to "come get the kids."

"But I'm not ready yet - I still don't have a place of my own and I'm staying in my parents' small house in Florida." (We're originally from NJ.)

"Come get them, or I'll get rid of them."

Susan Smith had killed her two children (in North Carolina?) the month before.

(me, irritated) "What are you going to do, strap them into a Jeep and roll them into a lake?"

"I just might."

I was on a plane and in NJ within 24 hrs.

I'll admit in retrospect that my judge of prospective mates was pitiful, but even if I could have foreseen these circumstances (or worse), I've never been fond of letting other people relieve me of the pleasures, pains and responsibilities of being a parent to those two "clumps of cells".

The great thing about S&H is that it brings into sharp focus that any discussion of history, sociology, economics, etc. isn't just an obscure philosophical conversation. The wheel of time turns, and we are all teeth on the gears.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris'68

....the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

didn't let her abort? i don't mean to pry, but did you really mean that? because it implies that that's what would have happened had you not stopped it.

You understood me perfectly the first time I said it, TK. I wasn't implying anything - I'm telling you flat-out.

"Well, since... <insert excuse here> ...I could just get an abortion...."

I heard this routine at least five times during each pregnancy. And just in case there are some out there who think I "misunderstood" or who think "she said 'could', not 'should' or 'will'...", this is the same woman who, a couple of years later and after I'd spent 6 months in exile following her change of the locks, told me to "come get the kids."

"But I'm not ready yet - I still don't have a place of my own and I'm staying in my parents' small house in Florida." (We're originally from NJ.)

"Come get them, or I'll get rid of them."

Susan Smith had killed her two children (in North Carolina?) the month before.

(me, irritated) "What are you going to do, strap them into a Jeep and roll them into a lake?"

"I just might."

I was on a plane and in NJ within 24 hrs.

I'll admit in retrospect that my judge of prospective mates was pitiful, but even if I could have foreseen these circumstances (or worse), I've never been fond of letting other people relieve me of the pleasures, pains and responsibilities of being a parent to those two "clumps of cells".

The great thing about S&H is that it brings into sharp focus that any discussion of history, sociology, economics, etc. isn't just an obscure philosophical conversation. The wheel of time turns, and we are all teeth on the gears.