Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, February 01, 2013

Pink News: Curt Schilling: ‘Why the hell should being gay matter in professional sport?’

“Shilling”...nice touch.

Curt Shilling, a former pitcher with a career in baseball spanning 20-years, said in a series of tweets, that he did not understand why there was such an issue in professional sports with players coming out.

He also said that he had played alongside gay players, and that it did not matter, and that their performance on the pitch was the important issue.

Mr Shilling said: “I’ve never understood this ‘issue’ with gay players? Who cares? I know I played with some, their sexual orientation never had much to …To do with how they hit with RISP, or pitched in late and close situations, why the hell would what they do in the bedroom ever matter?”

Repoz Posted: February 01, 2013 at 02:19 PM | 2051 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business

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 12 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›
   1101. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: February 09, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4366049)
Be a father if not why bother son
A boy can make 'em but a man can raise one
If you did it admit it and stick with it
Don't say it ain't yours 'cause all women are not whores
Ninety percent represent a woman that is faithful
Ladies can I hear it? Thank you.
When a girl gets pregnant her man is gonna run around
Dissin' her for nine months when it's born he wants to come around
Talking that I'm sorry for what I did
And all of a sudden he wants to see his kid
She had to bear it by herself and take care of it by herself
And givin' her money for milk won't really help
Half of the fathers with sons and daughters don't even wanna take 'em
But it's so easy for them to make 'em
It's true, if it weren't for you then the child wouldn't exist
After a skeeze, there's responsibilities so don't resist
Be a father to your child

You see, I hate when a brother makes a child and then denies it
Thinking that money is the answer so he buys it
A whole bunch of gifts and a lot of presents
It's not the presents, it;s your presence and essence
Of being there and showing the baby that you care
Stop sittin' like a chair and having your baby wonder where you are
Or who you are----fool, you are his daddy
Dib;t act like you ain't cause that really makes me mad, G.
To see a mother and a baby suffer
I've had enough of brothers who don't love the
Fact that a baby brings joy into your life
You could still be called daddy if the mother's not your wife
Don't be scared, be prepared 'cause love is gonna getcha
It will always be your child even if she ain't witcha
So don't front on your child when it's your own
'Cause if you front now, then you'll regret it when it's grown
Be a father to your child

Put yourself in his position and see what you're done
But just keep in mind that you're somebody;s son
How would you like it if your father was a stranger
And then tried to come into your life and tried to change
The way your mother raised ya----now, wouldn't that amaze ya?
To be or not to be, that is the question
When you're wrong, you're wrong, it's time to make a correction
Harassin' the mother for being with another man
But if the brother man can do it better than you can,
let him. Don't sweat him, duke
Let him do the job that you couldn't do.
You're claimin you was there, but not when she needed you
And now you wanna come around for a day or two?
It's never too late to correct your mistake
So get yourself together for your child's sake
And be a father to your child
   1102. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 09, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4366069)
This isn't a legitimate challenge to my beliefs. It's just you looking for a justification for irredeemable selfishness

(That's an issue of morality. Some people think free sex is irredeemable selfishness. Some people think getting an abortion is irredeemable selfishness. Some people think being able to enter into a gay marriage is irredeemable selfishness. Or flag-burning or burning your draft card. It's not my place or your place or anybody's place to punish the morality of others.

And *that's* why I call you a puritan. You're denying sexual freedom to others based on your personal definition of morality, which you wish to force on others. In the realm of how one can refer to a person who wishes deny sexual freedom to others because they wish to impose their own personal morality on them, puritan's just about the nicest one. Certainly a lot nicer than the suggestions of misogyny, a far more serious insult that was among the first to be tossed out.

I consider and have always considered BTF political threads as "what happens in BTF political threads stays in political threads." But you want to use the Dutch uncle ad hominem to stifle the conversation and extend it beyond. I've enjoyed conversing with you over the last decade, but if you insist on doling out respect based on agreeing with you, well, that's a battle I was inevitably going to lose. We can't choose all the people we associate with on our lives, but we can certainly choose some of them. If this is how you feel, it's regretful, but there's literally no crucial reason for us to know or care about the existence of or have anything to do with each other.
   1103. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4366079)
You're denying sexual freedom to others based on your personal definition of morality, which you wish to force on others.

But Dan, nobody is denying anyone sexual freedom. A guy can have any kind of sex with whomever he likes, the only catch is if a baby results, it's his to support, not the rest of society.

To make an economic analogy, a person's freedom to start a business doesn't mean he's free to walk away from debts he incurs at any point. If you borrow $100K against your house to open a business, and it fails, you don't say "well, we can't make you pay back that loan b/c it violates your economic freedom to start a business."
   1104. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 09, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4366083)
the only catch is if a baby results, it's his to support, not the rest of society.

Well, we've already established that you think a zygote is a baby.

To make an economic analogy, a person's freedom to start a business doesn't mean he's free to walk away from debts he incurs at any point.

Correct. The male is responsible for his half of the pregnancy (the zygote) until such time that the other party makes an intervening, sole decision that he has no part of.

Abortion should be safe, legal, and common.
   1105. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 12:42 PM (#4366091)
Well, we've already established that you think a zygote is a baby.


Doesn't matter what you think. Child support only comes into play once the baby is born. There is indisputably a baby in every child support case.

Correct. The male is responsible for his half of the pregnancy (the zygote) until such time that the other party makes an intervening, sole decision that he has no part of.

Non-sensical. A person's inaction, when they have no duty to act, can't incur additional liability. Your construct creates a duty to abort on the woman's part.

Abortion should be safe, legal, and common.

Horrible.
   1106. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 09, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4366094)
Horrible.

And you're absolutely free to feel that. And you can believe that masturbation is a sin. Or that two gay guys having sex or not taking communion sends those people to the fiery pits of hell. Or that the whole holy ghost thing wasn't written when the writers of the bible had some serious writers bloc and had a little too much arak.
   1107. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 09, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4366100)
Doesn't matter what you think. Child support only comes into play once the baby is born. There is indisputably a baby in every child support case.


Let's at least call it what it is: "Support for a woman's solo decision to have a child".

Another way to put it is, in the examples under discussion, "there is indisputably a woman, deciding by herself to have a child, in every case that turns into a legal dispute over child support".

I very rarely agree with him but DJS is correct, above. The amount of vitriol for hundreds of posts also came entirely from the PIVs side. The side backing mens' civil rights have been largely restrained.

DJS: in 1076 I mentioned a six year compromise. I think it's more practical than it is principled, because men either don't surrender their civil rights with ejaculation, or they do. I don't see any rights theory here that leaves a man partly responsible wrt a decision he has no say in. Any thoughts?
   1108. CrosbyBird Posted: February 09, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4366122)
I don't see any rights theory here that leaves a man partly responsible wrt a decision he has no say in. Any thoughts?

It is a theory of conflicting rights, which cannot all be addressed concurrently. The potential father has a right to his earnings, the potential mother has a right to biological autonomy (which includes the freedom NOT to have an abortion), the actual child (whenever you may believe it arrives) has a right to proper care, and the individual members of society have a right to their own earnings.
   1109. Jay Z Posted: February 09, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4366125)
Let's at least call it what it is: "Support for a woman's solo decision to have a child".


How about we call it walking away rights? If proposed, walking away rights should apply to both men and women. As proposed, both men and women should be able to walk away from their financial responsibilities and leave the other biological parent to raise the child alone or give it up for adoption.

Abortion only affects the unborn baby, while walking away primarily affects already born children. There is no reason to restrict the important right to walk away to a single gender.

Also, given that walking away rights are now severed from their questionable association with abortion, there's no particular reason to restrict them to a particular window as abortion is. Children from prior relationships inhibit sexual freedom. They require care, which can interrupt sex, and may make people less desirable as partners. So don't parents need to be able to walk away at any time?

   1110. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4366127)
And you're absolutely free to feel that.

And I'm absolutely free to use my morality as a basis for societal organization and laws, just like your are doing.

What you won't accept is that you are imposing your morality just as much as the "puritan's" you denounce.

In your moral view, the right of a man to have consequence free sex outweighs the right of a child to support from his father, and the right of society not to have to support that child when the man is perfectly able to. So, own it. Own your preferences. Don't couch it behind declarations of liberty.

Your speech is not free of consequences (you can be fired or shunned for your views), your practice of religion is not free of consequences (you can't be an Orthodox Jew and eat bacon-double-cheeseburgers) , even your citizenship itself is not free of consequences (taxes, jury duty, the draft). No liberty is free of consequences.

Frankly, I think it's assinine to single out the realm of sex as so uniquely important, that people must be absolved of all responsibility for their choices and actions. You've created your own "god", that demands absolute privelege.

