|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, February 01, 2013
“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
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4340 - 1:50pm, May 24)Last: Ron J2Newsblog: FanGraphs: Cameron: The 2013 Cubs: Better Than We Think (32 - 1:49pm, May 24)Last: Harveys WallbangersNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1147 - 1:48pm, May 24)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: HHS: Autin: Miguel Cabrera to the max (18 - 1:43pm, May 24)Last: BDCNewsblog: The night Ted Turner managed the Braves (3 - 1:41pm, May 24)Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)Newsblog: Tangotiger Blog: Ensberg and Tango speak on being locked-in (27 - 1:41pm, May 24)Last: DL from MNNewsblog: Richie Ashburn’s Widow in Tears Over His Endangered Gladwyne Grave (22 - 1:39pm, May 24)Last: Steve TrederNewsblog: Mitchell: Pedroia, Cano and Magical Thinking (34 - 1:24pm, May 24)Last: Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney AgonistesNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for May 24, 2013 (6 - 1:13pm, May 24)Last: Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey)Newsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1222 - 1:10pm, May 24)Last: AROMNewsblog: Fay Vincent: THE UMPIRE FIX (4 - 1:09pm, May 24)Last: catomi01Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-24-2013 (14 - 12:59pm, May 24)Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mamaNewsblog: Mariners sending Jesus Montero to Triple-A (76 - 12:46pm, May 24)Last: Crispix Attacks 2: Swag AirlinesNewsblog: Demystifying Red Sox Ownership - What Do They Do? (WEEI) (37 - 12:45pm, May 24)Last: Loren F.Newsblog: ESPN: Forging bond with Pete Rose has helped fuel Joey Votto's desire to be great (158 - 12:19pm, May 24)Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks
|
|
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.
Color me shocked that no where in this diatribe is the welfare of the child mentioned.
"So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor."
During the pregnancy (for the time period an abortion is allowed) there is only the father and mother. When their rights conflict, because it is the body of the mother her rights supercede the fathers. After the point where abortion is not allowed then the child's rights show up and its rights supercede both parents when it comes to supporting the child.
Conflating the time period where two sets of rights conflict and when three sets of rights conflict is where your logic goes off the rails. The third actor, the child, has the least choice of anyone, it is the sole 'blamesless' actor. Which is why where support is concerned it wins versus the two parents.
Co-signed.
A woman who decides to give birth chooses to have a baby thus she gets to do whatever she wants.
Exactly what she decided to do.
Sadly, that is not true for the man, who is forced to do things he didn't decide to do.
They didn't always. And: so what? That's the imperative of her biology. Why should make a guy responsible, especially now as she has carte blanche as to whether abort or not?
And men don't, you mean? I get that--but why is that grounds to make him her and its debtor for 18 years? She has, until birth, all that responsibility and if she doesn't like it, she has her recourses. One of those shouldn't be dragooning those who don't volunteer into her predicament, one which she has a solution to.
Too, men historically have had responsibilities. Like I said, I still have my draft card. I was scared to death I would be forced to go to Vietnam. Know any women who were. And I couldn't abort that if I were called. I had nothing like any rights that women have to trump that.
Not that child support advocates hated men, women, child (or I guess all of them), not that children were property, not that asserting children have rights was akin to denying/inisisting on adoption and/or state rule of all children, no sorry, the winner still goes to Sam who asserted right up front that we were arguing the way we were because of puritansim and in fact that all secular humanist, atheistic, and so on branbches of thought were all at their base puritan.
So if you guys want to top that you are going to have to step up your game a bit.
EDIT: On the flip side YR's posts are clearly the best and most compelling.
Not even. During the pregancy, there's a man and a woman. With zero children, there are zero parents. Once the child is created (and I'll say it's the magical journey down the birth canal that creates a child), then there are parents. Before the birthday, the woman is pregant and the man is just a man - she can address her situation, he his. Once the kid is born, then they're parents, with equal rights (and responsibilities). Until then, how can the man be given any rights with respect to his situation of not being pregnant?
tl;dr - if you want to have sex and not be respnsibile for kids, don't ejaculate.
And then, as Bitter Mouse has continued to explain, when the child is born its rights come to bear on both parents, and both parents have a responsibility to the child.
Your desire that humans have a different physical process of reproduction is noted, but it shouldn't affect the law.
OK this is a good try, but Sam still wins.
By the way no parent gets to do whatever they want. If you knew anything about the law you would know that.
A mother aborting a baby because a pregnancy would be unhealthy for the mother is a right that should supercede a man's right to having a child. A woman deciding to have a baby should not supercede the man's right to have or not have a baby. The rights of a woman should only supercede the rights of a man when it puts the woman's life in danger. Choosing to undergo a burden freely should not mean one gets their rights raised above other people's rights.
