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 17 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > 
   1601. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:47 PM (#4368439)
Cosign CrosbyBird's #1600.

I guess I am puzzled why anyone would think that genetics means nothing and society should pick up the bill.
   1602. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:48 PM (#4368441)
Aside. Joe Biden looks like a super villain behind Obama (and not in a good way).
   1603. CrosbyBird Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:51 PM (#4368444)
Isn't this a strong argument for a strong safety net, and the spreading among many rather than one the cost of a woman's decision to have a child?

It could be. It just so happens that I think there is a significant responsibility component to unwanted children, both in the selection of a sexual partner and the proper use of birth control. The overwhelming majority of unwanted pregnancies are negligent, not merely accident. Birth control isn't perfect, of course, but used properly, it is very reliable; the failure rate is almost always user error.
   1604. CrosbyBird Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:10 PM (#4368451)
I simply disagree. I think you're making the "genetic connection" as an excuse for the status quo. There's no logical necessity in maintaining it in a modernist society.

I don't care one bit about the status quo. I care about what is reasonable and practical.

Even if there is no moral component to one's genetic relations (which I'd question, but recognize as an assumption), I think it's practically certain that people would behave far less responsibly sexually with the knowledge that society foots the bill. And I think that would lead to more unintentional pregnancies, which would cost a whole lot of money for everyone.

The reality is that it's generally irresponsible (assuming you don't want to have and pay for a child) to have sex with someone that can't support a child on her own and yet would choose neither abortion or adoption. I wouldn't pick that sort of woman as a sexual partner. I don't think it is reasonable for the rest of society to subsidize people that don't take the issue seriously enough to explore that possibility. (If the alternative is for the child to do without, then I think we don't have a choice.)
   1605. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:16 PM (#4368453)
@1604 is the best counter argument to date.
   1606. Morty Causa Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:29 AM (#4368479)
I wouldn't say no justification. There are moral and pragmatic reasons for holding biological parents responsible for the welfare of their offspring

While there's evidence of models that don't agree, I don't think that they are particularly good models for a civilized modern society. This whole thread is an ought discussion, and built into any such discussion is "given certain basic assumptions about right and wrong."


What are these reason and assumptions and bases? Just saying they exist but not specifying what they are and why they are what you think they are is nothing. Then answer why can’t they changed, since they sure as hell have changed wrt the mother and the fetus/child. Actually, they’ve changed, in a negative way, for the father. So why can’t the system be changed to comport w/ reality? Doing that is always, I would think, a good working assumption. Why is it written in stone as to his duties when we know they haven’t been wrt hers?

I don't think it has to be that way. I just think it should be that way.


What should be what way? And why?

My position: You can't leave a child without proper care in a modern, civilized nation; someone has to pay.


Of course, you can’t leave a child without proper care—in any community. What’s that got to do with the sperm-donor who doesn’t want to be a father? You need more to create an obligation than a yearning and a loss for coming up with anything better.

It's more reasonable to charge the genetic parents with that care than to spread the burden throughout society if possible. The woman's decision as to whether or not to bring the child to term doesn't have any effect on the child's claim to support from its genetic parents.


Rank assertion and nothing more. What you saw is belied by history. When did we decide to deify this child—a child a few weeks earlier she could have killed? In fact, isn’t he just a pawn here?

The physical, emotional, and cultural consequences of abortion or carrying a child to term fall so disproportionately upon the woman that it isn't unreasonable or unfair for her to have ultimate right to choose,


More naked assertions based on those assumptions you don’t want to go into, but even so, for the purposes of argument, I object to assuming this. First, she chose to do that. Second, the procedure to correct that, we are told by abortion advocates when pro-lifers would have her to undergo counseling or even just talking about the consequences with a doctor, in the first trimester is trivial. Third, even so, how do you know it is disproportionate to the father abdicating his fatherhood and all that entails, legally and psychologically? How do you know he takes it lightly? Why do you think he doesn’t suffer social condemnation?

Assumptions, assumptions, who’s got the home-field assumption wins? Every time.
   1607. Morty Causa Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM (#4368480)

What is the argument?

I don't care one bit about the status quo. I care about what is reasonable and practical.


Yet, since you defend the status quo, you must think is reasonable and practical, right?

How reasonable, how practical. Most reasonable, most practical? Why would you think that? Merely reasonable, and merely practical, doesn’t seem very demanding. Most anything can pass under that limbo stick.

Even if there is no moral component to one's genetic relations (which I'd question, but recognize as an assumption), I think it's practically certain that people would behave far less responsibly sexually with the knowledge that society foots the bill. And I think that would lead to more unintentional pregnancies, which would cost a whole lot of money for everyone.


Society is not footing a large part of the bill now? There was a time when it didn’t, and there was less illegitimacy, and as it increased its involvement, there became more. Is that what you mean by less responsible? Seems then you should be for less of that, not more, which is what you get when you subsidize the breaking up of marriages and families.

The moral component is one inflicted socially and through society’s institutions.

The reality is that it's generally irresponsible (assuming you don't want to have and pay for a child) to have sex with someone that can't support a child on her own and yet would choose neither abortion or adoption. I wouldn't pick that sort of woman as a sexual partner. I don't think it is reasonable for the rest of society to subsidize people that don't take the issue seriously enough to explore that possibility. (If the alternative is for the child to do without, then I think we don't have a choice.)


That’s cute. He’s to blame because he couldn’t divine that she wasn’t responsible; the blame isn’t on her for wanting to have sex when she isn’t responsible. That’s a beaut. Is that what’s reasonable in your estimation?

It could be. It just so happens that I think there is a significant responsibility component to unwanted children, both in the selection of a sexual partner and the proper use of birth control.


Does that work both ways—that selection of a s. partner and the p. use of bc? Indeed, why since its her body and her fetus and her choice to allow it to continue to term doesn’t she bear a responsibility commensurate with her autonomy? That’s the question.
   1608. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 02:08 AM (#4368501)
Here's a practical suggestion, that should satisfy the concerns of all parties to the discussion: Month by month the state lends the woman the amount it would otherwise award in child support, and the woman repays it over time, probably most often after the child leaves home. The child's needs are looked after not one whit less than if the money is taken from the man, but here, the responsible party incurs the debt necessary to raising the child. The woman can always reject payment from the state, which in any case does not affect adversely her or the child's eligibility for social insurance programs.

It's a side issue, but we might also want to establish a 'not interested' registry where, without giving offense to the woman in question on a Saturday night, any man who is not interested in supporting a child enters his name. The registry is completely public and immunizes the man against support claims, and puts the onus for support entirely on the responsible party. It also avoids the sticky and unlikely business of the parties contracting in advance of every individual sexual encounter.

