User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6710 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
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.
That's not the choice he was talking about. The second sentence applies equally to the woman. If she doesn't want to risk mothering a child, she shouldn't engage in the type of sex that could lead to that.
You need to learn something biology and its powers of impingement on human behavior. Of course, the same thing could be said about the woman wrt to the fetus or the child. Why isn't it? Again, snapper, if you're going to sleep with the dogs, you need to deal with the fleas.
What consequences? What's his leverage? Never have sex? It begins and ends there for you? But not for her? How conveeeneeient. What a world.
He has nothing to say under law about whether there will be or won't be a child. So what's the basis for making him liable?
But he wouldn't get off scot-free. He can always opt-in if he wants to be a father (and she wants him to). Then he'll have the rights as well as the responsibilities
There is an intervening decision to be made after pregnancy, a decision which results in one of two states: a child or no child. The intervening decision makes the preceding choice to engage in sex irrelevant since it can make the "consequences" disappear. If the woman has the sole power to make the intervening decision, she should accept the sole responsibility of the "consequences" of that decision.
Irrelevant. The woman has no duty to abort.
Sure, I can field that one. Tell women to give up on reproducing and starting families or tell men to start birthing children and raising families. That and tell women to be better negotiators since those are the two primary reasons why women get paid less than men.
You need to learn something biology and its powers of impingement on human behavior. Of course, the same thing could be said about the woman wrt to the fetus or the child. Why isn't it? Again, snapper, if you're going to sleep with the dogs, you need to deal with the fleas.
Of course the woman is equally responsible. Is anyone arguing she should be able to abandon the child and pay no support?
Indeed. That's what makes it a "choice."
After contact with the divorce/family court system the average woman is more likely to receive public assistance, file for bankruptcy etc., less likely to own her own home than the average ex-husband/father is. This has been studied repeatedly.
For both of them. If you don't want to possibly support a child, don't engage in the activity that causes pregnancy.
For me, it begins and ends there for the woman and the man. I don't accept abortion as a reasonable or moral alternative.
Everyone who supports abortion is arguing that. The woman is afforded the right to plan when and where she wants children. If she gets pregnant and doesn't want or isn't ready for kids, she doesn't have to take the pregnancey to term.
The man is afforded no such luxury. If a woman gets herself pregnant with a man, the man is at the mercy of the woman as to whether the pregnancy is taken to term, and then has to pay child support based on a decision in which he had no input. Conversely, if the man wants his fetus to be taken to term, he can't have that done even if he agrees to pay everything for support.
She had her options before and after that are superior to the male's. She has freedom all along the spectrum from having sex, using protection, insisting it be used, having an abortion, not having one--it's all up to her. She is the last decider. This is not 1950. In this day and age, she has her remedies. He's still in 1950.
A logical deduction, true for the fist year or two after divorce, but after that the trend is for the man to be better off (financially) than before the divorce and the woman worse off.
Obviously this is not true in all instances.
Right, but if she has no duty to act, her decision not to act doesn't get him off the hook.
Let's try another analogy. You and I together push someone into a freezing lake.
I then have the opportunity to save him, but you don't, b/c I can swim and you can't. If I choose not to save him, you're still going to be facing the murder charges with me.
She can abandon the child, she can kill the thing it was before it became a child, and in any case she doesn't pay child support usually.
And that part 3 is also currently not politically viable.
What I was interested in was the plan moving forward.
Incidentally, you put steps 1 and 3 in place and step 0 will probably take care of itself.
Well, they're wrong. I can't change that. I can only hope they come to see the error of their position.
Reposted because it agrees with Morty's world view not because it is in any sense true or not, and since it makes him feel "so much better" and morally superior to those whiners who want "special" treatment and rights
So, the problem is the court? If we did away with the legalities she'd be better off?
Yes, as SBB says, the abortion affords her that complete ability, but since you don't weigh the fact that she gets sole authority to make the abortion decision you don't see that. You only care about "child exists" but don't care how the man and woman got to that point. So your analysis is incomplete and thus not useful.
Well apparently some of them are.
Some people don't cater well to unfairness and injustice.
I'd be interested to see data for this. Of course, there are a lot of compounding factors, but it's been my experience that divorced people I know are invariably poorer after the divorce, regardless of gender.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research
Here's the first think Google finds. From the UK.
No the problem is that:
1: Women on average make less than men
2: Women on average take care of children more than men do (which is related to 1)
But of course you arguing that men shouldn't have to pay child support because he wanted the kid aborted all know that, and most of you don't care.