After the point where abortion is not allowed then the child's rights show up and its rights supercede both parents when it comes to supporting the child.
When a child comes into play it is granted the same rights that all its fellow citizens get. This whole notion of two parents is antiquated in today's world and will become ever more so as we go along. We've already setup laws so that men can donate sperm and not have to pay child support to whatever creature comes out of the sperm recipient's vagina.
True, and it's also true that once sex results in pregnancy, there exists in almost all cases an asymmetry of physical and emotional burden between the mother and the father. A temporary one, but nonetheless a real and recognizable one.
That said, the assertion that this asymmetry justifies the far greater asymmetry of rights and responsiblities that proceed from the pregnancy, is entirely unproven. Without some defensible proof, the assertion fails.
Point taken. Bad use of language. I should have said male and female rather than father and mother. Completely my bad and thanks for the correction.
The women are morally wrong. I would be fine with prosecution. It's difficult because usually the spokespeople for children are the mothers, so if the mother is negligent or abusive there isn't always another spokesperson. Dead babies don't vote.
Of course, an alternative spokesperson could be an active, involved father. A father who's defined himself out of the picture, not so much.
??? There are more lasting marriages now than in 1950?
That sounds like a backhanded way of conceding the point.
So now you wish to play the pedant card?
Well said.
You really are dancing as fast as you can, aren't you? You're also minimizing and even trivializing.
Let's take something really easy and common: drug addicts/alcoholics ingesting away during the course of gestation. Does the child have a cause of action?
That is not how it works today. I bet snapper would sign up. We could discuss it. But once the child arrives you have to factor in its rights.
Hey tell that first part to Morty. But anyway just because you say it is antiquated doesn't make it so. It still requires to parents to make a child. Society still insists on behaving in that antiquated fasion, and it is because of the child. When there is no child no one cares what the two adults do post-sex (or pre-sex, or during sex).
And the fact there is a setup to donate sperm without liability is fine, it shows we are not antiquated, but instead keeping up with new technology while still acknowledging the default position of child needs to be supported by both its parents.
I have yet to hear a compelling case for change from the status quo, that includes the rights of all parties concerned and limits parental freeloading.
You're probably familiar with the statistics on out-of-wedlock births. There isn't the rush to the alter to legitimize the firstborn any more. People have children any old time, especially the lower classes.
Then you have other couples who live together, have a kid, then get married in that order. I've seen that happen.
The point is there's no social penalty to having sex out of marriage, or having kids out of marriage. So the expectation should be that sex with anyone that leads to pregnancy has the same impact. There's no whores you can knock up any more, there's no homes for wayward girls.
No. There are many more illegitimate births b/c people don't get married. For those that do get married, it's not to have sex, it's generally to have children.
That sounds like a backhanded way of conceding the point.
Not at all. Marriage has decreased in importance (mostly for the working class and poor), that's a fact. With fewer people getting married, more people are having children out of wedlock.
But, for those people getting married, children is a more important reason than it was in the past, b/c the other reasons (sex, women needing a man to support them, societal pressure) have all declined markedly in importance.
Many, many couples date/cohabit for years and years, only to tie the knot when the biological clock starts ticking and they want kids. Marriage is all about kids for these people.
I'm not the one who started that fetus as property analysis. Or that it was merely a part of the mother. And if it's only part of the mother, and birth is the absolute and only demarcation of personhood, why are third trimester abortions under much strictures?
But, if the fetus is not property, what is it?
And if the child is not property, but is a person and only a person, what's that got to do with sperm-donor type father?
Are you ever going to address any of my questions? I answered yours, I said it depended on the context, gave two contexts and two answers. I even admitted I was not 100% sure. What exactly are you looking for?
My questions:
Are children property? Do children have rights?
When do they cease being property/get their rights?
More fundementally how does a conflict in rights between a mother and child (which is basically what you are describing) invalidate anything I have said about the rights of children regarding support from their parents?
Then you have other couples who live together, have a kid, then get married in that order. I've seen that happen.
The point is there's no social penalty to having sex out of marriage, or having kids out of marriage. So the expectation should be that sex with anyone that leads to pregnancy has the same impact. There's no whores you can knock up any more, there's no homes for wayward girls.
Right, that means marriage is less important overall. It doesn't mean that for those who chose to marry, children aren't a bigger reason for that choice.