To refine the point, to negate surreptitious, last minute 'corrections' to the list ("Sweetheart, I'll be right back. I forgot something..."), we might decide that changes to be effective have to be made one week in advance.


   1609. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 02:26 AM (#4368506)
Perhaps you'll next discover which one of those two sexes bears the entire brunt of gestation and childbirth, and we can then proceed from there.

Women have been given the freedom to negate and avoid this "brunt." Have you not noticed?


It's also hard not to notice that women intent on not getting pregnant rarely do so. First, they can abstain from sex, as men who are unwilling to have children are urged to do by some posters. Second, and more reasonably, she can insist the man use a condom. Combine with that The Pill and the chance in a given year she'll become unintentionally pregnant is around 2 in 10,000.

2 in 10,000.

So, fundamentally, the problem of raising a child by a man who does not want to have that child, and on insufficient funds, simply does not exist for responsible women who do not wish to become pregnant.
   1610. Jay Z Posted: February 13, 2013 at 02:49 AM (#4368512)
It's a side issue, but we might also want to establish a 'not interested' registry where, without giving offense to the woman in question on a Saturday night, any man who is not interested in supporting a child enters his name. The registry is completely public and immunizes the man against support claims, and puts the onus for support entirely on the responsible party. It also avoids the sticky and unlikely business of the parties contracting in advance of every individual sexual encounter.


If he's dead certain he doesn't want children, he can get a vasectomy. Which I would be happy to pay for as part of any health care plan of which I'm a member.

Besides, your plan doesn't sync up with what others are putting forth. In summary:

"I don't want kids. She's pregnant with a zygote fathered by me. I don't want the zygote to become a child. I'd abort it if I were her. Since she can abort if she wants to and I can't, any eventual child is entirely her responsibility."

Now a woman can decide to get an abortion post-coital. She doesn't have to tell the man she is planning to get one should pregnancy occur. If we are trying to put the man to the same standard, his decision can be entirely post-coital. "Oh, you're pregnant because I didn't use a condom? Well, I want the zygote aborted. If you don't, I owe you nothing." Entirely consistent with the line of argument that has been made here.
   1611. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:31 AM (#4368520)
Precisely. What should be "safe, legal and rare" are unplanned pregnancies being carried to term by mothers incapable of supporting the resultant children.


Just so. If women are serious about not having children without having the means to support them, then they won't have them.


Back of the envelope calculation:

160m females in the U.S.
50m of child bearing age.
45m are heterosexual.
36m are sexually active.
27m would prefer not to have children in a given year.

If all of those 27m take The Pill (or other, 99% effective contraception) and require the use of condoms, the number of unintentional pregnancies are around 2 per 10,000, or 200 per million, or 5,400 total among the 27m women who do not wish to become pregnant.

5,400 unwanted pregnancies, per year, total.



Did someone say something about somebody forcing someone to do something?

.
   1612. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:44 AM (#4368521)
I gotta say, the loose alliance of Universal Pro-Choice has what has to be the most unlikely roster ever:

Me
Sam
Ray
Morty
Jack Carter
McCoy
Fancy Pants
SBB

   1613. BrianBrianson Posted: February 13, 2013 at 05:23 AM (#4368525)
Is there any reason to believe "Random hookup + pregnancy carried to term" is a significant component of men becoming destitute by child support/alimony? My vague impression is that's far more in the "household splits up, he had previously relied on her to run the household, since she doesn't, his household collapses, and he can't keep earning like he was, because he needed that support, because you can't work 80 hour weeks if you have to make your own meals, wash your own clothes, buy your own groceries, etc. But getting payment amounts corrected to a new income level is between difficult and impossible?

Also: What the hell? I suggest we should let unwanted infants be ripped apart by wild dogs and I don't make the universal pro-choice roster? How much more pro-choice can one be?
   1614. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 05:43 AM (#4368527)
Is there any reason to believe "Random hookup + pregnancy carried to term" is a significant component of men becoming destitute by child support/alimony?


It's not merely destitution, but having your choice of whom you're going to have a family with taken away, or at least substantially hindered. In any case, why are you distinguishing "Random hookup + pregnancy carried to term" from "Men in relationships of varying lengths and varying seriousness and with no interest in a child + pregnancy carried to term"? I'm not following the aim of the distinction.

Most couples at any given time are agreed that that year (pick some reasonable time period) or in that relationship that they aren't trying to conceive. I recall very few friends ever in shrugging, "we don't use contraception and are leaving it entirely up to chance" mode.

This is one of those situations where solid facts would be incredibly useful. The simple fact that the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are avoidable is crucial to know. Iirc there are 4m pregnancies each year in the US. What percentage of those are unplanned? If the number of inevitable pregnancies, assuming 36m sexually active women in their childbearing years, is only 7,200, that tells us a hell of a lot and should have a pronounced bearing on the discussion.
   1615. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 07:17 AM (#4368533)
Jack,

Not being dishonest at all. I am not interested in male victimization narratives;...


Christ, robin, can you even fucking read? As Rickey implies, that's entirely in your head. It's a rights issue, not a victimization issue, and your continuing to insist that it's the latter is one of the reasons why I'll keep calling you dishonest.

Like I said, if you want to answer the question, answer it.
If you'd stop refering to some random question you think you asked at some point and actually ask it, that might help. You don't exactly have a lot of credibility, so you'll have to excuse my reluctance to dig through the thread and figure out what you think you mean, and when you think you meant it.
   1616. BrianBrianson Posted: February 13, 2013 at 07:35 AM (#4368535)
My assumption is that we're talking about child support in the context of children that were never wanted, but the system is (sensibly) designed for the far, far, far more common case of children that were wanted, but that the father wants to be free of now that's he's out of the picture. Outliers are usually going to result in cockups, and it's not clear here it happens more than a handful of times.
   1617. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 07:36 AM (#4368536)
My position: You can't leave a child without proper care in a modern, civilized nation; someone has to pay. It's more reasonable to charge the genetic parents with that care than to spread the burden throughout society if possible.


Not the first time your argument has seemed to me more in favor of spreading the burden than not. "Proper care" when it comes to, say, health, is something you seem to think is the job more of society than not. We don't leave much to chance when it comes to childrens' health, and we're getting better and better at covering children. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but iirc you have an expansive view of social insurance programs, for practical as well as moral reasons. "Proper care" also involves education, which is also supported through a tax structure that spreads the burden throughout society.