It's no different that saying that the freedom to choose your career is impinged by the poor earnings of some careers. So, society must equalize the pay of all professions so that all are "free to choose" their career.
   1111. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4366130)
It is a theory of conflicting rights, which cannot all be addressed concurrently. The potential father has a right to his earnings, the potential mother has a right to biological autonomy (which includes the freedom NOT to have an abortion), the actual child (whenever you may believe it arrives) has a right to proper care, and the individual members of society have a right to their own earnings.

Exactly. All we are doing is arguing who absorbs the costs.

I have no qualms saying that based on my morality, the parents should absorb all the costs they are possibly capable of bearing, since their actions caused the situation, before you pass the costs on to the child, or taxpayers who are completely innocent in the situation.

It's a preference. The other side prefers the deadbeat to have unfettered use of his money.
   1112. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: February 09, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4366142)
Correct. The male is responsible for his half of the pregnancy (the zygote) until such time that the other party makes an intervening, sole decision that he has no part of.

Non-sensical. A person's inaction, when they have no duty to act, can't incur additional liability. Your construct creates a duty to abort on the woman's part.


The bolded part by snapper is to me a somewhat compelling argument, but then I go back to something Dan or Ray said about breaking someone's window. The owner of the house with the broken window is under no duty to act to replace the window. Should the breaker then be under obligation to at least share in the ongoing cost of cleanup to the interior of the house due to water and other environmental damage because the window wasn't replaced?

I accidentally break your arm swinging a baseball bat. I should be under some obligation to pay for your medical bills due to the accident. Should you not seek treatment, as you are under no duty to, should I be responsible for your financial support because you lost your job as a professional musician because your arm no longer functions because you did not seek treatment?
   1113. Lassus Posted: February 09, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4366150)
I accidentally break your arm swinging a baseball bat. I should be under some obligation to pay for your medical bills due to the accident. Should you not seek treatment, as you are under no duty to, should I be responsible for your financial support because you lost your job as a professional musician because your arm no longer functions because you did not seek treatment?

Pregnancy is not an incorrect, unnatural state. It is pretty much the opposite.
   1114. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 09, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4366152)
I don't see any rights theory here that leaves a man partly responsible wrt a decision he has no say in. Any thoughts?

It is a theory of conflicting rights, which cannot all be addressed concurrently. The potential father has a right to his earnings, the potential mother has a right to biological autonomy (which includes the freedom NOT to have an abortion), the actual child (whenever you may believe it arrives) has a right to proper care, and the individual members of society have a right to their own earnings.


Actually, it's not a theory of conflicting rights. I put forward the idea of support for six years simply as a practical matter, not really as an attempt to resolve a conflict between rights--I'll be surprised if it does. I do think there can be value in putting forward ideas that might lie somewhere between extreme positions. I also think the idea of stretching a sperm donor's support for a woman's decision to have a child to 21 years is absurd on its face. We don't demand that husbands with intact families send their children to college, and indeed most 19 year olds don't go to college. Most states extending misnamed 'child support' awards until an adult is 21 also force the sperm donor to contribute to college costs.

It's not a theory of conflicting rights as the woman has no right to claim support for her decision to being a zygote to term. To address your four claims to rights,

1) the potential father does have a right to his earnings but, infinitely more importantly, has the right to choose with whom he is going to have a family. For the sake of argument I'm assuming unless otherwise specified birth control was properly, carefully used, and simply failed, and that the woman was aware of the man's disinterest in fathering a child with her. It's worth being clear, and I don't think nearly enough has been made by the pro-rights crowd of the extraordinary betrayal involved when a condom was properly used, the woman knew of the man's disinterest, and she went ahead anyway and brought the zygote to term. It's an extraordinary abuse of trust and of one's autonomy.

2) the potential mother has a right to biological autonomy, but unless she's getting sperm from a willing donor, she doesn't have the right to violate a man's biological autonomy, which includes the right to fertilize the eggs of his choosing with the woman's consent. The woman can't abrogate to herself more rights than the Catholic Church abrogates to itself. She can't decide on Monday that abortion's fine and dandy, but on Tuesday that ejaculation = a child. The mother does indeed have a right to biological autonomy, along with an obligation to accept the financial (and other) consequences that come with exercising that autonomy.

3) "the actual child" is indeed a consequence of the mother's exercise of her biological autonomy, and therefore has a claim on all parties who exercise choice in that child's creation; in this case, there is one party fitting that description: the mother.

4) individual members of society do have a right to their own earnings, with a whole lot of stipulations, taxes, and so forth along the way. I don't know what true libertarians envision wrt child care in a society that does not violate men's civil and reproductive rights, and I won't presume to speak for them. I'm fine with excellent child care on demand.

The only way to remove the conflict is to recognize that because a man ejaculates does not mean he surrenders to a woman his reproductive rights. She does not get to violate his reproductive autonomy any more than society gets to violate her reproductive autonomy when her contraception fails, by compelling her to have a child.

Fwiw, I do think it's important to begin reframing the issue by ceasing to call it the misnamed 'child support', and instead call it what it really is: 'support for ('subsidizing' might be better) a woman's decision to have a child.

--It hasn't been raised, but I wonder if a discussion between the man and the woman in advance of sex, where a man asserts he doesn't want a child at this point in his life (or similarly) could be held to constitute a contract. Not that that has any practical value at this point...


   1115. Jay Z Posted: February 09, 2013 at 04:13 PM (#4366154)
The bolded part by snapper is to me a somewhat compelling argument, but then I go back to something Dan or Ray said about breaking someone's window. The owner of the house with the broken window is under no duty to act to replace the window. Should the breaker then be under obligation to at least share in the ongoing cost of cleanup to the interior of the house due to water and other environmental damage because the window wasn't replaced?

I accidentally break your arm swinging a baseball bat. I should be under some obligation to pay for your medical bills due to the accident. Should you not seek treatment, as you are under no duty to, should I be responsible for your financial support because you lost your job as a professional musician because your arm no longer functions because you did not seek treatment?


The analogy is poor. There's nothing irrational about a baby being taken to term and parents raising the baby to adulthood. It's something many people pursue at some point in their lives. Leads to survival of the species.

A better analogy might be towards starting a business, where there's the possibility of enjoyment and profit, and also the possibility that you'll lose money or be sued for something the business does.
   1116. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 09, 2013 at 04:21 PM (#4366157)
I accidentally break your arm swinging a baseball bat. I should be under some obligation to pay for your medical bills due to the accident. Should you not seek treatment, as you are under no duty to, should I be responsible for your financial support because you lost your job as a professional musician because your arm no longer functions because you did not seek treatment?
In addition to Jay's point, the money is not for the house owner or the musician. It's for the child. The child is the one to whom both parents bear responsibility. Analogies without a child in them can't account for this.
   1117. McCoy Posted: February 09, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4366164)
Analogies without a child in them can't account for this.

There is no child until a mother chooses to have a child. That. Is. The. Point.
   1118. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 09, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4366177)
I accidentally break your arm swinging a baseball bat. I should be under some obligation to pay for your medical bills due to the accident. Should you not seek treatment, as you are under no duty to, should I be responsible for your financial support because you lost your job as a professional musician because your arm no longer functions because you did not seek treatment?


I think this is the most accurate analogy to date, but it needs to account for an understanding in advance that procreation was not the aim, and was not desired. Not quite sure yet how to work that in and, on re-reading, I'm not quite sure an accidental arm breaking is the best metaphor for condom failure.

The analogy is poor. There's nothing irrational about a baby being taken to term and parents raising the baby to adulthood.


There's a lot that's irrational about taking a zygote (it's not "a baby" if it has to be taken to term, as per the description) to term when a woman knows the sperm donor did not want a baby, when she knows the condom failed, and when she is unable to support her child without resorting to the scarcely veiled threat of imprisonment.***

Let's face it--any woman who brings a zygote to term, knowing full well the sperm donor had zero interest in fathering a child with her, zero interest in raising a child with her, and was careful in his choice of birth control consistent with that absence of interest, is irresponsible beyond measure to bring a child into the world under those circumstances, especially knowing full well she'll need to force the sperm donor under "child support" enforcement's threat of imprisonment to subsidize for 18 to 21 years her decision to have a child. If a sperm donor who cannot meet his imposed financial obligation is a "deadbeat dad", surely the woman who lets her child down in each of these essential regards is significantly worse. Let's call her, a "scumbag mom".

The issue needs to be completely reframed. The current language used to describe it is Orwellian.

In addition to Jay's point, the money is not for the house owner or the musician. It's for the child. The child is the one to whom both parents bear responsibility. Analogies without a child in them can't account for this.


McCoy is right, of course. The money is not for the house owner, or the musician, or even the child, as there is no child. The money goes to subsidize a woman's decision to have a child. There is no child to whom a parent owes responsibility. Analogies without a child in them are precisely to the point. Analogies with a child in them miss the point entirely.

