Sunday, May 19, 2013
Weiner: The Supreme Court Judge and the Curt Flood Case reenactment
(www.examiner.com)
Shades of Hairspray!...“It was a time of tradition, a time of values, and a time…to shake things up.”
Read More...For a journalist, chance encounters at a restaurant or a hair salon can become a major opportunity for advancing a story and in some instances the journalist is in the right place at the right time because he was with his wife. I had a very chance encounter with Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Saturday afternoon in lower Manhattan because my wife happened to have an appointment at a ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 20 of 42 pages
‹ First < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 > Last ›Ah, the "it sucks, too bad" option. How intellectually vigorous. Is that what you tell everyone denied a civil right?
"Sorry you can't vote, babe. Men are stronger. Now go make me some dinner and I'll be in for my penis-in-vagina sex later."
I guess I'm confused.
Are you saying that the 250-pound linebacker could NOT rape the woman if he wanted to, because of 'equality of sexual freedom'?
I agree consent is the key. The child has not given consent and so gains special priviledge.
Have you heard of mental trauma? Why don't you read up on some of the post-abortion support groups and educate yourself. Many women are deeply traumatized when they realize the magnitude of what they've done, especially if they were pressured into abortion by their boyfriends or parents.
There's no child involved here until the intervening decision of the woman.
There is no child at the time of the decision point that is at issue.
I am not saying "too bad" I am acknowledging the unfairness of the situation and stating clearly that despite the unfairness the Child's rights are paramount. I am feeling sympathy for the male perspective, but my values lead me to a place where the no matter the seeming unfairness a greater unfairness would be depriving the child of its rights.
No, I'm saying that the 250-pound linebacker and 100-pound woman have the exact same sexual freedom, the exact same right to choose to enter into sexual intercourse, even if one of them is equipped by biology to have his choice take precedent over her choice.
Of course there is. Regardless of your feelings about abortion, there is clearly a human entity with unique DNA, that will likely develop into a full-term baby if events take their normal course.
You can believe the mother has a right to terminate that being's life. But you can't logically say there is no unique life there.
Do we high five now? Or Tebow or something? What's the *thing* on this side?
Of course. Women who go through childbirth have mental trauma, too. Ever hear of post-partum depression? Many women get it and never really recover. Empirical question, but I'd venture that it's far more prevalent and debilitating than post-abortion mental issues.
What child? There is no child involved here.
Which is irrelevant to the enshrinement of the child's rights.
Which is why it could not give consent. And yet it was born anyway. And now someone has to take care of it. Hey I know let's go with common sense and have the folks who "built it" take care of it (with a backstop of the rest of society, because kids are that important).
And nobody is comparing childbirth to having a cut bandaged.
The child whose support (I know let's call it Child Support, catchy title that) you are trying to weasal out from under. If there is no child then no support. If there is a child, then there are rights and thus there needs to be Child Support (I do like that name, I bet it catches on).
See how the child, its rights, and the child support all link together?
That's sort of ultra vires here, though. One way to eradicate the special privileges granted women under current practice would be to eliminate abortion -- as Ray's noted.
Let's say I rub one out 3 times a week for 10 years. Have I murdered 1500 babies?
There is no child. A zygote is not a child.
We all know you believe as much. In fact, a good summary of the Ray/Dan/Sam/etc side of things is "all of you liberals have the same view of sexual freedom as Snapper!" I mean, no offense or anything. At least you own it. The grand debate here is between pro-choice, women's rights supporting social liberals. It's an intra-party dispute. Side A thinks "well of course it's her body, it's her decision. That also means she is solely responsible for her decision (i.e. the live birth of a child rather than a terminated pregnancy.) Side B wants to say "of course it's her body, it's her decision, bu this other person who had sex with her a month prior to her decision has bear responsibility for her decision by contributing to the mortal support of her live-birth child for 2+ decades."
You, of course, want to say "it's not her body, it's a baby; there is no decision." That's outside of the bounds of the debate.
I'm glad to see your ignorance extends to the natural sciences and not just the humanities.
Did you do it in a tub? Were the babies in a tub? Did you drown babies in your man juice?
*EW*
So, "too bad, I acknowledge the unfairness of this and feel sympathy for you" is ay-ok as justification for denying that person a right?
But there is no child until the woman makes the decision to carry it to term.
And when there is no child no one is paying child support. Child support (really it is there in the title man, pay attention) only kicks in once there is a child. Before the child there is no reason to complain that the man is being forced to pay for something, he isn't as there is no something to pay for regarding the child (There may be some female medical cost sharing invovling the pregnancy, no idea and it is appart from what I am talking about).
We Te'o.
You, of course, want to say "it's not her body, it's a baby; there is no decision." That's outside of the bounds of the debate.