We do these things because we believe that children do better when the burden is dispersed. The industrialized Western democracies generally do a better job than the U.S. of spreading the burden; even so, the tendency of modern societies has been to swiftly move from a 'leave the unwanted infant for the wolves' to a powerful social insurance net. The U.S. is at more of an intermediate stage. The Scandinavian countries have moved much farther along towards guaranteed care of children without regard for parentage or circumstances or a mother's dubious choices.

When you talk about contemporary regard for the responsibility for children, you make it sound like the U.S. system is more an end state than it is an intermediate state. I believe it should be the latter, moving towards the former.

@1616: I doubt that's correct, that child support cases handled through the courts and state enforcement agencies have primarily to do with wanted children.


   1618. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 08:14 AM (#4368538)
Brian--not entirely sure how we'd prove or disprove your assumption, but one place to start might be the interesting data on National Health Statistics, from the CDC, titled "Intended and Unintended Births in the United States: 1982–2010":

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr055.pdf

Abstract

Objectives—This report shows trends since 1982 in whether a woman wanted to get pregnant just before the pregnancy occurred. This is the most direct measure available of the extent to which women are able (or unable) to choose to have the number of births they want, when they want them. In this report, this is called the ‘‘standard measure of unintended pregnancy.’’

......................................

Results—About 37% of births in the United States were unintended at the time of conception.


That's 'unintended' by their mothers. I didn't see data for 'unintended' by their fathers.

   1619. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 13, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4368541)
My assumption is that we're talking about child support in the context of children that were never wanted, but the system is (sensibly) designed for the far, far, far more common case of children that were wanted, but that the father wants to be free of now that's he's out of the picture. Outliers are usually going to result in cockups, and it's not clear here it happens more than a handful of times.

Well, I am sure those that are getting screwed over, will rest easy, knowing that they are alone. So very, very alone.
   1620. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2013 at 08:54 AM (#4368545)
Christ, robin, can you even ####### read? As Rickey implies, that's entirely in your head. It's a rights issue, not a victimization issue, and your continuing to insist that it's the latter is one of the reasons why I'll keep calling you dishonest.
1619. Fancy Pants Handle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4368541)

Well, I am sure those that are getting screwed over, will rest easy, knowing that they are alone. So very, very alone.


I'm actually not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape over what robin said. You feel like people are being denied their rights. People who are denied their rights, people who are getting screwed over are victims, are they not? Even though I don't agree with you on this issue, I do feel that such people are victims.

I guess you probably feel even if accurate, the language shades the debate unfavorably?
   1621. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:06 AM (#4368550)
As Rickey implies, that's entirely in your head. It's a rights issue, not a victimization issue
You can count me as still unmoved by the proposed right to opt out of providing emotional, practical, and economic support to one's child.
   1622. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:13 AM (#4368552)
My assumption is that we're talking about child support in the context of children that were never wanted, but the system is (sensibly) designed for the far, far, far more common case of children that were wanted, but that the father wants to be free of now that's he's out of the picture. Outliers are usually going to result in cockups, and it's not clear here it happens more than a handful of times.

Well, I am sure those that are getting screwed over, will rest easy, knowing that they are alone. So very, very alone.


Yeah--it's not exactly a comfort now, is it?

The systematization, bureaucratization, and criminalization of child support was not designed for the cases of children whose married (the norm when the -izations began) parents split and whose fathers decided, oops, they suddenly no longer want their children. It's rare for married men with children to walk out on their children and vanish simply because the marriage dissolves.

In any case, "a handful of times"? On any given day, as we discussed a while back, 50,000 men are in jail for falling behind in support. Capitalism necessitates structural unemployment. That's why it's "structural". Therefore millions of people will necessarily be unemployed at any given time, meaning x people at that same time will necessarily fall behind in making their subsidy payments.

If you're following, that means the system is set up in such a way as to make certain that y% of those people who are necessarily, systemically, structurally unemployed will be imprisoned for the sin of bad luck. The bulk of the people in prison for falling behind in their subsidy payments had no choice. Those were the people who drew the short straw, who were inevitably going to lose their jobs, because some people must. We might as well be jailing all lefthanders with brown hair and blue eyes who stand 6'-2, for all the sense the current system makes.

In short, we've created a system that compels mass incarceration. It's not a 'cockup', at least not in the sense you seem to mean it, as an occasional error of some kind occurring only at the margins. The burden also falls most heavily on men of color, in rough correspondance with their unemployment rate.

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

@1620: no idea why you're collaging something robin wrote wrt things I posted (at least, I'm assuming--he's rarely very clear) with what FPH wrote, as admirable a fellow as he doubtless is.

I can only repeat, this is a rights issue. If people want to twist that in order to claim the main purpose is something else, I'll object, to a point.
   1623. BrianBrianson Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:13 AM (#4368553)
I spent a bit of time looking, and the only bit of data I found was that in 1986 in Wisconsin, 75% of people receiving child support payments had been married to the other parent. No idea about court ordered versus "amicably agreed", and obviously limit in time and space. It's not much to go on, but I don't want to spend hours searching.

I also don't know what to do with 37% "unplanned". I was unplanned, but if my parents divorced when I was eleven, I don't think it would've been right for my dad to slap me on the back and say "Good luck", and subsequently be devoid of responsibility.
   1624. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:18 AM (#4368557)
@1620: no idea why you're collaging something robin wrote wrt things I posted (at least, I'm assuming--he's rarely very clear) with what FPH wrote, as admirable a fellow as he doubtless is

Well, I was thinking as you were referring to the overall debate, you would have recognized others carrying the water do see the men that you find are losing their rights as victims... of losing their rights.

My point was it's not dishonest to frame the debate as a victimization issue, because even if you don't see the men as victims, plenty of others do.
   1625. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4368559)
The chasm between "unplanned" and "unwanted" seems pretty vast.
   1626. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:34 AM (#4368563)
I also don't know what to do with 37% "unplanned". I was unplanned, but if my parents divorced when I was eleven, I don't think it would've been right for my dad to slap me on the back and say "Good luck", and subsequently be devoid of responsibility.


You know what? I'll bet if you read all one thousand six hundred and twenty five posts in this thread you won't find even a hint of a whiff of a shard of someone suggesting that a child born to married parents--assuming no deception was involved--shouldn't be supported by both, divorced or not.

No offense, but I admit to being baffled at how anyone could have missed the crux of the argument. It's as if Rickey was still puzzling over when the anti-rights lot felt a man's responsibility began.
   1627. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:36 AM (#4368564)
@1624: I wasn't referring to 'the overall debate', I was addressing robin addressing me. This seems like a remarkably unproductive conversation to have, especially with a third party. Let's... talk about something else.
   1628. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4368574)
You can count me as still unmoved by the proposed right to opt out of providing emotional, practical, and economic support to one's child.