Actually, the only one I saw who "desired" that was you, in post 1797:
In contrast, what we are doing is not "desiring that the physical process of reproduction was different," but simply that the responsibility for the woman's decision fell solely to the woman, since the man was given no say in the decision. Stated, repeated, and reiterated, over and over again, for the umpteenth time. Feel free to ignore the point and talk about something else yet again.
Why don't you think the decision to have sex is a decision?
EDIT : You really do just sound like you are upset that you can't make a woman have an abortion if you want.
(1) Since there is no affirmative duty to abort, the responsibilities that preceded the pregnancy are not annulled by the choice to carry the baby to term.
(2) Once the baby is born, its rights place demands on both parents.
Just look at him as a surrogate father. Pregnancy is sui generis, but the woman's rights that attach are also sui generis. So why drag the father who doesn't want a child into this? She has the burden, but she has her recourses, recourses that only she has.
As someone has said a number of times: "I think the rights and choices the individual person has should determine their responsibilities." What's wrong with that?
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to have a baby. In fact, I very specifically remember Richard Dawkins in one of his books stating clearly and emphatically that we did not evolve to reproduce. We evolved to have sex--it's so good. And that leads to reproduction. However, now, in this day and age, we can override that end-dictate, and we've left all last-decider power to do that to women. You got the power; you bear the responsibility. Of course, she and the guy should be able to come to terms if both are willing to do so.
I suggest you reread your posts 1695 through 1704 (too many to quote them all) where you repeatedly bring in the notions of property law, ownership, talk about fetus's as condominiums and so on. Through the entire section you acted as if property law was dispotive. I am merely mentioning that that is completely worthless as an anlogy once the child is born (and frankly not very good before that, but I am concerned here with child support and not relitigating aboertion rights, and child support requires a child, which is a person).
What does it have to do with the gestational mother? Why not just have the kid and throw them away in a dumpster (McCoy seems to think mothers can in fact do whatever they want after all)?
Well (he said after asking a rhetorical question) the person in question is essentially helpless and blameless. Our society (and I hear maybe one or two other societies and possibly even other species) expects the genetic parents of the children top care for the children and not throw them in the dumpster. It is crazy but true, but society expects people who decide to have sex to take care of the consequences of that sex if a child is born, regardless of who had the opportunity to "catch the rock", because clearly the rock was not caught and someone has to take care of the child.
Choosing to drive a car is not choosing to kill someone with it, but sometimes it happens. If you drive the car and kill someone it happened, even if it is not what you ment to do and even if driving cars is really really fun. Even if someone could have reached out and stopped you from killing that person, your victim is still dead.
Trolling is what happens when your arguments are roundly defeated.
Not that that was surprising. "Because." and "Tough titty." rarely carry the day.
All rationales tend to be based finally on moralistic handwaving. Reasoning to facts is hard, and never decisive in absolute terms. By being moralistic, one gets to pretend that one is better, that the other side is villainous, and we like that. They digest more comfortably. One gets to eschew facts and their consequences, it's just about finer inborn sensibilities--not rank interests. Uh, huh.
That's right. And since I can't, and the woman can, it's her baby once she makes that decision contrary to my will. If she wants me to be implicated in that process, she needs to get my okay, and we may need to discuss terms. People have competing interests. Institutions are about mediating those competing interests. My way or the highway (because I have the army and navy) is not mediation.
The responsibilities are unfairly asymmetrical prior to the pregnancy, indeed at the time of copulation. The position of our "side" is not dependent on an affirmative duty to abort. Nor, as has now been said scores of times, does the right to child support vest until viability, in other words, after the opportunity to abort.
(2) Once the baby is born, its rights place demands on both parents.
But the rights and responsibilities of the parties prior to its birth are unfair.
You guys want to talk about the point of sex and the point of birth, but neither of those represent the time period being debated. Of course, the rights and responsibilities are unfair at the point of sex, too, since the woman has a call option on support that the man must make good on if the sex results in a live birth pregnancy. The man has no such option.
It has effected law. Once upon time abortion at will and whim was not an institutionalized right. What can be changed can be changed.
We are discussing fundemental morals. The morality a man "being in chains for 21 years" versus the morality of "a child bereft of support from its parents". The notion that one side is using cold clear logic and the other is engaged in moralistic handwacing only is laughable and shows you really really are unable to understand the argument you are part of, which is kind of sad I guess.
And, by the way, I have not ascribed villainy to either side. In fact I was called a villain for sympathizing with "your side", but I guess sympathizing was eschewing facts or something.
She gets to build an emotional connection with the child, go through the joy of pregnancy, and raising a child. While having made the explicit decision that these things are worth more to her than the responsibilities it entails.