It would be a hell of a lot more interesting if even one of the Children First crowd would risk the hide of their sacred cow and talk about the extent of a child's rights. Also, since we're talking zygotes--who have no inalienable rights in their schema; in fact, they have rights only as the woman chooses to confer those rights--what about all the children men want to have and don't because once they ejaculate they apparently surrender all reproductive rights to a woman, even a woman they've taken precations with; even a woman with whom they've agreed neither wants a child?

Questions for a stats guy: how many pregnancies can we expect in the U.S., assuming the proper use of condoms? I'm interested in broadening a discussion that went stale in some regards, and it would be interesting to know how many pregnancies at the extreme end (complete male contraceptive responsibility, full disclosure of disinterest, condom failure) we're talking about.

***On any given day, 50,000 people are in jail for not being able to continuously for two decades subsidize a woman's decision to have a child (thought that's admittedly overbroad. Some are surely in prison despite having wholeheartedly wanted the pregnancy to continue, and could not pay, and could not navigate labyrinthine support hearings necessary to the modification of an award). And, no, this is not at all comparable to the claim that taxes are collected at gunpoint. The assumption of the duties and rights of citizenship that are held to occur at birth are not the equivalent of an ejaculation causing the surrender of a man's financial and reproductive rights.

Why do we grant a given woman more power than the Catholic Church wants for itself, anyway?
   1119. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 09, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4366184)
McCoy is right, of course. The money is not for the house owner, or the musician, or even the child, as there is no child. The money goes to subsidize a woman's decision to have a child.
No, the money is for the child. Child support payments are structured to support the child. The fact that women's rights to bodily autonomy give them the legal and moral option to end the pregnancy before the child is born doesn't change the fact that once the child is born, its parents have legal and moral responsibilities to him or her.
   1120. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 09, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4366187)
Speaking of drone attacks, if anyone hasn't seen the State Department's White Paper titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Organization Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force", it can be found (stupidly stamped over in places by "NBC News") at

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

If anyone has a link to an unobstructed copy, by all means add it here.
   1121. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 09, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4366188)
The fact that women's rights to bodily autonomy give them the legal and moral option to end the pregnancy before the child is born...


To clarify, at what point during the pregnancy did the fetus become a chld? I've also never heard the phrase, a "moral option to end the pregnancy before the child is born..." Does that originate with you?
   1122. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 09, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4366190)
I guess it's not the most felicitous phrasing, but I didn't mean to refer to the fetus inside the woman's body as a "child", and I don't think that's the best reading of what I wrote. The phrase "a child is born" is entirely normal English. A woman's right to bodily autonomy gives her the option of ending a pregnancy before that event occurs.
   1123. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4366208)
I guess it's not the most felicitous phrasing, but I didn't mean to refer to the fetus inside the woman's body as a "child", and I don't think that's the best reading of what I wrote. The phrase "a child is born" is entirely normal English. A woman's right to bodily autonomy gives her the option of ending a pregnancy before that event occurs.

It's clearly sometimes considered a child, e.g. when a woman miscarries, or when an assailant causes the death of an unborn child.
   1124. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4366225)
The woman by law is the last decider as to whether a child should be allowed to come into being. The man, legally, has no veto or trump rights as to this ability to make the last decision affecting the fetus. It's, to coin a phrase, entirely her baby. The law does not even recognize that she could be held to a contract in derogation of that right. Should she contract, she could later breach that contract with impunity, and the law would not hold her to the obligations she undertook in the contract.

To continue the tradition of outrageously humorous analogies, it's like when a seed from a tree on your property is blown onto your neighbor's property. The neighbor can uproot the resulting sapling or not, and solely at her will; you have nothing to say about that, and you cannot trespass onto that neighbor's property to commandeer the resulting sapling, or even care for it without the neighbor's okay: the care and feeding and grooming of that tree is entirely the neighbor's responsibility--in fact, her power over that tree is plenary. Now, under existing law, you and that neighbor can come to arrangements, before, during, or after the "birth" of the tree, but duties can not be imposed unilaterally on you without your consent.

It's different with the human baby (and the fetus it was), though, and the woman (neighbor's) rights. But not as to the male neighbor. Why? Because we apply a regime of law under a host of cultural assumptions about clearly outmoded takes on institutions and relationships one new way as to mothers and their issue but the same old way when it comes to males now left neutered as to authority but responsible as to obligations. We have changed in our attitudes about fetuses, babies, and mothers. As to fathers, though, it's the same old conventions, the same old slamming and slandering.
   1125. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4366227)
As to fathers, though, it's the same old conventions, the same old slamming and slandering.

No one is slamming or slandering fathers; just those fathers that abandon their children.
   1126. CrosbyBird Posted: February 09, 2013 at 07:17 PM (#4366228)
Let's face it--any woman who brings a zygote to term, knowing full well the sperm donor had zero interest in fathering a child with her, zero interest in raising a child with her, and was careful in his choice of birth control consistent with that absence of interest, is irresponsible beyond measure to bring a child into the world under those circumstances, especially knowing full well she'll need to force the sperm donor under "child support" enforcement's threat of imprisonment to subsidize for 18 to 21 years her decision to have a child.

You're making it sound like "bringing a zygote to term" is some sort of positive act. She's choosing not to undergo a medical procedure, a procedure that offers the risk of societal, physical, and emotional consequences. I'm pretty solidly pro-choice, but abortion isn't the excision of a tumor. It doesn't have to be an actual child to represent an undesirable goal; a potential child has value even if it does not rise to the value that demands protection over the woman's bodily autonomy.

I do not think it is morally appropriate for a woman to compel a man to provide economic or emotional support to a child that he clearly did not want, but I also do not think it is morally appropriate for a man to resist providing economic and emotional support to a child that is biologically his. The law shouldn't be about doing the right thing by either parent, but about doing what is right for the child, since the child cannot care for itself and without parental support, will become the responsibility of society. Once the child is born, the rights available to the parents in the past no longer apply in the same way: the child changes the moral framework.

I don't believe in jail time for unpaid support for the same reason that I don't believe in debtor's prisons generally. A bankruptcy-free draw on one's income until the debt and reasonable interest is paid is sufficient; if someone manages to escape obligation even with this, society picks up the slack.
   1127. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 09, 2013 at 07:33 PM (#4366233)
I co-sign CB's #1126. All very well stated. (I will say that crimes related to child support non-payment could reasonably lead to incarceration - fraud if you're hiding money, contempt of court if you're refusing a summons - but I agree that simple felony non-payment of debt is bad law.)
   1128. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 07:56 PM (#4366241)
No one is slamming or slandering fathers; just those fathers that abandon their children.


Yes you are when you assume the old paradigm still applies, and still only applies, to him. Everything always changes--except for the rule that no matter what a man is always responsible, and cannot eschew that responsibility, not even when his role is not only gutted and made all but perfunctory.
   1129. Perro(s) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 07:57 PM (#4366242)
If you don't want a baby, best keep it out of a fertile woman's vagina.
   1130. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 08:06 PM (#4366245)
Yes you are when you assume the old paradigm still applies, and still only applies, to him. Everything always changes--except for the rule that no matter what a man is always responsible, and cannot eschew that responsibility, not even when his role is not only gutted and made all but perfunctory.

And the mother can't eschew her responsibility either. If she abandons her child she is subject to exactly the same child support laws, and societal disapproval as the man.

The reality is, however, relatively few women abandon their children, awhile many, many men seek to.
   1131. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4366250)
Yes, she can; she can abort at will.

   1132. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4366253)
If you don't want a baby, best keep it out of a fertile woman's vagina.


Same to you, vagina. The means to not get impregnated, or once impregnated, to terminate that pregnancy, are manifold. It's your vagina. Own it. Assume responsibility for what can happen to your body through your voluntary actions and take all precautions and avail yourself of all remedies you think it advisable. It's your body. It happened to your body. You now have ways to deal with it.

Now, where does that leave us? Oh, I know, it's still his fault. Because way back there he could have simply refrained from sex. For how many thousands, millions if we count non-human ancestors, has that been a non-starter? Curbing the sexual urge is not one of the technological advances. Birth control and abortion are.
   1133. MHS Posted: February 09, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4366256)
Let's face it--any woman who brings a zygote to term, knowing full well the sperm donor had zero interest in fathering a child with her, zero interest in raising a child with her, and was careful in his choice of birth control consistent with that absence of interest, is irresponsible beyond measure to bring a child into the world under those circumstances, especially knowing full well she'll need to force the sperm donor under "child support" enforcement's threat of imprisonment to subsidize for 18 to 21 years her decision to have a child. If a sperm donor who cannot meet his imposed financial obligation is a "deadbeat dad", surely the woman who lets her child down in each of these essential regards is significantly worse. Let's call her, a "scumbag mom".