The social policy you are advocating would have horrendously destructive implications for all of society, but you don't care, because as far as you are concerned each man IS an Island, and no man is his brother's keeper (let alone his child's father).
There's an old line that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, I have a related one, trying to argue with people who reason from a sociopathic POV is kind of like repeatedly headbutting a brick wall, all that happens is you feel dizzy and disoriented.
And some are just whiny.
But only the woman and the child are made better than they would be through institutional means--so is the intent of the law, or else why have it? This line argument makes it seem as if the court system is making it worse for the kid and the mother than if there were no support laws and system.
As Ray reminds us for the 4000th time, because the decision to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term rests solely with the woman. Thus, the responsibility and consequences of that decision are hers alone. I realize you don't like the world being this way, Snap, but nonetheless, the world is this way. Women can choose to terminate a pregnancy. If they choose not to, then the consequences of that choice are hers to bear, not the guy that randomly slept with her three weeks prior.
She made her choices. Choices that could have been different. Choices that are left entirely up to her.
Moreover, there's an upside to those two points you're not considering. She gets consideration in non-financial terms, consideration which the male has forfeited to her over the time of that marriage.
The analogy doesn't work, because the only reason I can't swim is because you tied my hands behind my back with a rope. I actually _can_ swim, but you won't let me.
I've actually given this stuff more thought recently than I ever have. And have come to the conclusion that even if the woman had signed away rights to support before hand, I don't think it should be enforceable.
The specific change I'd advocate for the man is that child support payment should be precisely that. IE not a percentage of income but a maximum of half a "reasonable" (and yes, devil is very much in the details here. I'd advocate a minimalistic definition. Call it a Wal-Mart based clothing costs, cheap but reasonable food and a minimal allowance for transportation) cost of raising a child through 18.
Well there's no reason to let the woman make the decision, then, if she's not going to bear the responsibility for that decision. Your comments don't address that.
Where society once saw sluts and deadbeats, we could now realize an entire new class of bio-entrepreneurs. Everybody wins! I fail to see any downside.
If you are reading any of the pro-optout arguments here as "whiny" that says more about your frame of mind with regard to the question than it does about the arguments being made. The only serious attempt at rebuttal has been Snapper's argument of "no duty to abort." He is wrong on the merits, but at least he's making a serious argument. The rest of you aren't even capable of that.
Ummmm, no you can't. Nowhere does society allow you to dictate a third party undergo a medical procedure.
On a side note. Do you really find the prospect of a women being coerced into an abortion more appealing than an unwilling guy being coerced into paying 17% of his income to support his own damn child?
Huh? If your wife was the primary caregiver for your children, you're better off than you would've been if you'd had to raise them alone. That's a benefit you've accrued. You've worked longer hours and gotten more experience, etc., etc., etc. The marriage made you collectively richer than you would've been if you were both single people. I can't give my wife authorship credit for the papers I wrote while she was wiping #### from butts, for instance. But it gives me a nicer CV.
There will be a medical procedure either way.
But yes, we know what "society" allows. I thought we were discussing how this _should_ work, not how it _does_ work.
As to whose decision it is, if it's the woman's decision then she should accept responsibility.
Snarks and Snides like this abound in this discussion, and they come from one side only.
Don't ever change, Morty. I don't know what we'd do without your Victimology 101 seminars.
Be reasonable. If the father wants to support the kid, he can. If the mother wants to support the kid, she can. If the mother doesn't want to have an abortion, but doesn't want the kid, and the father doesn't want the kid, it can be fed to wild dogs or something. Free, voluntary association of people (and possibly wild dogs).
But yes, we know what "society" allows. I thought we were discussing how this _should_ work, not how it _does_ work.
As to whose decision it is, if it's the woman's decision then she should accept responsibility.
Well if we want to go to "should", then I say no one should have the opportunity to terminate a pregnancy.
No abortion. Men and women are equal in responsibility and ability to opt out. Problem solved.
So what about the case where a man wants the child and the woman does not. Should the man be able to decide to bring the pregnancy to term if he wants to raise the child?
What about wild cats? Why are you discriminating in favor of dogs?
I'm not sure what's creepier about this thread, the Sam/Ray lovefest or me being on Snapper's side.