Then why does the mother get such a right, essentially unfettered?
   1629. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4368575)
She doesn't. Once there's a child, which is not a part of anyone else's body, both parents have necessary obligations to that child.

During pregnancy, there are no different rights, just different bodily situations. A pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy which allows her to end a pregnancy. This right is peculiar to the physical reality of pregnancy, where the potential child (fetus or embryo) is at once a part of the pregnant woman's body. The right only attends because it's her body.

EDIT: Rewrote for clarity. (hopefully).

   1630. BrianBrianson Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:34 AM (#4368590)
On any given day, as we discussed a while back, 50,000 men are in jail for falling behind in support.


There's obviously a large problem with the difficulty in adjusting payment levels when one's income changes. This has pretty obvious fixes, too, and I assume it's only unaddressed because "deadbeat dads" rank below even "the destitute" as a group capable of exerting political pressure. I can't imagine any significant number of people have a problem with the idea of making it easy to (or automatic to) adjust support payments when your income changes (there's no actual benefit to trying to get support payments out of the unemployed anyhow - you can't get blood from a stone).

No offense, but I admit to being baffled at how anyone could have missed the crux of the argument.


I'm not missing it, I'm rejecting it, because I think given what we're actually discussing, it's a dishonest framing device. It's not relevant to the topic of child support payments, because it's not why they occur.

   1631. Ron J2 Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM (#4368594)
To add to #1572, if I'm doing the math correctly it looks like ~3% of non-custodial parents don't (and an unclear number of those can't) meet their legal support obligations. Nothing like what McCoy is claiming, but frankly far too high.
   1632. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM (#4368596)
And I don't think anyone here is anti-men's rights. Some of us think a man's responsibility to his offspring goes hand in hand with his rights and some of us think the Child's rights outwiegh the man's rights (and some both), but other than snarky and annoyed posts (aka Suck it up Buttercup) I have heard no one suggest men don't have rights or that those right's are wrong or bad.

That is why I do still have sympathy on this issue. Of course in the broad scheme of things it is pretty good to be male, so my sympathy is a bit muted. Still men clearly and unambiguously have rights, but as these things go rights basically never stand alone unalloyed and unfettered, in the real world there are competeing rights, responsibilities, and everything else that foes into a functioning society including both people trying to take advantage of the system and people unfairly penalized by the system (both of both genders, btw).
   1633. Greg K Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4368597)
At the risk of changing the subject when it's looking so close to that crucial breakthrough, but what do we think of the resolution of the Dorner affair?
   1634. Ron J2 Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4368598)
#1582 The Economist had a very interesting story about jurisdictional shopping for divorce filing a few years back. To boil down a well researched article to its fundamental point: it pays to shop around.
   1635. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4368601)
During pregnancy, there are no different rights, just different bodily situations. A pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy which allows her to end a pregnancy. This right is peculiar to the physical reality of pregnancy, where the potential child (fetus or embryo) is at once a part of the pregnant woman's body. The right only attends because it's her body.

That "right" really doesn't survive examination though. The fetus in her body isn't only "hers" in any property sense, since its material is made up of products of the man's body and hers -- not to mention that the man is on call to pay money to support it. There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.

Nor is the fact that the material happens to be temporarily resident in her body dispositive, anymore than it would be if she'd taken the man's World Series ring and swallowed it. Like the fetus, the ring is temporaily resident in her body, yet no one could seriously suggest that she has sole domninion over its disposition.

If she doesn't "own" the fetus, and temporary residence in her body can't be dispositive, there is no valid, identifiable source of the professed "right." It's, at most, a construct.
   1636. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4368604)
I can't imagine any significant number of people have a problem with the idea of making it easy to (or automatic to) adjust support payments when your income changes (there's no actual benefit to trying to get support payments out of the unemployed anyhow - you can't get blood from a stone).


Right now the system is gamed heavily by all sides and in many cases it is fairly easy to hide income. So in principle I am not against tweaks to the system I think there does need to be safeguards and checks in place, because you know some bad apples will try to screw the system (and their children). It is depressing but true that in many cases we legislate around the bad apples, and I am OK with revisting that stuff and making sure in our zeal to help the child there is as little unfair punishment of the men. But I admit I still care more about kids than fathers (sorry guys).
   1637. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4368605)
You can count me as still unmoved by the proposed right to opt out of providing emotional, practical, and economic support to one's child.

Then why does the mother get such a right, essentially unfettered?


She doesn't. Once there's a child, which is not a part of anyone else's body, both parents have necessary obligations to that child.

During pregnancy, there are no different rights, just different bodily situations. A pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy which allows her to end a pregnancy. This right is peculiar to the physical reality of pregnancy, where the potential child (fetus or embryo) is at once a part of the pregnant woman's body. The right only attends because it's her body.


In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.
   1638. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4368606)
Nothing like what McCoy is claiming, but frankly far too high.

According to the stats provided in this very thread over half of all unpaid child support is from fathers who cannot afford to make the payment.
   1639. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:54 AM (#4368607)
In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.

Well, not to finish which as we've all said numerous times now IS. THE. POINT.
   1640. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4368608)
Nor is the fact that the [fetus] happens to be temporarily resident in her body dispositive, anymore than it would be if she'd taken the man's World Series ring and swallowed it.

No disrespect to the work and talent that goes into climbing baseball's highest peak, but I think we've pretty much hit rock bottom when a fetus is being compared to a World Series ring.
   1641. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4368609)
That "right" really doesn't survive examination though. The fetus in her body isn't only "hers" in any property sense, since its material is made up of products of the man's body and hers -- not to mention that the man is on call to pay money to support it. There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.

Nor is the fact that the material happens to be temporarily resident in her body dispositive, anymore than it would be if she'd taken the man's World Series ring and swallowed it. Like the fetus, the ring is temporaily resident in her body, yet no one could seriously suggest that she has sole domninion over its disposition.

If she doesn't "own" the fetus, and temporary residence in her body can't be dispositive, there is no valid, identifiable source of the professed "right."


This is an aside from the men's rights/child support issue. It is a valid discussion (despite me thinking you nearly 100% wrong, not everything is property rights in my world), but ancillary to the current one.
   1642. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4368610)
In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.

Including the part in which he said that there are "no different rights" and then a few words later says that a pregnant woman has a right the co-creator of the pregnancy doesn't have?
   1643. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4368612)
In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.


Agreed. Though I would suggest perfectly is not completely, since there is always room for YR's modest proposal.
   1644. Poulanc Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4368614)
There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.


I asked this before, but I didn't see an answer.

Are you arguing that in the case where a man wants the child, but the woman does not, he has the right to make the woman carry the child to term?
   1645. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4368620)

According to the stats provided in this very thread over half of all unpaid child support is from fathers who cannot afford to make the payment.