This is absurd, and offensive.
   1134. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4366257)
Crosyby:

You're making it sound like "bringing a zygote to term" is some sort of positive act. She's choosing not to undergo a medical procedure, a procedure that offers the risk of societal, physical, and emotional consequences.


The exact same thing can and is said about pregnancy itself, especially in the case (w/r/t the "societal and emotional consequences") of having children outside of wedlock.
   1135. Perro(s) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 09:08 PM (#4366271)

A distant uncle passed away and left me quite a batch
And yes I was livin' high until that fatal day
A lawyer proved I wasn't born
I was only hatched
   1136. CrosbyBird Posted: February 09, 2013 at 09:23 PM (#4366277)
The exact same thing can and is said about pregnancy itself, especially in the case (w/r/t the "societal and emotional consequences") of having children outside of wedlock.

Correct. Which is why the decision of pregnancy or abortion, the consequences of which are borne almost entirely by the woman, should remain the sole prerogative of the woman.

Two main issues are being discussed here: the woman's right to bodily autonomy when the potential child is a part of her body, and the child's right to support from its biological parents (or a reasonable proxy) once it is an independent entity. The decision of whether or not to abort is solely the woman's decision because it is solely the woman's bodily autonomy in question (assuming one accepts a fetus as non-viable, of course). The decision of how to allocate support (and custody) for the child really should have very little to do with the woman's desire and very much to do with ensuring the proper support.

There is a third issue where there's really significant room for agreement on both sides here. The man should have no say in the woman's ultimate decision because it is not his bodily autonomy that is impinged upon by abortion or carrying a pregnancy to term. However, once a child is born, both parents should have precisely equivalent rights and responsibilities in terms of custody and the child's economic welfare.
   1137. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 09:43 PM (#4366289)
No, that mischaracterizes, and evades, what is really at issue, which is: the fetus only becomes a child (legally--let's not get into whether this passes a more stringent, less arbitrary, test) if the mother allows it to become one. The father has no rights here, yet an obligation that only derives from her (the last decider) decision is imposed on him willy-nilly and often against his will and contrary to any considerations of consent on his part. Why should her plenary decision, which completely disempowers him, obligate him? The answer: hell, we just, presto, say so. How in all fairness can it? Simply saying it's the child's right is ignores the merits of this objection without ever giving them due consideration.
   1138. Jay Z Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:10 PM (#4366294)
Why would anyone who hates women so much ever have sex with one?
   1139. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:16 PM (#4366297)
Yes, she can; she can abort at will.

Which is a horrifically unjust law. Even Western European countries impose restrictions that the US doesn't.
   1140. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:17 PM (#4366298)
Why would anyone who hates women so much ever have sex with one?

I'm not going to give you a tutorial in biology. This is the internet. You can find out.

And I don't hate women. I love women. I hate this idea of women this society fosters. And I can't really blame them, though, for gaming the system. I blame those like you who don't protest--until the day they come for you, when it'll be too late.
   1141. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:18 PM (#4366300)
What this discussion beautifully reveals, often unconsciously but always implicitly, is our presumed hierarchy of valued beings. First is the woman; then the child; then the man. Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets. The being inside of her is nothing, until instantaneously it becomes everything (it’s hilarious how those who claim it’s a nothing when it comes to abortion rights suddenly do a 180 when it comes to paternity and support—then it’s from Here to Paternity; she has an optout for months, he has one slim chance—in the face of biological imperative). Of course, it becomes everything only when she lets it, and then only as to him—never her. She has the entire weight of society’s concern and sympathy always. He is supposed to be like—is it?—Steve Hovley in Ball Four: so happy to be here that if society sh!ts in his cap, he’s supposed to just put it back on his head and thank ‘em. He is exhorted to be the model male—doesn’t say #### if he has a mouthful.

If the combination of contempt and censure were applied to many another disfavored class, we’d be outraged. We never have sympathy for this powerless, disempowered class. We just keep piling out the burdens and we’re proud of ourselves for being so sensitive to a class that incurs nothing like those burdens—nothing that she couldn’t remedy.
   1142. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:21 PM (#4366302)
Which is a horrifically unjust law. Even Western European countries impose restrictions that the US doesn't.


And you notice, I'm sure, how your compatriots on this one issue, would be at odds with you on the abortion--all on the merest gossamer-like distinctions, the most artificial and arbitrary definitional niceties.
   1143. Morty Causa Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:31 PM (#4366308)
I'm really more like Bertie Wooster when it comes to women in person: "I mean, women, Jeeves." [gives him a knowing and piercing look] "Quite, sir".

Or this: "You know, the more I see of women, the more I think that there ought to be a law. Something has got to done about this sex, or the whole fabric of society will collapse, and then what silly asses we shall all look." The Code of the Woosters.
   1144. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:37 PM (#4366314)
And you notice, I'm sure, how your compatriots on this one issue, would be at odds with you on the abortion--all on the merest gossamer-like distinctions, the most artificial and arbitrary definitional niceties.

I never said they weren't wrong on that issue. When I think people are right I'll agree with, even if I think they're wrong on 99% of everything else.
   1145. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:41 PM (#4366315)
I'm really more like Bertie Wooster when it comes to women in person: "I mean, women, Jeeves." [gives him a knowing and piercing look] "Quite, sir".

Or this: "You know, the more I see of women, the more I think that there ought to be a law. Something has got to done about this sex, or the whole fabric of society will collapse, and then what silly asses we shall all look." The Code of the Woosters.
So, you're a rabid misogynist? Got it.
   1146. zenbitz Posted: February 09, 2013 at 10:43 PM (#4366317)
It's criminal
There ought to be a law
criminal
There ought to be a whole lot more
you get money for nothing
tell me who can you trust
we got what you want
and you got the lust
   1147. SteveF Posted: February 09, 2013 at 11:34 PM (#4366339)
Questions for a stats guy: how many pregnancies can we expect in the U.S., assuming the proper use of condoms?


The stats I've seen have the theoretical failure rate for condoms at 2%. In practice, the failure rate was much higher. There was one study that tracked heterosexual couples who were well educated and highly motivated to avoid pregnancy, and the failure rate was roughly 4%. That's 4 pregnancies out of 100 couples over the course of a year. (The failure rates are much higher among other demographics.)

Other studies I've seen have the failure rate at closer to the theoretical failure rate of 1-2% among a similar group of people (1-2 couples out of 100 per year).

Once you start doing some multiplication (e.g. 10 year period with 4% failure rate...) things start looking pretty dicey. It probably goes without saying, but common sense (and math) dictates that if a couple doesn't want to get pregnant they need to be using multiple methods of birth control.

All of which is to say, no person can handle the job of contraception alone, unless they are 'handling' the 'job' alone.
   1148. Lassus Posted: February 09, 2013 at 11:55 PM (#4366343)
The stats I've seen have the theoretical failure rate for condoms at 2%. In practice, the failure rate was much higher. There was one study that tracked heterosexual couples who were well educated and highly motivated to avoid pregnancy, and the failure rate was roughly 4%. That's 4 pregnancies out of 100 couples over the course of a year. (The failure rates are much higher among other demographics.)

Is this a condom failure rate or a "pregnancy occurs = failure" rate? Because if it's the former it is flat wrong at the very start as it turns every condom failure into an immediate pregnancy, which simply isn't happening.


It probably goes without saying, but common sense (and math) dictates that if a couple doesn't want to get pregnant they need to be using multiple methods of birth control.

This doesn't seem particularly sound either. Or me and a lot of people using only one form of birth control who've never had a pregnancy problem are really very lucky.


I mean, sample size and everything, but I'd love to see these studies and figures.
   1149. Lassus Posted: February 10, 2013 at 12:02 AM (#4366349)
Also, there was this from my girlfriend as I was typing: "So what are you baseball guys talking about now, yeast infections?"
   1150. SteveF Posted: February 10, 2013 at 12:10 AM (#4366350)

Is this a condom failure rate or a "pregnancy occurs = failure"


It's pregnancy = failure.

This doesn't seem particularly sound either.


You make a fine point. I'll have to check into those studies directly. I was just going off generalizations I'd read of the state of the studies from others (as regards the %'s).

Or me and a lot of people using only one form of birth control who've never had a pregnancy problem are really very lucky.


Using multiple forms of birth control has pretty much been the general advice for a while now. Obviously if you're only using one form of birth control, condoms are among the least reliable.

Reliability of pregnancy prevention, however, isn't the only criteria at work here. The other (superior) methods involve surgery and/or potentially harmful medication. And, of course, they provide no protection from STDs.
   1151. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: February 10, 2013 at 12:35 AM (#4366354)
lassus, your gf made me laugh out loud...
   1152. SteveF Posted: February 10, 2013 at 01:04 AM (#4366361)
Here's(warning, PDF) a decent (relatively recent) study on contraception failure rates.
   1153. CrosbyBird Posted: February 10, 2013 at 01:16 AM (#4366363)
What this discussion beautifully reveals, often unconsciously but always implicitly, is our presumed hierarchy of valued beings. First is the woman; then the child; then the man.