It's actually not outside the debate.
Everyone on "my side" is saying the child has the right to support. We differ on when that child gets the rights as an independent person (I say always, Andy says after the 1st trimester, some other may say only after birth). But we all agree that, once born, the child has the right to support from both parents, regardless of the decisions that led to his or her birth.
The rights of the child can not be vitiated by the actions or inaction of either parent, unless they mutually agree to an adoption, in which case, the support rights/obligations are tranfered to other parents.
No, no, no! Every sperm is sacred! You have murdered about
600,000,000,000 babies.
Also you should masturbate more than 3 times a week. It's healthy.
No the justification is the child and its rights. There is no unfairness (well I call it child support, you call it unfair) until the child is there.
My sympathy is not justification. It is acknowledgement that the world is often unfair and that unfairness, even when it cannot be resolved completely should be treated as being there. The child like supposition that so many (including most Libertarians) that the world is or even can be perfectly fair is, well, child like. The world is unfair, we do the best with it we can. In this instance the primacy of the child results in possible unfairness for its parents. My sympathy for this is just that, sympathy, but they still have to support the child.
True, but your way doesn't discriminate against men or provide special privileges to women. Theirs' does.
My way explicitly states that the child's rights are more critical than either parents rights. I guess you could call that discrimination, but I think there is a long history and plenty of justification for extending special rights to those who are incapable of caring for themselves and who feel the consequences of one or more actions without having consented to them.
That's fine.
But your proposal discriminates against children. And if the choice is between discriminating against innocent children, or wanna be deadbeats, I say eff the deadbeats.
A man who refuses to support his child to the best of his ability has sunk below moral consideration in my book. I literally don't care at all about his happiness.
If there was an efficient system to confiscate all his earnings above a subsistance level and direct them to his children (subject to a reasonable maximum of support), I'd be fine with it.
The problem isn't that those on the opposite side have the same position on sexual freedom as Snapper, the problem is that those on the opposite side have the same position on sexual freedom as Fred Phelps.
Sure, as long as it's recognized that women can be deadbeats.
I also have never once expressed a desire for any legal limit on sexual freedom. I've expressed moral disapproval for plenty of sexual behavior, but never said anyone shouldn't have a right to do what they want with a consenting partner.
What I express is that people need to bear the responsibilities of their actions, and can't violate others rights in order to remain consequence free.
You all are treating sexual freedom as a goddess to which all other good ends are to be sacrificed. If the choice is leave 10 million kids in poverty, or limit the ability of men to escape the consequences of their sex lives, your answer is eff the kids.
Done and done. What do I win?
I don't hear the phrase "deadbeat mom" a lot. Or ever.
Absolutely. It's less common, but it certainly happens.
No more so than in vitro or artificial insem for single mothers "discriminates against children."
And of course, the so-con "get" from our side of things is that it truly does disincent single motherhood for women who are not prepared to raise a child as single mothers.
The fact that you see fewer children in the world as a feature not a bug is telling. You're going to miss those kids when they halve your social security and Medicare in 25 years.
You know you can't use that against me, Sam. You can't guess my position on those things?
This is precisely our argument. Where we disagree with you is the notion that a zygote has "rights."
A woman bears the responsibility for her actions (choosing to carry a pregnancy to term) and can't violate the rights of others (the man who did not want to have a child) to reduce the consequences of her decision on herself.
I know *your* position, yes. I have already declared you out of bounds in the intrasquad scrimmage, have I not?
The fact that you see children in the world as a means to your support structure in old age is telling.
It's a fact, if you have a welfare state, and most of you support a far bigger welfare state than I do.
My money is being taken today in exchange for the promise of money from those future wage earners. If they're not going to exist in sufficient numbers, we're all getting robbed, and Social Security and Medicare are just ponzi schemes.
Then quote someone else in your volleys.
I do, but the ex is a volunteer Guardian ad litem (Sp?) and regularly has to advocate for children's rights in court and such.
I hear shitty mom, terrible mom, disaster, joke, and pathetic mom plenty, because I've said all of them.
The fact that you see fewer children in the world as a feature not a bug is telling. You're going to miss those kids when they halve your social security and Medicare in 25 years.
Having children in order to have someone to siphon cash from is not compelling. Hendricks to Sam.
Ah, so it's not really about the children's rights. It's about protecting your own ka-ching. All these freeloading aborted zygotes are skipping away without paying their fair share.
Really Sam, what about the child and its right's once born?
Does it have rights to being supported? Why should those rights be altered in the slightest by actions taken by one of its parents? If it does have a right, why should society have to be the first line support when the two parents who created the child can do it and have throughout all of history been expected to it it?
We're not talking about how you feel about Dinah Lohan.
Page 20 of 42 pages
‹ First < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.