Mmmm hmmm. And what percentage of these men have two kidneys, skin suitable for graft explants, or a liver with remarkable powers of regeneration?
   1646. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4368622)
Are you arguing that in the case where a man wants the child, but the woman does not, he has the right to make the woman carry the child to term?

If a woman has the right to make decisions for the man I don't see why a man shouldn't have the right to make decisions for the woman.
   1647. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4368623)
Mmmm hmmm. And what percentage of these men have two kidneys, skin suitable for graft explants, or a liver with remarkable powers of regeneration?

I don't know. Probably the same amount as there are women and children that fit those criterias as well.
   1648. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4368624)
In but a few dozen words, Matt frames the issue perfectly from start to finish.

Including the part in which he said that there are "no different rights" and then a few words later says that a pregnant woman has a right the co-creator of the pregnancy doesn't have?


But that right stems solely from the fact that once there's conception, the man's physical connection to that World Series ring is nonexistent for the following nine months. That's an entirely different issue from that of child support, which is a joint responsibility.
   1649. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4368625)
That "right" really doesn't survive examination though. The fetus in her body isn't only "hers" in any property sense, since its material is made up of products of the man's body and hers -- not to mention that the man is on call to pay money to support it. There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.

Nor is the fact that the material happens to be temporarily resident in her body dispositive, anymore than it would be if she'd taken the man's World Series ring and swallowed it. Like the fetus, the ring is temporaily resident in her body, yet no one could seriously suggest that she has sole domninion over its disposition.

If she doesn't "own" the fetus, and temporary residence in her body can't be dispositive, there is no valid, identifiable source of the professed "right."
See, here I thought YR was as per usual going too far over the top too quickly. But apparently Sugar Bear agrees with Yankee Redneck's Swiftian logic that the structures of property ownership obtain even in the case of the relationships of parents and pregnant folks to a fetus or child. So, carry on YR, you were right and I was wrong.
   1650. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4368627)
Mmmm hmmm. And what percentage of these men have two kidneys, skin suitable for graft explants, or a liver with remarkable powers of regeneration?

I don't know. Probably the same amount as there are women and children that fit those criterias as well.


So you're saying that in a proper free market these low-status males would be sitting on tens of thousands of dollars of surplus organ value which would rectify their inability to support their own children. Well I think I see a path to salvation for these benighted souls who wish only to support their children but are currently victims of circumstance.
   1651. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4368632)
So, carry on YR, you were right and I was wrong.


Now that's you're finally talking sense we should revisit Bolshevik Bud's shameful reign of anti-Yankee tyranny.
   1652. The Good Face Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4368633)
You can count me as still unmoved by the proposed right to opt out of providing emotional, practical, and economic support to one's child.


So giving a child up for adoption would be a non-starter in your world then? Interesting.
   1653. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4368637)
But that right stems solely from the fact that once there's conception, the man's physical connection to that World Series ring is nonexistent for the following nine months.

His physical connection isn't nonexistent -- the fetus is made up of his physical material -- but so what? Everyone understands that the fetus is temporarily resident in the woman's body for a period, but the question is why that warrants such entirely asymmetric rights and dominion over the fetus.
   1654. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4368638)
So you're saying that in a proper free market these low-status males would be sitting on tens of thousands of dollars of surplus organ value which would rectify their inability to support their own children. Well I think I see a path to salvation for these benighted souls who wish only to support their children but are currently victims of circumstance.

People should be allowed to sell their organs.
   1655. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4368639)
See, here I thought YR was as per usual going too far over the top too quickly. But apparently Sugar Bear agrees with Yankee Redneck's Swiftian logic that the structures of property ownership obtain even in the case of the relationships of parents and pregnant folks to a fetus or child. So, carry on YR, you were right and I was wrong.

I'm not sure they do obtain, but I was bending over backward trying to find the source of the claimed "right." I tried concepts relating to property, but they didn't work.
   1656. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4368644)
See, here I thought YR was as per usual going too far over the top too quickly. But apparently Sugar Bear agrees with Yankee Redneck's Swiftian logic that the structures of property ownership obtain perfectly in the case of a fetus or child. So, carry on YR, you were right and I was wrong.

Well it is an either or situation. Ether they are equally responsible for the fetus, in which case the man has as much right to custody as the woman, and as much right to compel her into subsidizing his decision to carry the child to term. Or the woman has prime responsibility for the fetus, in which case she has no right to compel the father into fulfilling her obligations towards it.
   1657. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4368650)
His physical connection isn't nonexistent -- the fetus is made up of his physical material -- but so what? Everyone understands that the fetus is temporarily resident in the woman's body for a period, but the question is why that warrants such entirely asymmetric rights and dominion over the fetus.

Maybe you and the next Pope can get together and figure this one out, even if your alliance might wind up being temporary once he learned of your alternate option.
   1658. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4368655)
Ether they are equally responsible for the fetus, in which case the man has as much right to custody as the woman, and as much right to compel her into subsidizing his decision to carry the child to term. Or the woman has prime responsibility for the fetus, in which case she has no right to compel the father into fulfilling her obligations towards it.
By chance of nature, the embryo or fetus is a part of the body of one party, and not a part of the body of the other. Rights to bodily autonomy come into play only for the former party.

Outside of questions of bodily autonomy, the parents don't have other rights that trump the interests of the child. Once the child is born, its interests are paramount.

Neither law nor right requires that we pretend the fetus is a part of anyone's body other than the pregnant woman's. You seem to prefer the "fairness" of a world in which both a man and a woman are equally pregnant, so that your syllogisms might apply, but that isn't the world in which we live.
   1659. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4368661)
Neither law nor right requires that we pretend the fetus is a part of anyone's body other than the pregnant woman's. You seem to prefer the "fairness" of a world in which both a man and a woman are equally pregnant, so that your syllogisms might apply, but that isn't the world in which we live.

Though when Sam and SugarBear can become pregnant, I'll concede their point and change my mind.
   1660. BrianBrianson Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4368662)
According to the stats provided in this very thread over half of all unpaid child support is from fathers who cannot afford to make the payment.


I don't know what I expect for the "doesn't pay their child support because #### you kid" rate, but ~1% doesn't seem all that bad, really. People are dicks.
   1661. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4368671)
Once the child is born, its interests are paramount.

Sure you can argue that but we're arguing that the laws and structure of society should be different before the child ever gets born.