Not at all. It reveals a hierarchy of rights. Bodily autonomy trumps right to potential life and economic autonomy. A dependent child's right to support trumps its parents' economic autonomy. It certainly has nothing to do with valuing women more than men.

The being inside of her is nothing, until instantaneously it becomes everything

Some people may have this position, but I'm not one of them. The developing life, prior to viability, is something. It's not yet a person, and so it has none of the individual rights that only apply to people. Post-viability, it is something more, yet still not possessing the full set of rights as a born person (since we'd allow the mother to abort if her own life were at risk at pretty much any moment up until birth). Post-birth, it is a full person.

She has the entire weight of society’s concern and sympathy always.

To the extent that this is true, it's not a reasonable thing. Post-birth, the woman deserves no more consideration than the man as it regards the child. Between conception and birth, the woman has more choices because she bears the overwhelming majority of the burden of those choices.
   1154. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 10, 2013 at 01:57 AM (#4366369)
Is this a condom failure rate or a "pregnancy occurs = failure"


It's pregnancy = failure.


Are you sure? A 4% pregnancy rate with condoms would mean that the condom is breaking/failing like 20% of the time, which simply isn't happening.
   1155. SteveF Posted: February 10, 2013 at 01:58 AM (#4366370)
Are you sure?


Positive. At least, I'm sure that's what the studies are saying. Check the study I linked above. (Also, it's over the course of a year. The failure rate = the number of women out of 100 that can expect to become pregnant over a year of use. So in the case of condoms, that's 2 in 100 over the course of a year assuming theoretically perfect use. Over 10 years of use, it would be like 18% or so (1 - .98^10))
   1156. Lassus Posted: February 10, 2013 at 07:55 AM (#4366391)
SteveF, that link requires institution authentication.
   1157. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2013 at 07:59 AM (#4366392)
The "4% failure rate" doesn't mean either that there is a 4% chance an individual condom won't work, or that there's a 4% chance that a single instance of lady and a dude ####### using a condom leads to the lady getting pregnant. Rather, it's saying that among straight couples having condom-protected sex over the course of a year, in 4% of those couples the lady will get pregnant in a year.

"Failure rates" with contraception are almost entirely failures of use. Oral contraceptives are like 99.8% effective when used assiduously and correctly, but if you've ever had a regimen of taking a pill a day before, you know how easy it is to miss a day or two. The pill fails with some regularity because a large percentage of women don't take it perfectly. The same mutatis mutandis is true with condoms - used correctly, the failure rate is very small, but a lot of people aren't careful enough putting them on or taking them off, or about throwing out old ones, or about selecting lube.

These failures of use are common, but couples that see no failures over years are not exactly outliers - it's more likely that these are couples who do a better job being precise and careful in contraception use.

For myself, in high-leverage situations, I've always tried to look at myself like a statistic, rather than like an ideal human being who doesn't make the mistakes statistical humans do. So I am very much a believer in the double-barrier, pill plus condom theory of contraception.
   1158. Lassus Posted: February 10, 2013 at 08:47 AM (#4366397)
Rather, it's saying that among straight couples having condom-protected sex over the course of a year, in 4% of those couples the lady will get pregnant in a year.

That number simply seems high. I suppose I am just Jeter-great-fieldering it.

Although, as you mention, it notes a failure in humans, not much of anything else. In such case the number when accepting THAT seems crazy low I suppose.
   1159. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2013 at 08:52 AM (#4366398)
I'd guess there's some selection bias there. Most women with good health care and good health literacy, who don't want to get pregnant, use better birth control methods than just condoms. So I would guess that among just-condoms couples, you're going to see a higher percentage of dumbassed 16-year-olds who don't know what they're doing, and generally a higher percentage of people with low health literacy, low levels of health care and familial support, and so on.

(Though, thinking about it more, the scientists who study the issue are capable of recognizing that tendency, too. So perhaps the statistics are already accounting for that bias.)

But even non-dumbasses are very much capable of screwing up contraception. Happens all the time. Use two methods, people!
   1160. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4366408)
The woman by law is the last decider as to whether a child should be allowed to come into being. The man, legally, has no veto or trump rights as to this ability to make the last decision affecting the fetus. It's, to coin a phrase, entirely her baby. The law does not even recognize that she could be held to a contract in derogation of that right. Should she contract, she could later breach that contract with impunity, and the law would not hold her to the obligations she undertook in the contract.


Morty, do you know of any cases, other than a sperm donation in a regulated setting under the indirect supervision of an M.D., where any contractual obligation agreed to by the woman that limits the rights of the zygote/fetus/child was held to be valid?

I think regulated sperm donation gives us a useful model from which to work. Here's one: is the zygote entitled to its sperm donor's medical history? It makes sense that it is, but I haven't done any thinking on the rights aspect. Does the zygote have preferred status, such that it gains the right to breach the customary shield of privacy wrt medical records? If yes, does that preferred status extend into other areas? I'm asking you specifically because the other side will simply repeat some variation of, 'when he sticks it in, he cannot win'.

Let's face it--any woman who brings a zygote to term, knowing full well the sperm donor had zero interest in fathering a child with her, zero interest in raising a child with her, and was careful in his choice of birth control consistent with that absence of interest, is irresponsible beyond measure to bring a child into the world under those circumstances, especially knowing full well she'll need to force the sperm donor under "child support" enforcement's threat of imprisonment to subsidize for 18 to 21 years her decision to have a child.

You're making it sound like "bringing a zygote to term" is some sort of positive act. She's choosing not to undergo a medical procedure, a procedure that offers the risk of societal, physical, and emotional consequences.


And in that range of risk and consequences, it differs from remaining pregnant and giving birth how, exactly? Abottion is safer than going to term, it is less physically dangerous, there are serious societal consequences to single motherhood, and as any single mom will tell you, trying to find a partner while raising a small child is much more difficult. In short, to paraphrase, she is choosing to undergo a process, a process that guarantees an increased risk of societal, physical, and emotional consequences. Follow up studies show that very, very few women have the sort of severe regret after abortion that you're implying.

@1126:
I don't believe in jail time for unpaid support for the same reason that I don't believe in debtor's prisons generally. A bankruptcy-free draw on one's income until the debt and reasonable interest is paid is sufficient; if someone manages to escape obligation even with this, society picks up the slack.


Sensible. You may know that child support, or subsidizing a woman's decision to have a child, is called 'the last debtors' prison', and that the vast majority of unpaid child support follows from depleted circumstances (illness, unemployment in a bad economy, disability) rather than abandonment. Attorney friends who practice in family court (I used to play poker with a couple, so sss and all that) tell me appeals of awards based on changed circumstances are routinely turned down in order to spur the appellant to 'get a job', or 'get healthy'. Indigent defendants are often unable to figure out the arcane rules involved in appealing, cannot afford legal assistance, and this is not the kind of thing free legal services ever help with. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled there's no right to counsel for defendants facing prison as a result of overdue support; instead, the Court has chosen to entrust individual states to look after defendents' rights. Good thing they didn't take the same approach during the civil rights era.

Lastly, to show how bizarre enforcement has gotten, the first recourses for states for falling behind in support payments are suspension of drivers' licenses and professional licenses.

@1141: brilliant.

Steve--thanks for looking into the numbers. Any idea how many pregnancies, total, annually, are the result of condom failure, or how that might be calculated?

--------------------------


@1138: Dunno, Jay: Why do you have sex with women, when you clearly hate them so much, what with having so much contempt for their ability to make critical decisions and take responsibility for those decisions?

It's a preference. The other side prefers the deadbeat to have unfettered use of his money.


snaps, when you get nasty, do you prefer being told to fuck off directly, or would you rather something more evocative, but no less offensive than the cheap, unjustified shot you took, like "regardless of how much you suck up to women here, they're still not going to have sex with you, loser"?

In short, tone it down, guys. It should be possible on a baseball stats site to have a reasoned discussion even of an issue such as this one.
   1161. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 10, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4366416)
One reason to change current law is because it simply rewards duplicity. One need not be remotely paranoid to understand how many women become pregant intentionally without fully consulting their partners in order to know the current system incentivizes that behavior.

I know of very few instances of likely sabotage of birth control, but I've been shocked over the years by how many woman have admitted to me that they stopped taking birth control with the specific aim of getting pregnant, and did so either without consulting with their partners, or with the full knowledge their partners would have vehemnently disagreed.

Hypothetical: Five years from now a condom is invented that a man can use that is indistinguishable from a conventional condom. It allows him to painlessly extract an egg during intercourse from the woman. The man fertilizes the egg and with his Grow-A-Kid Kit brings the fetus to term. He then goes to court and wins weekly child support for this child, good for the next twenty-one years and including partial college tuition, and any and all unusual medical care.