Always the same mistake. No one is attempting to dictate anything to the third party. The decision to undergo a medical procedure is hers, and hers alone. Here's the way this works in the real world:
1. Sex is had. Feel bad about it if you want, but sex is going to be had.
2. Sex results in pregnancy.
3. The woman who had sex can now choose to either: a) carry to term or b) terminate.
4. The man who had sex has no input in this decision.
That's the decision tree. 1) have sex. 2) decide to carry to term or abort. Please note, that at this point, there is NO CHILD. So all of these arguments to "think about the children" or "the child's rights supercede everything else" are categorically false on the facts.
If the woman who had sex chooses 3a, the the result of her decision is having a child. The woman, and only the woman, has decided to have a child.
The only person who can be held morally responsible for that decision is the person who made the decision. The only person who can be held to account for the consequences of the action - the action being the decision to have a child - is the person who made that decision of her sole volition.
No. The man's decision to have sex was a necessary condition for the child to come about.
If you want to get into a theory of comparative negligence, maybe you could argue assigning a higher burden to the woman. e.g. 60% mother's responsibility, 40% father's.
But in reality, it usually ends up that the mother does bear disproportionate responsibility, when the sum total of time and money spent on raising the child is considered.
Oh C'mon! On my side we party like it's 1899 ;-)
Also, complimentary condoms at night spots.
And I chime in and mention (for the 4000th time) that if this was just about the Mother and Father this might be OK, but once the child enters into the equation its rights supercede those of the mother and father (We are still talking should, right?).
The child had no choice, the parents did. The parents should then support the child, because the child's rights are not abrogated by a decision the mother alone made. The child's rights arrive with the child into this world.
I believe society should pick up the slack where the two parents together can not see for the child, but I also believe soceity gets to force both parents to chip in for the upkeep of the child to avoid freeloading.
Hey look we were where we were what a thousand posts ago?
5. The child is born. it has rights that have nothing to do with 3 or 4. The parents of child support the child until it is an adult and can support itself.
Funny how Sam stopped before the child was born.
Not funny at all, actually. I don't confuse the result - the child being born - with the action - the decision to carry to term.
Jeez, I said "or something". It's not like I'm the National Director of Family Planning or something. I can honestly say I feel about the same towards the idea of having unwanted children ripped apart by wild cats, wild dogs, or even swarms of alligators.
I offered an insurance solution a while back. Guys (and woman too) can buy insurance that would cover their child support if a baby arrives. Exactly like any other insurance, that way they are protected no matter what the mother does or does not do.
I am surprised none of the "men's rights" crowd liked that idea. It uses the free market, avoids freeloading, and cares for the child.
Outmoded and archaic thinking. A child does not come about because of having sex. A child comes about because of someone choosing to carry a pregnancy to term. This may happen due to sex, or due to artificial insemination. Again, you don't have to like it, Cap'n 1899, but in 2013 sex is not a necessary condition for a child to come about. Sex is a potential starting point, one of many. But the point of clarity and decision making is the woman's choice to carry to term, regardless of how impregnation occurred.
But once it is born it has rights. I don't care how it got there, it has rights and needs to be taken care of, no matter what the mother (or father) decided to that point. I don't care if the mother swore she was infertile or the guy went out of his way to sabotage her birth control pills or whatever.
The child comes before the parents, needs support, and why should society allow parents to freeload?
It's a better option than current state, probably, but it fails to address the underlying injustice of having one human being bear responsibility for a choice made without his input or control, by another human being.
I've only touched in now and again to this thread. I see good points on "both" sides. In the end, these arguments have made me less of a supporter of abortion.
Which is unexpected.
I will echo what Lassus said way, way back: abortion is not nearly as free and easy to obtain as the men's rights side seems to think. If it were, and if we were clearly united that abortion is morally neutral, then, yeah, I think "Sam's" side wins. But it isn't just our laws that haven't caught up with technology. Our culture hasn't either.
I think that means it is good Sam, Ray and others are arguing their points. I don't think they're quite there, but as we move forward with technology, cultural changes need to keep men's rights in mind.
Sure. Okay.
Then you don't care about the fundamental question at hand. You just want to pretend the only thing that matters is that a child exists. There are any number of rubrics for the care of children. Mills need cheap labor, I'm sure. Pockets aren't going to pick themselves. Of course, the best solution is to not have children born into circumstances where the caring for is in question. Which is why we should disincent such events. One way to disincent under cared for children is to remove the "I'll get random sex partner X to pay for it with me" from the equation.
No, imposing mandatory surgeries on somebody is an ethical quagmire. However, as the one poster most obviously interested in practical and efficacious solutions to the issue I'm not averse to reasonable creative attempts to address the problem.