The child's rights only become "paramount" to the people we have decided are attached to that child. At this time we've decided that people who didn't want the kid and were not given a say in whether or not the kid was born are responsible for the child. We could just as easily say that people that want the kid are responsible for the kid and the world wouldn't turn on its head and children suffer any more or less than they do now.
   1662. zenbitz Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4368680)
- the fetus is made up of his physical materia


Only in the homeopathic sense. Once the fetus hits 10^9 cells its 1 part in 2 billion.
It is made of his "information". But the physical material -- protein, fat, carbs, nucleic acids, etc. Are all maternal in origin.

(source: pickles and ice cream)
   1663. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4368681)
By chance of nature, the embryo or fetus is a part of the body of one party, and not a part of the body of the other. Rights to bodily autonomy come into play only for the former party.

Outside of questions of bodily autonomy, the parents don't have other rights that trump the interests of the child. Once the child is born, its interests are paramount.

Neither law nor right requires that we pretend the fetus is a part of anyone's body other than the pregnant woman's. You seem to prefer the "fairness" of a world in which both a man and a woman are equally pregnant, so that your syllogisms might apply, but that isn't the world in which we live.

No, I prefer to deal with the situation in the world we do live in. Rights and therefore responsibility should be granted to the person who is responsible for the fetus during the pregnancy, "by chance of nature." You can't have one without the other.
   1664. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4368684)
Only in the homeopathic sense. Once the fetus hits 10^9 cells its 1 part in 2 billion.
It is made of his "information". But the physical material -- protein, fat, carbs, nucleic acids, etc. Are all maternal in origin.

Well we can make the father responsible for the same percentage of child support, that his material contributes to that of the child. Hell, I'll let you round it up to a cent a year.
   1665. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4368723)
Well it is an either or situation. Ether they are equally responsible for the fetus, in which case the man has as much right to custody as the woman, and as much right to compel her into subsidizing his decision to carry the child to term. Or the woman has prime responsibility for the fetus, in which case she has no right to compel the father into fulfilling her obligations towards it.


The man has no right to the fetus. The child has a right to be supported by both its parents (and both parent have rights regarding the child - and yes if both perents together decide to sever those rights, adoption is cool).

And yes I am using the ever so trivial genetic connection between father and child that has been used by pretty much every society ever as a basis of parental responsibility. When we all go transhuman singularity on the bit let's revist that, shall we?
   1666. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4368724)
No, I prefer to deal with the situation in the world we do live in. Rights and therefore responsibility should be granted to the person who is responsible for the fetus during the pregnancy, "by chance of nature." You can't have one without the other.


While it is a fetus, they are. Once it becomes a child then the child's rights matter.
   1667. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4368726)
(source: pickles and ice cream)


Link?
   1668. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4368733)
The child has a right to be supported by both its parents

Says you.

And yes I am using the ever so trivial genetic connection between father and child that has been used by pretty much every society ever as a basis of parental responsibility

On what page of Roman law was that one on?

The fact of the matter is is that this whole notion of two parents supporting a child regardless of whether or not the parents are living together is a really really recent development in human history and society. So you don't even have tradition to fall back on. It's like when people are act like 1950's and 60's America is how it always was and how it always should be instead of realizing it was a singular moment in time unlikely to repeat itself.


Basically what you got is that for thousands of years women drew the short end of the stick and we, Americans, decided to do something about it while women were still drawing the short end of the stick. Nowadays the two genders have come much much closer to parity and yet we haven't revisited the issue. In part because the other side would view it as an encroachment of their power and people with power, as we have seen since forever, tend not to like to give up their power.
   1669. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4368742)
The fact of the matter is is that this whole notion of two parents supporting a child regardless of whether or not the parents are living together is a really really recent development in human history and society.


Not unlike the Irish being considered "white".
   1670. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 01:00 PM (#4368754)
Not unlike the Irish being considered "white".

Exactly. So you can't claim historical precedence when you demand that the father support children he did not want and had no say on whether or not he would have them.
   1671. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 13, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4368761)
What historical precedence? Low-status males have been trying to flee responsibility since the first beta hominid crawled out of the slime.
   1672. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 01:10 PM (#4368771)
What historical precedence?

Exactly. There is none.
   1673. robinred Posted: February 13, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4368788)
Jack,

The hair-trigger on your temper reserved for those who dare to question you on this in ways that get you out of your comfort zone, is, as Ray likes to say when he putting others down, amusing. The combination of doing this with lecturing people on tone is more so. Once more: you want a more civil discussion, start with the man in the mirror.

It's a rights issue, not a victimization issue,


I said victimization narrative, which IMO it clearly is. Whether it is a victimization issue is another question, but you and your buddies (go back and check Causa's posts, if you want some examples) are certainly framing it as such. But leaving that aside, the question was simple and straightforward: what changes that might be politically feasible would you like to see made to the family law system? Politics, as the cliche goes, is the art of the possible.
   1674. Ron J2 Posted: February 13, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4368793)
#1673 As I've indicated to Rickey!, a plausible plan for the long game would also be acceptable. As Rickey! has pointed out several times, that which is not politically feasible now can become feasible in relatively short order.
   1675. robinred Posted: February 13, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4368798)
Ron J2,

Sure. Like I have said to Jack a few times, if he doesn't have any interest in that question, that's fine. But to me it should be part of the discussion, along with the anecdotes, insults, analogies, and philosophizing.
   1676. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 13, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4368806)
I said victimization narrative, which IMO it clearly is. Whether it is a victimization issue is another question, but you and your buddies (go back and check Causa's posts, if you want some examples) are certainly framing it as such. But leaving that aside, the question was simple and straightforward: what changes that might be politically feasible would you like to see made to the family law system? Politics, as the cliche goes, is the art of the possible.

Nothing we discuss here on this board, is going to change anything, whether it's politically feasible or not. We are not going to change the world from a baseball message board. So why not stick to what's right, over what is feasible right now.
   1677. robinred Posted: February 13, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4368848)
So why not stick to what's right, over what is feasible right now.


The two are not mutually exclusive. You can put up another 30 posts talking about how badly men are getting screwed over if you like. But based on my own second-hand exp with the issue, the family law question is more interesting, regardless of whether discussing it here would change anything.
   1678. CrosbyBird Posted: February 13, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4368859)
Not the first time your argument has seemed to me more in favor of spreading the burden than not. "Proper care" when it comes to, say, health, is something you seem to think is the job more of society than not. We don't leave much to chance when it comes to childrens' health, and we're getting better and better at covering children. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but iirc you have an expansive view of social insurance programs, for practical as well as moral reasons. "Proper care" also involves education, which is also supported through a tax structure that spreads the burden throughout society.