All of which is denied to men in these instances.
Yup. Hence my sympathy. And also why the child and its rights are central to the discussion.
And "fundamental morals" have, once again, been reduced to modern liberal preference and whim. Principles again unwelcome.
What's the legal proscription on a first trimester abortion? And what's the effect of that on parenthood?
That's a conditional option, with a highly unlikely condition precedent. Her option is unconditional. If she gets pregnant, she can call on him for child support, full stop.
I am pretty sure I built an emotional connection to my child during the ex's pregnancy. I wrote a letter to him, before he was born, detailing how much I loved him just in case something happened to me and I died before he was born. I wanted him to know that no matter what his father loved and cared for him.
So yeah the experience is different between men and women, but I call BS on your contention.
You sure you don't mean a father who has been defined as out of the picture by the law, social institutions, and human machinations?
You feel it's unfair that only pregnant people can get abortions, so you want to allow for the free abrogation of the responsibility of parents to children in order to rectify that unfairness. I think that's a far more unjust outcome than the situation we have.
Because you reach your conclusion first, and then build your discussion around it?
Yes, because you were in a committed relationship with your ex at the time. We are discussing cases where that isn't the case.
Sigh, no, it was you who feel that way, per your post 1797:
Please stop projecting your feelings onto others.
In contrast, the "unfairness" we have cited is that the woman gets to make the decision whether to have the child while not assuming full responsibility for that decision.
No, you didn't. You answered in a way that evades the issue as I clearly presented it to you.
If you don't know, though, keep that in mind and assume a more becoming modesty.
I did answer, and if you had paid attention you could surmise that I didn't know either--but I know why I don't know: it's because you and people like you promote and defend contrary dictums that make it hard to know.
It is a decision to have sex. But it is NOT dispositive as to having a child.
I'm saying that your objection is to the fact that the right to an abortion is only applicable for pregnant people. This is a function of a physical reality.
As I said to FPH, whatever injustices attend to pregnancy providing certain rights and responsibilities to pregnant people and not to non-pregnant people, it is hardly worthwhile to give the all people the right to opt out of support for a living child in order to rectify one inequity (the right to abortion that attends only for pregnant people) that you guys are up in arms about. Children demand our support by their very helplessness. Parents whose acts produced these children bear these responsibilities first and foremost.
What now? I answered honestly. I even gave examples. There is a difference between what happens before the child exists and after. That is not an evasion it is true. The fact that the line on when something is considered a child is fuzzy and changeable is also true. thereis still a line and it matter what side of the line something happens.
Where exactly did you answer how a conflict between mother and child relates to a different conflict between mother, father and child?
What??? There is not an affirmative duty to do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean consequences doesn't flow from that. It certainly doesn't mean that by not doing something, I can then make a debtor of someone who has no say as to that duty at all.
The prosaic realities of biology are carrying far too much moral weight.
MCOA has stated it very well. It is of course the point the other side labors to avoid and not address by bringing abortion rights, property rights, puritianism and a host of other things into the discussion.
There is already a right to opt out of support for a living child, it's called adoption. Right now that requires agreement from both parents*. All we are arguing, is that under certain conditions, it should be possible for one side to opt out individually.
*practically, if the mother doesn't bother to tell the father it's his, she can do so unilaterally
And I suggest you read the posts before that that mooted the idea of property law pertaining to this, and of the fetus being "part of her".
There are consequences. When the woman determines to have the baby to term she (and the father) are both committed to care for it. The mother is not escaping anything, she is simply failing to allow both to escape.
That is not my objection, has never been my objection.
No biology or reproductive processes need be changed to address the fundamental unfairness I have cited. All that needs to happen is that the woman be accorded the full responsibility of making the decision whether to have the child. That is it.
Also, suddenly you keep saying "pregnant people" and "non-pregnant people," as if what you don't really mean is "women" and "men."
Because she...decided...to..bear...the...child. He didn't.
A woman for whom a surrogate is carrying her child to term is in the same position as a man for whom a woman is carrying their child to term. This demonstrates that the determinative question is not sex (male or female), it's pregnancy (pregnant or non-pregnant).
Well no. Most of the folks are arguing that the father can always opt out (except perhaps in marriage, that much is not clear to me). The mere fact that abortion is available, in your argument, means the father must be held completely free of any obligation to the child. That is hardly "certain circumstances" that is pretty much all circumstances (again not sure what the "men's rights" folks think about marriage - does marriage change anything, or is the woman still totally responsbile because she could have the baby aborted?)
That's not uniformly true, now or the past. Society didn't expect women to have the procreative rights they now have. We've changed that. One person now has veto rights now. No use pretending this has always been. Because that would be a lie.