Perhaps the poor benighted y-chromosome carrier gets seduced by some hussy who now wants to hold him hostage for decades. Why not allow this man to publicly admit his paternity and disavow any future responsibility for the little income-sapper.
You collect the info and post his name on an online database, maintained at the state level. Future employers who already routinely perform credit checks on applicants now have an additional insight into the character of a potential employee. Who can doubt that many leaders of commerce will admire a man who claims his individuality and autonomy so vigorously? Certainly many men may *claim* to have gone "genetic Galt" on their hook-up's parasitic spawn, but such an easily accessible resource can expose empty posturing in a flash.
Everybody wins, but the real winner here is freedom. A man gets the freedom to maintain his god-given independence from income-chasers. Society gets the freedom of knowledge and access to knowledge. And the woman gets the freedom to extract herself from soul-crushing parasitism on a male, which promotes self-reliance and ethical growth, perhaps the greatest freedoms of all.
Ignoring edge cases (virgin birth, in vitro fertilization, etc.) sex is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a child to come into being. The lack of an abortion is also a necessary but not sufficient conditioon for the child to come into being. Both these things are necessary.
One has both parties entering into a "contract" voluntarily and knowing what might happen. The second is sole to one party because it is a medical procedure on that person. The second does not invalidate the first, especially since it is commonly understood that in our society it does not (in other words at the time of sex, both parties know the second decision is solely in the hands of only one party).
Agreed and stipulated. As I said pages back, I am arguing ought, not is.
Remove the child from her custody and place it in an adoptive home that can care for it, then.
The Men's Rights sad-sacks aren't interested in any of those three benefits. They just want to leave.
Not mandatory, it's a choice.
We are talking should, remember. And I have been very clear that the child matters more than the parents once it exists. This is not pretend, this is amoral choice I am making and one I am very confident about. It is also one shared by a majority of people (our current laws are some evidence of this). As Ray would say, "I am all in on children being paramout in this matter."
You can incent all you want and suggest children should or should not be born in some circumstances. I want to make sure the children are seen to as best as possible witgh a minimum of freeloading on society.
And I still feel bad for the men, because as I said before (and was lectured about it for some reason), they are getting the short end - but children come first.
Fair enough. Yet another sensible solution ignored by the spineless "Men's Rights" crowd.
Them being born was also a necessary condition for the child to come about. Let's make their parents pay child support. Also being invited to a party where they had a drunken hook-up, that resulted in a pregnancy was a necessary condition.. Let's make the person that invited them to the party pay child support as well. And the company that made the alcohol...
I'm willing to pair my argued legal system wherein "mothers" are the sole responsible parties to unwed births with adding RISUG and implanted birth control methods in girls and boys as they enter middle school.
Sorry kid, some of us have what they call "game".
Suddenly, that gross of condoms I purchased looks like an even worse investment than the lack of regular sex made it seem originally...
Insurance doesn't work because a lot of people want to create children. Those people will just scam the insurance company by getting insurance and then filing a claim.
Is that what you tell yourself to come to terms with the deficiencies in your nether region?
That's your witty rejoinder? It doesn't even follow. Come on, you're better than that. I'll give you another shot.
Honestly, the chances of me hitting something that tiny are pretty slim, no matter how many shots you give me.
But "I honestly don't care" doesn't justify a policy.
And if "the child has interests" does, then we are embarking on a very slippery slope.
Because they already do? Hell, why should society allow poor people who can't afford to support kids have kids?
I'm serious (if not necessarily about the slogans). Get the public to embrace the idea of financial responsibility.
No, it would be solved by more abortions. The phrases safe, legal, and *rare* simply reinforces it as some kind of taboo. Sell RU-486 in Tic-Tac containers next to the Ibuprofen. Bake it into post-coital cupcakes for all I care. Let's stop treating a simple question of science as some magical occurrence - bukkake videos feature far more human genetic material than conception does.
But the comment only makes sense if you assume women were attracted to inadequate dongues, and while I'm not saying this wasn't your personal experience I don't believe that's the commonly accepted belief.
You're saying that a free market for a desirable commodity doesn't offer benefits commensurate with or superior to more abortions? Why should discarding nascent value be in any way superior to fully realizing it?
Precisely. What should be "safe, legal and rare" are unplanned pregnancies being carried to term by mothers incapable of supporting the resultant children.
Even when we fight, this is why I just can't quit you.
Because any attempt to resolve this involves political suicide.