That's a fair assessment of my position on social safety nets. However, the very idea of a social safety net is that it catches you if you're in a position of need, not that it simply supplies you with a bucket of money to pay for services you can afford. If we're in a situation where the biological father can afford to contribute to the care of his child, then it seems like a situation where we don't need to burden the whole of society with that cost.

Well it is an either or situation. Ether they are equally responsible for the fetus, in which case the man has as much right to custody as the woman, and as much right to compel her into subsidizing his decision to carry the child to term. Or the woman has prime responsibility for the fetus, in which case she has no right to compel the father into fulfilling her obligations towards it.

The woman has prime responsibility for the fetus. During pregnancy, the man has no say, but he also has no obligation.

The man and woman have equal rights and equal responsibilities for the child. Post-birth, the man and woman (should) have equal say and equal obligation.

   1679. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4368874)
If we're in a situation where the biological father can afford to contribute to the care of his child, then it seems like a situation where we don't need to burden the whole of society with that cost.

So then poor males don't have to pay?
   1680. Jay Z Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4368889)
The systematization, bureaucratization, and criminalization of child support was not designed for the cases of children whose married (the norm when the -izations began) parents split and whose fathers decided, oops, they suddenly no longer want their children. It's rare for married men with children to walk out on their children and vanish simply because the marriage dissolves.


I am married. I don't want any more children. I am sexually active with my wife. We've taken steps to make pregnancy extremely unlikely, but if it occurs, I'm on the hook. I can't force abortion on my wife if I don't want the potential child. She can get an abortion even if I want the child. Legally, I'm in no different a situation than an unmarried man who's engaged in sex that causes a pregnancy.

Marriage is essentially at will now. People live together, have children without ever getting married, have one child, then get married and have another. Anything goes, with no societal repercussions. So hypothetically, my wife and I have another child by accident, then get divorced. How is this different from a couple who live together for 15 years without getting married, have children, then split? There no longer is one.

In the year 2013, in the United States, please distinguish the following:

A) a man in a marriage for 10 years to the same woman, active sexually, fathers one child by accident that he didn't want
B) a man in a relationship with the same woman for 10 years but unmarried, active sexually, fathers one child by accident that he didn't want
C) a man in relationships with 10 different women over a 10 year period, all unmarried, active sexually, fathers one child by accident that he didn't want
D) a man that has sex with 1000 different women over a 10 year period, fathers one child by accident that he didn't want

In the eyes of the law in 2013, it seems like they should all be the same. If no sexual encounters are shameful, then all that matters is the sex act. Maybe hookup fans were better off in the old days when non-marital sex was shameful, so they could shame the woman into abortion or adoption. It was decided that a change was needed. Change has plusses and minuses.
   1681. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4368900)
In the year 2013 there is no difference between any them as far as child support goes.
   1682. The Good Face Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4368909)
The hair-trigger on your temper reserved for those who dare to question you on this in ways that get you out of your comfort zone, is, as Ray likes to say when he putting others down, amusing. The combination of doing this with lecturing people on tone is more so. Once more: you want a more civil discussion, start with the man in the mirror.


Considering the near universal hostility you seem to provoke from the targets of your pious little lectures, perhaps you'd benefit from your own advice and try looking into the mirror to better understand the reactions you're provoking. Unless, of course, your real purpose is simply to take shots at people in one of the most condescending, passive-aggressive ways imaginable, in which case I say, "Well played sir."
   1683. robinred Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:20 PM (#4368914)
Face,

I don't feel like playing today, honey. I am a little sick and pretty busy. But if you want to take a shot at the family law question, I am all ears.
   1684. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4368916)
In the year 2013 there is no difference between any them as far as child support goes.


As it should be because there is still a child and he is still the father.
   1685. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4368921)
I'll admit I laughed when reading Good Face lecturing about online manners. The best humor is unexpected satire.
   1686. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4368923)

As it should be because there is still a child and he is still the father.


So if a father can't pay he should go to jail since there is still a child and he is still the father?
   1687. robinred Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4368931)
Mouse,

Indeed. To use one of Face's pet phrases, I appear to have "struck a nerve." But I really do want to know what anyone has to say specifically about family law issues,and that includes Face and Jack.


   1688. CrosbyBird Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4368937)
So then poor males don't have to pay?

Yes, the same way they don't have to pay for medical care or education.

So if a father can't pay he should go to jail since there is still a child and he is still the father?

No jail. People should not be imprisoned for debt.
   1689. robinred Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4368940)
No jail. People should not be imprisoned for debt.


That was one reason I stuck in that quote from McGreer about that issue, when he was saying that he and the mother were communicating and working out when/how much he could pay. Based on people I know who have dealt with it, some type of mediation is usually part of the process.
   1690. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4368946)
In the year 2013, in the United States, please distinguish the following:

A) a man in a marriage for 10 years to the same woman, active sexually, fathers one child by accident that he didn't want
B) a man in a relationship with the same woman for 10 years but unmarried, active sexually, fathers one child by accident that he didn't want
C) a man in relationships with 10 different women over a 10 year period, all unmarried, active sexually, fathers one child by accident that he didn't want
D) a man that has sex with 1000 different women over a 10 year period, fathers one child by accident that he didn't want


Of course in the eyes of God and by the laws of nature, there's absolutely no reason to make any distinctions among these categories. And for the nine months while the child is in the womb, it's doubtful that he's going to be making any distinctions, either. All he knows is that he's in there.
   1691. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:44 PM (#4368948)
People should not be imprisoned for debt

How about rendered homeless? Or made poor? What should we do to get people to pay child support?

Yes, the same way they don't have to pay for medical care or education.



So then what makes a father a father isn't the sperm he gives but the amount of money he has in his wallet?
   1692. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4368959)
Good Face's manners are fine. It's the idea that he would disapprove of someone being a provocateur that's goofy.
   1693. The Good Face Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4368973)
I'll admit I laughed when reading Good Face lecturing about online manners. The best humor is unexpected satire.


I was actually complimenting RR. There is a certain beauty in a loathsome deed done well, and I'm nothing if not an aesthete.
   1694. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:34 PM (#4368998)
During pregnancy, the man has no say, but he also has no obligation.

Of course he has an obligation. During the pregnancy, he is short a call option. The woman has a call option on him for child support. He has an obligation to make good on it.
   1695. Morty Causa Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4369001)
Think promiscuous, pandemic Hook-ups, porn, zombies, and sabermetrics. Then get back to me and we’ll talk.

What I find outrageous is the blithe insensitive injustice of it all. This is as a matter of principle. It’s like you guys on the other side are Murray Chasses who refuse with an unexamined passion to countenance that new-fangled sabermetrics stuff. Let’s just look at it the old way, you say—when it comes to men’s roles, that is. The old time religion is good enough for you.