Okay, or not?
   1162. Lassus Posted: February 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4366424)
One need not be remotely paranoid to understand how many women become pregant intentionally without fully consulting their partners in order to know the current system incentivizes that behavior.

In your honest opinion, how many?

I mean, it's just an odd statement. I'm not paramoid, but I think that statement of yours goes past remotely and into certainly.
   1163. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4366428)
Do you really want to hear more of Jack Carter's opinions about women? Hasn't this thread been more than enough? I already feel like I need a shower.
   1164. Jay Z Posted: February 10, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4366524)
@1138: Dunno, Jay: Why do you have sex with women, when you clearly hate them so much, what with having so much contempt for their ability to make critical decisions and take responsibility for those decisions?


I took 100% responsibility for any sex acts I participated in. For me, that meant I really held back until I was sure I could deal with the worst case scenarios. Sex acts are 100% the responsibility of both partners. In your world the consequences of sex acts are 100% on the female and 0% on the male. In your world, the male has no incentive to wear a condom. Or if he wears one, he can tamper with it if he wants to spread his seed since he faces no financial repercussions.
   1165. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 10, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4366527)
In your world, the male has no incentive to wear a condom. Or if he wears one, he can tamper with it if he wants to spread his seed since he faces no financial repercussions.


Wouldn't such a system be a boon for low-status males?
   1166. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4366549)
I took 100% responsibility for any sex acts I participated in. For me, that meant I really held back until I was sure I could deal with the worst case scenarios. Sex acts are 100% the responsibility of both partners. In your world the consequences of sex acts are 100% on the female and 0% on the male. In your world, the male has no incentive to wear a condom. Or if he wears one, he can tamper with it if he wants to spread his seed since he faces no financial repercussions.

hundreds and hundreds of posts and the other side still doesn't understand what they are arguing against.


Anyway, as the data shows the majority of unpaid child support comes from "deadbeat dads" who simply don't have the money to give to the child or who don't care about the consequences of not paying child support. So it is beyond silly to think that child support truly is an incentive to wear a condom. If you want to talk about the real world then let's talk about reality.
   1167. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 10, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4366562)
Anyway, as the data shows the majority of unpaid child support comes from "deadbeat dads" who simply don't have the money to give to the child or who don't care about the consequences of not paying child support. So it is beyond silly to think that child support truly is an incentive to wear a condom. If you want to talk about the real world then let's talk about reality.

Fine. Then view it as a punishment for anti-social behavior.
   1168. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 04:13 PM (#4366589)
Fine. Then view it as a punishment for anti-social behavior.

Punishment for whom? Taxpayers?
   1169. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4366602)
Let us say that two people hook up and a pregnancy results from that union. The two people go on their seperate ways and a child is born. The mother asks for and gets child support. Now then is the mother under any obligation to contribute money towards the raising of the child? Does she have to pay child support or does she simply have to "raise" the child? What is her incentive to work and earn money so that the child can be raised properly? Why isn't she a deadbeat mom if she fails to get a job and can't afford to support her child?
   1170. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 10, 2013 at 04:25 PM (#4366604)
What is her incentive to work and earn money so that the child can be raised properly?

What's her incentive to work if day care costs more than what she's making on her job?
   1171. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2013 at 04:28 PM (#4366606)
If a custodial parent neglects to provide nutrition, shelter, supervision, or emotional support to the child, that's a very serious crime with significant jail time that can result.
   1172. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 10, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4366608)
Punishment for whom? Taxpayers?

Punishment for conceiving a child you plan to abandon.
   1173. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 10, 2013 at 04:31 PM (#4366611)
Let us say that two people hook up and a pregnancy results from that union. The two people go on their seperate ways and a child is born. The mother asks for and gets child support. Now then is the mother under any obligation to contribute money towards the raising of the child? Does she have to pay child support or does she simply have to "raise" the child? What is her incentive to work and earn money so that the child can be raised properly? Why isn't she a deadbeat mom if she fails to get a job and can't afford to support her child?

Child support is rarely sufficient to run a household. Typically the custodial parent is paying rent/utilities etc. for the home the child is raised in. That's very significant support.
   1174. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 04:57 PM (#4366634)
That's very significant support.

But not unique to raising a child. The mother would have to pay that regardless of whether or not she had a child.

What's her incentive to work if day care costs more than what she's making on her job?


So she gets to be a deadbeat mom because the system is gamed in her favor?

If a custodial parent neglects to provide nutrition, shelter, supervision, or emotional support to the child, that's a very serious crime with significant jail time that can result.


So if a mother does not work and cannot afford to take care of her child she'll go to jail just like a man does if he does not contribute child support?
   1175. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4366638)
So if a mother does not work and cannot afford to take care of her child
She becomes eligible for government assistance, though with some conditions, in order that the child can be cared for.

It has nothing to do with whether custodial parents work or not. If they fail to provide for the child's needs, they are committing a crime of child neglect.

The idea that it's a larger imposition on one's life to have to pay X% of your salary for child support than to have an actual child to care for day to day simply boggles the mind.
   1176. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 10, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4366644)
Punishment for whom? Taxpayers?

Punishment for conceiving a child you plan to abandon.


Eternal damnation isn't punishment enough?
   1177. Srul Itza At Home Posted: February 10, 2013 at 05:34 PM (#4366667)
The idea that it's a larger imposition on one's life to have to pay X% of your salary for child support than to have an actual child to care for day to day simply boggles the mind.


Everything these idiots say boggle the mind. They live in a philosophical construct, not the real world. They think that having an abortion is equivalent to having a hangnail treated. They are either full time trolls or morally deficient to the point of sociopathology or too stupid to be worth talking to.
   1178. Morty Causa Posted: February 10, 2013 at 05:34 PM (#4366668)
If the mother can't work, or doesn't earn enough she gets assistance from the state in the form of benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.

If the father can't meet his child support payments . . . .

So if a mother does not work and cannot afford to take care of her child she'll go to jail just like a man does if he does not contribute child support?


Women with child get assistance--from the father (and some that supposed child support is camouflage alimony, that is support for the mother) and from the state if necessary, and she'll have a child that she usually wants and can raise freely without the interference of a father present.

Usually, it's deemed by courtt to be in the best interest that the mother gets domiciliary custody. (And even when the father has domiciliary custody, often the mother doesn't pay child support--the real threat of the mother of asking for custody has a chilling effect here, when one knows how prejudiced the courts in awarding it to mothers.) That means that the father has to contribute to maintaining two household and often two families (of course, he should suppress his urges). And of course he has to hassle with visitation, which mothers often see as largesse that they confer at will and whim.

Child support is rarely sufficient to run a household. Typically the custodial parent is paying rent/utilities etc. for the home the child is raised in. That's very significant support.

Luckily, those expenses don't exist for the father, right?
   1179. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4366682)
If the mother can't work, or doesn't earn enough she gets assistance from the state in the form of benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.

If the father can't meet his child support payments . . . .
Nope.

A custodial parent, male or female, can be eligible for government assistance under certain circumstances. A non-custodial parent in turn will usually be bound to provide child support.
   1180. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 10, 2013 at 05:54 PM (#4366689)
Let's face it--any woman who brings a zygote to term, knowing full well the sperm donor had zero interest in fathering a child with her, zero interest in raising a child with her, and was careful in his choice of birth control consistent with that absence of interest, is irresponsible beyond measure to bring a child into the world under those circumstances, especially knowing full well she'll need to force the sperm donor under "child support" enforcement's threat of imprisonment to subsidize for 18 to 21 years her decision to have a child. If a sperm donor who cannot meet his imposed financial obligation is a "deadbeat dad", surely the woman who lets her child down in each of these essential regards is significantly worse. Let's call her, a "scumbag mom".

This is absurd, and offensive.


Of course. Parody often is.

But while we'e here, what do you find absurd? What do you find offensive?
When comparable claims are directed against men, do you object? Men who fall behind in child support payments are inevitably called 'deadbeat dads', despite the fact that most men who fall behind do so as a result of hardship. We extend a lot of sympathy to men who are bankrupted by health care crises, but when these same men, bankrupted, can't meet the obligations of support awards, he hang prison over them.

What do you consider offensive--the description of women who bring zygotes to term knowing full well they can't support children as "irresponsible"? How is that offensive?

Now then is the mother under any obligation to contribute money towards the raising of the child? Does she have to pay child support or does she simply have to "raise" the child? What is her incentive to work and earn money so that the child can be raised properly? Why isn't she a deadbeat mom if she fails to get a job and can't afford to support her child?


We certainly don't jail women in these situations, even when they become lifelong welfare recipients. To some degree we do though, broadly, condemn these women. These are the Welfare Queens of the Reagan era, but they face none of the punitive sanctions men face. There are good and bad reasons for women to fail to contribute to their chidren financially, just as their are good and bad reasons why men fail to contribute. Your implication, though, that we disincentive work for women is spot on--it's a widespread problem.