Because society values freedom. Freedom to make many choices. With that freedom comes responsibility, to live up to ones choices. And to watch over those who need it.
Children did not have a choice and clearly cannot look after themselves. Society does "backstop" child care (and the safety net sees for those who can not or do not care for themselves in general).
So society values having freedom. Will backstop that freedom with a safety net. Wants to limit freeloading on the safety net by making those responsible be the (mandated) first line of child support.
More to my point it would be morally wrong to to society dictate such things. Freedom matters. Especially since in this hypothetical we are giving men the freedom to stop paying for their children in exchange for regulating who gets to have children based on financial considerations.
Drew is right, it is political suicide, and rightfully so. Thus I fully support the men's rights group fighting for this.
My eldest was vomiting in the toilet last night, and it too featured more human genetic material, so what? This is about children and seeing they are raised with sufficient resources.
Except, of course, if you choose not to have an abortion, apparently.
So? I thought folks thought the market could solve things? The price of the insurance will float, and the insurer can put conditions on offering insurance. So long as all the parties can enter enter the contract everything should be fine with a thriving market - that is what I hear from the Libertarians anyway.
Said by a person forcing a man to abide by the consequences of a decision made by a woman who wasn't burdened with the responsibility of that freedom.
I am saying your protestations of having game, are nothing more than grandstanding, to make up for you not getting any due to your tiny appendage. Makes perfect sense. I know it's hard when you are constantly chasing the ball, and never on it, but do try and keep up.
Not at all. I have stated repeatedly that both parents must support the child once it has rights. The mother clearly has to live with the choice to have or not have an abortion. Why would you think otherwise?
Obviously this is how they should have "solved" slavery.
Children did not have a choice and clearly cannot look after themselves. Society does "backstop" child care (and the safety net sees for those who can not or do not care for themselves in general).
So society values having freedom. Will backstop that freedom with a safety net. Wants to limit freeloading on the safety net by making those responsible be the (mandated) first line of child support.
This is 100% correct.
I also want to add that it is completely wrong to look at children as a burden on society. Over a lifetime, on average, a child will produce more than they consume. Children are an asset for society if they are raised and educated decently.
Snarks and Snides like this abound in this discussion, and they come from one side only.
Don't ever change, Morty. I don't know what we'd do without your Victimology 101 seminars.
What Sam accused you of, correctly or not, is not name-calling. He gave you a reason, a basis, why he discounts your view on a particular matter. You, and others with you, here continually respond by merely accusing someone of whining (or “whingeing,” he said, flicking an imaginary crumb from his irreproachable mechlin cuffs), or of being a misogynist, a woman-hater, a deadbeat, or as you do here above, tarring a person as someone into Victimology—in other words by evading the merits of the assertions by substituting mere name-calling and taunt. There’s substance to what Sam said, none to your accusing me of only being into victimology, thus making light of a serious issue, an issue that regardless of what you think of me or anyone else has substance and merit.
But at least now when we have these discussions on topics such as this and race that veer counter to the conventional wisdom of progressives such as you, you no longer take off like the Road Runner, which is what you used to do when I first broached them. (And it still gives me a chuckle the way you and others would go off in a huff—not a huff and a half either).
Comment fail. Read what I wrote.
No one forced him to enter into sexual congress with the woman knowing children might show up. No one forced the woman into it either. But once the child shows up, its rights are paramount.
It would also be unbelievably infeasible for the state to tell someone how much money they need in order to "raise their child".
The "right" to bear children seems to be both a desired right AND a problem.
We either leave it unsolved, accepting the slow decline that comes from adding more people when resources are scarce, or we create a giant slippery slope.
Ask a Libertarian. But my insurance solution is aimed at an alternative to the child support so dreaded. Buy it and you are free from child support obligations, don't and you are not. This has zero to do with slavery and obviously you are just flailing.
I'm not surprised you'd think so. Game recognizes game and you appear to be a complete nonentity to me.
I keep seeing this--can someone point me toward studies that have confirmed this?
Exactly. Or to be more precise, it being unfair that the man only has a meaningful say at step 1 cuts no ice with me. There are going to be inequitable outcomes and I think it clearly best that we minimize the hit on the child.
Yeah, you have a proposed solution that would actually work better than the current system for both the father and the child. With a precisely zero percent chance of adaption in the forseeable futurw. And no plan of action to get there in the long run.
And I'll repeat what I've said many pages back. Your stance is clearly aimed at punishing the woman for making a bad decision. With the side bonus of punishing the child for its poor taste in parents.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main