But that’s dead and gone. Your side is not the family-oriented side. You abandoned that in favor of absolute individual rights long ago—well for the woman, first, then that child everyone coos over if she decides not to kill it first. You just don’t want to understand that what’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and, to mix metaphors, as far as the child, let the hide go with the hare, and, to mix the metaphors even more, if the sow will eat her farrow there’s nothing that can done under the rules, and if she decides to keep them, then she nurses them—boars have neither the inclination nor the functional tits. If you want human boars to play, then give them an interest that makes playing the game worthwhile from their point of view. I sympathize with the child, but I have my interests.

It’s perfect that when I recited way back there upthread that “laundry list” that showed as a matter of existential status and expressed and unexpressed law men are, and always have been, worse off than women, JOLLY OLD fobbed it off with a that’s irrelevant. Elements indicating a woman’s social position in some way may be inferior is never irrelevant. The ways her position is superior is what’s irrelevant. There simply is no reciprocity, no balance between males and females, in this society. We can begin to redress that by allowing her to keep what’s hers—and to pay for it, however she will. She can even negotiate some kind of terms with the father. But she should be held to her end of the bargain, whether she made those commitments expressly or implicitly. Then, and only then, will giving birth, or aborting, motherhood and the family be deserving of being taken seriously.

As for zombies? That’s seems to be the main theme in popular culture, and the same people here who are outraged that we would hold the views we hold gaily and with enthusiasm discuss the stripping of flesh by the undead. Why should children be an exception? It doesn’t make sense and its rank sentimentality. You say that the creature means nothing until the umpire mother calls it; don’t get carried away if it’s taken one step further, especially when genetically (that wonderful concept has more than one use) they are the same. If that’s moot, then so is this. Put that in your assumptive pipe and smoke it.
   1696. Morty Causa Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:39 PM (#4369004)
She doesn't. Once there's a child, which is not a part of anyone else's body, both parents have necessary obligations to that child.

During pregnancy, there are no different rights, just different bodily situations. A pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy which allows her to end a pregnancy. This right is peculiar to the physical reality of pregnancy, where the potential child (fetus or embryo) is at once a part of the pregnant woman's body. The right only attends because it's her body.

EDIT: Rewrote for clarity. (hopefully).


There has always been a child, a res—or call it what you will, but it’s the same. This bit of dishonesty doesn’t do the pro-choicers good. It’s simply that at some point in the spectrum of his life, you can kill it, and at some other points you can’t. But legal status does not change the existential res. Call it, at different stages, what you will, it’s the exact same thing, in a different costume. Why not kill the retarded or those in vegetative states? Because it’s a game with the law. (And someday we might have that option. Quit going all religious about this.)
   1697. Morty Causa Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4369008)
That "right" really doesn't survive examination though. The fetus in her body isn't only "hers" in any property sense, since its material is made up of products of the man's body and hers -- not to mention that the man is on call to pay money to support it. There exists a joint or cooperative ownership over the fetus, not a single one, in any serious sense.


Yes, just like in other instances of ownership of property. Think Silent Partner concept. But if one partner acts in contravention of the other’s ownership interest, partnership is dissolved, and either one party takes over complete o/ship or the property is divested. Co-owners do not have to stay in co-ownership, and after the co-ownership is dissolved, you can’t keep holding the owner divested liable.

Not everyone becomes a co-owner of, or in, something in the same way. One might pay; one might provide services. But to be co-owners, both must exercise certain ultimate rights—like alienation, using, making income off it, mortgage, making improvements (which includes tearing down or destroying). In the case of the fetus/child, the man has no such rights. The woman co-opts those rights—she all by herself can get rid of the property and if she doesn’t he can’t. That doesn’t seem like true ownership to me. That sounds like a unilateral imposition of guaranty.
   1698. Morty Causa Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4369009)
If a woman has the right to make decisions for the man I don't see why a man shouldn't have the right to make decisions for the woman.


Or to she should have to face the consequences of exercising her rights—dissolution of the co-ownership. People keep insisting she should have rights without consequences. But, she can do, or not do, and the other has no recourse, not even the mildest negative one of opting out of the enterprise.
   1699. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:55 PM (#4369014)
What I find outrageous is the blithe insensitive injustice of it all.


Nope, not insensitive at all. Sensitive to all needs, but in my opinion the Child's rights outweigh the fathers. When rights collide (which they often do) compromise happens, the rights do not stay absolute. It is not blithe at all.

I don't get your zombie analogy, sorry.

There has always been a child, a res—or call it what you will, but it’s the same.


Deciding when there is a child, when it gets rights, is an important discussion. It is an area snapper and I disagree. It is an area that has changed greatly throughout time and in different societies. Once it is decided a child exists and has rights then it does. It is arbitrary, but important and by definition the legal status does and should change. Will it continue to change over time? Sure, and the legal status will change over time.
   1700. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 04:56 PM (#4369016)
Yes, just like in other instances of ownership of property.


A child is not property. It is a person, with rights all their own. Not full adult rights and responsiblities, but rights nonetheless.
Page 17 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4940 - 3:40pm, Aug 22)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogPhillies have decisions to make heading into '15
(22 - 3:39pm, Aug 22)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogBoswell, WaPo: For streaking Washington Nationals, runs like this don’t come around very often
(11 - 3:34pm, Aug 22)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogBrisbee: Rusney Castillo reminds us how screwed amateur players can be
(3 - 3:34pm, Aug 22)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogPete Rose’s Reckless Gamble
(2 - 3:32pm, Aug 22)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogDRays Bay: Rays to Montreal? “Smart chronicler” says yes
(18 - 3:28pm, Aug 22)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogA Look Inside Baseball's Ever-Evolving Stimulant Culture | Bleacher Report
(33 - 3:28pm, Aug 22)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogVotto appears. . .and speaks | The Real McCoy | Cincinnati Reds baseball news
(8 - 3:24pm, Aug 22)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-22-2014
(12 - 3:22pm, Aug 22)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-22-2014
(33 - 3:22pm, Aug 22)
Last: The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee)

NewsblogFG: Ben Revere and the Emptiest Batting Average Ever
(8 - 3:21pm, Aug 22)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(292 - 3:09pm, Aug 22)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogCuban outfielder Rusney Castillo to sign with the Red Sox for $72 million
(51 - 3:07pm, Aug 22)
Last: Nasty Nate

Newsblog10 episodes of ‘The Simpsons’ every sports fan needs to watch
(57 - 2:52pm, Aug 22)
Last: Alex meets the threshold for granular review

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(508 - 2:21pm, Aug 22)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

Page rendered in 0.6625 seconds
54 querie(s) executed