The purpose of my parody of the attitude we take towards men is meant to expose the absurdity both of the presumption of guilt, a system that criminalizes far too many people, but also to note that women's culpability, in bringing children into the world they cannot support, especially when knowing full well the sperm donor had no interest in a child, is substantial, and probably significantly exceeds the culpability of men in these situations, what with women being the original fomentors of the problem.

It's part of the problem that is hopelessly underdiscussed. As long as it is, we'll be falling down in our responsibility to educate young women wrt their role in all of this.


Do you really want to hear more of Jack Carter's opinions about women? Hasn't this thread been more than enough? I already feel like I need a shower.


Typical Matt sliming and smearing. You don't have an argument to make, so you resort to personal attack, just like those threads where I have the gall to note an accusation doesn't equal a conviction. I'll add only I find your contempt for women revolting, your inability to argue coherently laughable, and your resort to the personal all to typical of your approach to ideas. I understand you don't have the intellectual stones to win the argument, but at least go for a walk until you're able to grasp that my case treats women as moral, responsible agents, and yours treats them with utter contempt. You wussy little prude. It's hard to imagine you even know what it is you're so angry about.

Incidentally, when you become abusive like you just did, can we reply that we find your irresponsible and cavalier attitude towards children ultimately abusive? You're obviously indifferent to the well-being of children, and have no qualms at all about irresponsible women who can't support their children bringing them into the world at will.


If a custodial parent neglects to provide nutrition, shelter, supervision, or emotional support to the child, that's a very serious crime with significant jail time that can result.


More intellectually dishonest twaddle. Moms who can't meet their obligations are never jailed unless the abuse is physical, ongoing, and obvious, while our default position wrt men who can't meet their support aware obligations are that a willful failure to pay has occurred. Once four months in back support are due we call parents in, assume their guilt, hang prison sentences over them, but deny the indigent a right to an attorney.

As for your hilarious claim (seriously--it's the funniest thing I've read, 'unintentional' category, in a month) that women go to prison for 'failure to provide emotional support to a child', please listen to yourself some time.
   1181. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4366701)
Nope.

A custodial parent, male or female, can be eligible for government assistance under certain circumstances. A non-custodial parent in turn will usually be bound to provide child support.


I think the point is that if the father can't come up with the money he goes to jail. If the mother can't come up with the money and she has the kid she gets pity and support. The system is setup in such a way that the male is forced to come up with the money or else while the female gets help.

It has nothing to do with whether custodial parents work or not. If they fail to provide for the child's needs, they are committing a crime of child neglect.



That's great. Now what does that mean in the real world? What happens if a mother is unemployed, has no money, and has no real potential to get money any time soon? Does she get treated like a man who cannot afford child support because he is unemployed, has no money, and has no real potential to get money any time soon?
   1182. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4366705)
The idea that it's a larger imposition on one's life to have to pay X% of your salary for child support than to have an actual child to care for day to day simply boggles the mind.

Are people arguing that it is larger or are we simply creating strawmans?
   1183. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 10, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4366710)
The system is setup in such a way that the male is forced to come up with the money or else while the female gets help.
No, the system is set up in such a way that the custodial parent gets help, in order that the child can be provided for. Likewise, the system is set up in such a way that the non-custodial parent is required to contribute monetary support, in order that the child can be provided for.

Whatever the gender of the custodial and non-custodial parents, this still applies. The focus of the system is the good of the child.
   1184. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4366712)
No, the system is set up in such a way that the custodial parent gets help, in order that the child can be provided for.

Okay, and how does the system decide who gets the kid? You can't really act like the law doesn't look at gender when deciding custody of the kid.
   1185. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: February 10, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4366719)
No, the system is set up in such a way that the custodial parent gets help, in order that the child can be provided for. Likewise, the system is set up in such a way that the non-custodial parent is required to contribute monetary support, in order that the child can be provided for.

Whatever the gender of the custodial and non-custodial parents, this still applies. The focus of the system is the good of the child.

Well as I mentioned earlier, if it's the child uber alles, why isn't the default to award custody to the highest wage earner. Unless there is a compelling argument against it, it should be assumed that the highest wage earner is most capable of providing the neccessary support for the child.
   1186. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 10, 2013 at 06:52 PM (#4366729)
Well as I mentioned earlier, if it's the child uber alles, why isn't the default to award custody to the highest wage earner. Unless there is a compelling argument against it, it should be assumed that the highest wage earner is most capable of providing the neccessary support for the child.


That would have the added benefit of getting lazy women out of the house to do some real productive work. Seriously, listening to these hens whine about sitting on their ass at home nursing and changing diapers like it was any sort of value to society has gone beyond nauseating.

Fight on beta males! Don't let those harpies push you around any more!
   1187. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 07:21 PM (#4366743)
Don't let those harpies push you around any more!

Are we talking about the Yankees or men here?
   1188. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 10, 2013 at 07:28 PM (#4366745)
I think the point is that if the father can't come up with the money he goes to jail.

How many men are actually imprisoned for back child support? I think the number is so small as to be an irrelevancy.
   1189. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 10, 2013 at 07:34 PM (#4366748)
Well as I mentioned earlier, if it's the child uber alles, why isn't the default to award custody to the highest wage earner. Unless there is a compelling argument against it, it should be assumed that the highest wage earner is most capable of providing the neccessary support for the child.


Really? This is a mystery to you?

The child's welfare is paramount. The parent who is best able to care (that means more than money by the way) for the child gets the child (well of course it is my complex than this, with shared custody and all permutations). In theory, sadly it is not a perfect system. The other parent provides what they can.

Sensible. You may know that child support, or subsidizing a woman's decision to have a child, is called 'the last debtors' prison', and that the vast majority of unpaid child support follows from depleted circumstances (illness, unemployment in a bad economy, disability) rather than abandonment. Attorney friends who practice in family court (I used to play poker with a couple, so sss and all that) tell me appeals of awards based on changed circumstances are routinely turned down in order to spur the appellant to 'get a job', or 'get healthy'. Indigent defendants are often unable to figure out the arcane rules involved in appealing, cannot afford legal assistance, and this is not the kind of thing free legal services ever help with. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled there's no right to counsel for defendants facing prison as a result of overdue support; instead, the Court has chosen to entrust individual states to look after defendents' rights. Good thing they didn't take the same approach during the civil rights era.



The correct moral stand (both parent supporting the child) does not mean the system is perfect. However it is morally correct to mandate both parents support the child. I suspect a set of laws on the "dead beat dad" platform could also be poorly implemented, also be abused, also have flaws, and even worse I suspect.
   1190. SteveF Posted: February 10, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4366754)
SteveF, that link requires institution authentication.


Sorry about that. The site does something tricky. There should be a link that says "PDF Full Text." Click on that to take you to the full article. After you've visited the article once subsequent visits to the URL I linked go directly to the article in the same browser session, which is why I was tricked into thinking I had the right URL.

Steve--thanks for looking into the numbers. Any idea how many pregnancies, total, annually, are the result of condom failure, or how that might be calculated?


Well, one site suggests there are 3.1 million unintended pregnancies a year, and 10% of women (10% of all women, not just those using birth control) report relying on condoms as the primary birth control method (in cases of multiple birth control methods, they consider the method used to be the most effective method, which tends not to be condoms).

So that would suggest, with typical use, you get 310,000 unintended pregnancies. Now, if we go by the stats and figure typical condom use results in a failure rate that's 8-10 times higher (depending on what study you believe, I've seen typical use failure rates for condoms from 15-20%) than the theoretical failure rate, that number drops significantly down to about 35,000 a year.

I'd link the sites I'm using for data, but I fear that would only give you the impression that I have faith in these numbers. These are largely guesses upon estimates upon guesses.
   1191. SteveF Posted: February 10, 2013 at 07:53 PM (#4366756)
I'll link.pdf (warning, PDF) to the primary source of data anyway. I'd just caution against taking these numbers too seriously.
   1192. Morty Causa Posted: February 10, 2013 at 09:16 PM (#4366783)
Nope.

A custodial parent, male or female, can be eligible for government assistance under certain circumstances. A non-custodial parent in turn will usually be bound to provide child support.


Yep.

I didn't that a father who was a custodial parent wouldn't get aid (although it will be harder). I said he wouldn't get it, period, and by that I meant even if paying child support would otherwise make him meet the income/resource requirements.

If you think the system pursues the woman's obligations with anything like the ferocity it pursues the man's, I'll call shenanigans on that. All you have to do is check on which parent gets the child support (and sub rosa alimony), and which parent doesn't even if she doesn't have custody, and which parent gets state aid.



   1193. Morty Causa Posted: February 10, 2013 at 09:19 PM (#4366786)
If a custodial parent neglects to provide nutrition, shelter, supervision, or emotional support to the child, that's a very serious crime with significant jail time that can result.


Bull. That applies with much more force, other things being equal, to men thant to women. ####, women can even make their children drug addicts in the womb (which is akin to forcing mainling on the fetus) and get away with it. Or got to "rehab" as punishment, which means she gets food, shelter, etc. Only extreme cases are dealt with, inadequately.
   1194. McCoy Posted: February 10, 2013 at 09:37 PM (#4366803)
You'd think all these people that believe the child comes first would want the woman to pull their own weight and be responsible but apparently the child comes first is simply code for "be a man".
   1195. Morty Causa Posted: February 10, 2013 at 09:48 PM (#4366811)
Yeah, except when it's I Am Woman, Hear Me Ovulate.

The only way the illusion of equality can be maintained is by gaming the system in her favor through a morass of cognitive dissonance. She can do whatever a man can, and if she can't it's only because of her innate goodness, so we have to give her a handicap. But men--that got to live with what they are, and that is mostly creature who have uses.
   1196. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:20 AM (#4366888)
:
I think the point is that if the father can't come up with the money he goes to jail.

How many men are actually imprisoned for back child support? I think the number is so small as to be an irrelevancy.


The 50,000 men sleeping on their prison cots tonight probably disagree.

There's a ton of interesting, sad, hard to find data of an underexamined situation, at

http://purplemotes.net/2011/03/22/persons-in-jail-for-child-support-debt/

The author, Douglas Galbi notes that 70% of those behind in subsidies for a woman's decision to have a child (aka 'child support') make less than $10,000 a year (a salary making any expenditures beyond food and rent impossible), which suggests we're simply jailing those men who are victims of our economic system's inevitable, structural unemployment.

Galbi, whom I had never heard of, does his homework, though he does call 'child support', 'sex payments', which I think is a misnomer, but he makes an interesting case. When a woman decides to have a child, 'subsidy for a woman's decision to have a child' is more accurate, imo.

He brings up a sadly not atypical case:

In South Carlina in late 1995, Michael D. Turner had consensual sex of reproductive type with Rebecca L. Price. He was 18 years old; she, 16 years old. They were not married, nor did they have any other legal relational status. In 2003, a South Carolina court set a weekly sum that it ordered Turner to pay to Price, who by that time had married another man whose last name was Rogers.[1] Without another court order, Turner was required to pay this sum weekly until the year 2014.

....... In 2007, 4.9 million parents received such payments. The payments totaled $24.9 billion.[4]

Since 2003, Turner has been jailed six times for failing to make his court-ordered sex payments. In 2004, he was jailed once for a day, and eight months later, for two days. About a year later, he was incarcerated for about four and half months. In 2008, he was jailed for about eight months. In 2009, he was jailed for three months. In 2010, he was again jailed. Turner is scheduled to appear on May 4, 2011, once again in civil court for sex-payment arrears. He is likely then to be jailed a seventh time for sex-payment debt.[5] At his civil contempt hearing in April, 2009, Turner explained to the court why he couldn’t make his sex payments:

"I just got out [of jail] – I done a year ’07 to ’08, got out for like four months. I’ve tried to find a job. I, honest to God, have tried this time. There’s no work out there hardly for carpenters. I couldn’t find anything, so I been putting in applications in grocery stores, you name it. I’ve got in applications. I have tried. I’ve honestly tried this time. That’s all I can say. I can’t find no work" [6]

Spells of imprisonment hurts persons’ subsequent ability to get a job and earn income legally. Moreover, under typical state law, sex payments continue to accumulate, with interest (12% in South Carolina), while the sex-payment debtor is imprisoned for non-payment. Hence, once imprisonment spells reach several months, serial imprisonment for sex-payment debt isn’t surprising.[7]
   1197. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:40 AM (#4366889)
.

Liza Porteus reviews the data and notes that as a percentage women are more often 'deadbeats' than men. Custodial fathers also work harder than custodial mothers, while getting far less government help.

Single dads are sick and tired of being labeled “deadbeats” when it comes to paying child support. And data suggest they have good reason to be upset.The percentage of “deadbeat” moms is actually higher than that of dads who won’t pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support — 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 — give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 “deadbeat” mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.


This despite the fact that:

... men also still pay much more in child support. The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent.Not only are the dads paying up more when they don’t have custody, but when the court does hand the kids over to dads, they work more than moms who have custody.

While 7 percent of custodial moms work more than 44 hours a week, 24.5 percent of single custodial dads work more than 44 hours. And only about half as many custodial dads get government help than moms.Some dads say it’s not for a lack of laws that moms are getting away with not paying up.Bill Henry is head of Dads Against Discrimination of West Virginia and a single dad. In 1983, his first ex was ordered by the court to pay $25 a month in child support –which he did not start actually receiving until 1987 – even though the state minimum then should have been $75 a month.Henry said dads are often discouraged from pursuing custody battles by attorneys and often don’t like to make waves in the system, as long as they get to regularly see their child or get complete custody.“A lot of men are afraid to ask for child support simply because they think if they’re asking for child support, they won’t get a chance to get custody,” Henry said.California dad Scott Downing has also experienced child-support snafus and said courts continue to give dads the short end of the custody stick. “The laws are there, but it’s the way the courts interpret those laws,” he said.


It also seems to be the case that childhood poverty is overwhelmingly the result of women making poor choices. The NYTimes had an interesting article awhile back, titled "Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do’ ".

About 41 percent of births in the United States occur outside marriage, up sharply from 17 percent three decades ago. But equally sharp are the educational divides, according to an analysis by Child Trends, a Washington research group. Less than 10 percent of the births to college-educated women occur outside marriage, while for women with high school degrees or less the figure is nearly 60 percent.


The sad truth is that these women are doing their children a profound disservice, having them when they are underprepared to support them. At the same time, these disadvantaged, single parent families come at an additonal cost, draining the resources of men who did not want them, and hindering or crippling those men in their attempts to have families of their choosing.

Anyone arguing that the millions of women having children knowing their fathers did not want them--and without themselves possessing the education or skills necessary to supporting those children much above subsistence level--aren't hugely irresponsible is being disingenuous, willfully blind, or merely political. The problem is almost entirely self-inflicted, and the problem does not arise from men making poor choices, or walking away in droves from obligations that can be met.



   1198. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: February 11, 2013 at 08:54 AM (#4366909)
Really? This is a mystery to you?

The child's welfare is paramount. The parent who is best able to care (that means more than money by the way) for the child gets the child (well of course it is my complex than this, with shared custody and all permutations).


I never said money was should be the only factor. I said it should be the default, unless there is a compelling argument otherwise. Are you really arguing that's the case?

The system is based primarily on the theory, as Andy painted out pages ago, that the mother has inherently more right to custody than the father, due to the physical hardship. of going through pregnancy and childbirth. But if the child's rights supersede those of any other party involved, then the correct response to that is 'tough tittie'.

The fact of the matter is that the current system only considers the child's rights, if his/her circumstance drop beneath an unacceptable threshold. Other than that, it is entirely focused on balancing claims of rights by parents.
   1199. Publius Publicola Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:24 AM (#4366921)
This one's for snapper, or any of the other conservative Catholics here.

How do you feel about pope Benedict retiring? Think he's telling the truth, that it's ill health, or do you think it's a way for him to dodge prosecution for his role in the child rape coverup conspiracy?

   1200. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4366939)
I doubt it's a dodge, what kind of dodge could that possibly be?
Page 12 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(235 - 12:12am, Apr 17)
Last: robinred

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: Wednesday April 16, 2014
(100 - 12:10am, Apr 17)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(37 - 11:57pm, Apr 16)
Last: boteman digs the circuit clout

NewsblogVerducci: Overuse of young pitchers fueling MLB's Tommy John surgery problem
(41 - 11:56pm, Apr 16)
Last: zachtoma

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(179 - 11:54pm, Apr 16)
Last: Select Storage Device

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(95 - 11:42pm, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(65 - 11:30pm, Apr 16)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogPaine: Advanced Stats Love Jackie Robinson
(7 - 11:23pm, Apr 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(132 - 10:55pm, Apr 16)
Last: zack

NewsblogExposition:The Jonah Keri Mega Q&A
(6 - 10:50pm, Apr 16)
Last: God

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(52 - 10:46pm, Apr 16)
Last: Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(60 - 10:30pm, Apr 16)
Last: I Helped Patrick McGoohan Escape

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1393 - 10:15pm, Apr 16)
Last: Publius Publicola

NewsblogAstros To Promote George Springer
(40 - 9:20pm, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogGothamist: Yankee Stadium Is Selling Nachos In A Helmet For $20
(72 - 9:04pm, Apr 16)
Last: puck

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.6503 seconds
52 querie(s) executed