And the child decided ... nothing. It is blameless and deserves support from both parents. Mom can't abrogate the child's rights.
But for your analogy (a really confusing one) to apply you have to postulate a second party has plenary power to keep that from happening. In any case, the guy killed nobody. Only the woman had the right to kill someone.
Please educate me. What society has not had the default expectation that the genetic parents care for the child? I bet there are some random tribes somewhere that have not had that expectation, but the vast majority do in fact have that expectation. parents take care of their children.
Abortion rights have not changed that expectation. You clearly want them to, but it has not.
Bull. The focus has always been on unwanted pregnancies. Nobody is suggesting that you can get out of paying your ex. Men can be completely free from obligations towards a fetus, if they so choose. There is no child at that point in time. And guess what, woman can also be completely free from obligations towards a fetus. Nothing is stopping them from making that decision.
Also, nobody is suggesting that married men, or committed couples, who had a desire to have a child, should be allowed to walk away.
That hardly qualifies as all circumstances.
I'm not sure what the law on surrogates is (in those cases I imagine there is typically a written contract sanctioned by the state), but regardless, as usual you're pretending that the rare exceptions make up the vast majority of the cases.
We are talking specifically about man/woman.
No. We are no longer in the dead ball era. She can have her abortion. If she doesn't, however, she can't pretend any longer that she was prevented from doing so, thus obligating the impregnator. She can't have it both ways. If she wants to dance, she has to pay the piper.
This analogy has been around for hundreds of posts (it started with snapper and rock throwing).
If you go to court and suggest that because your partner in crime could have stopped you, but didn't, so only they should go to jail I don't think that will go well for you. Both parties engaged in the behavior (sex, for those confused by analogies). Both parties are responsible for the ultimate outcome, even if one of the parties could have "caught the rock" (again for those easily confused - caught the rock here is have an abortion, or stopped the car from killing someone, perhaps by waking the sleeping driver up or stomping on the brakes).
Even though one of the parties could have stopped things (that is abortion again Morty, I hope you don't mind these footnotes) they are not obligated to do so. So the responsibility (support the child) still rests with both parties (the male and female having sex, who later became parents).
I hope that helped.
nope, she can put it up for abortion, and be free from having to support it. If the child had universal rights to support from both parents, that trumped all other rights, this would not be true.
(2) There is no way you could possibly write law to account for "commitment" or "wanted" / "unwanted" pregnancy. So you're stuck with marriage as a contract to care for children.
(3) My opinion is that our humanity is already an effective contract to care for children. I don't believe that clumsily seeking to repair one inequity related to pregnancy (the right to abortion that attends only for pregnant women) by allowing men and non-pregnant women to unilaterally abrogate their responsibility to children is just. The moral responsibility to care for our children trumps it easily.
So it is desire to have a child. What is a married man does not desire to have a child, is he obligated to support this undesired child? Are you giving the unmarried man more rights than the married man, since the unmarried man clearly skates in that scenario? How is this fair to married men? It is an outrage!
The abortion happens before the child. that is what makes the abortion legal. Once there is a child and it has rights then abortions are no longer allowed. This is why snapper and I are on the same side on this. We both agree once a child exists is has a right to be supported. We disagree as to where the line for child/not child gets drawn, but that is about it. And that disussion, where the line goes, it not really part of this argument, because it is clearly passed by the time child support arrives and the man has to pay.
It is not my position, and never has been.
Read what you typed, very slowly. SHE determines...THEY are both committed.
Yes, she is escaping total responsibility while having total authority. Failing to allow both to escape--that's oneway of putting it. Some would say she's acted to impose a servitude against his will--but mere words, mere words.
It's a stupid analogy, and has always been such. Here is a slightly less stupid one:
You and a friend start a perfectly legal camp fire, in a fashion that you expect is safe. At some point, you have to leave. Your friend says, no worries, I will take care of the fire. Your friend however fails to do so, and the fire goes out of control, leading ro death, destruction, and general mayhem. Are you responsible for that outcome, or is your friend?
Sorry, I meant adoption obviously. I misspoke.
Hey look no sign of a child anywhere in the post! They are committed by the child. Her decision does not abrogate the child's rights (I have typed this so many times it just flows at this point).
That makes more sense. Both parents have to (or should have to) agree to adoption. It is not just her.
Please explain.
No. It was not his choice to be born, just as it wasn't the father's. He deserves support from the parent who decided, soley on her own, to have him despite the other parent making it clear he didn't want it. Mom can't abrogate the male's rights.
The point is, if the child's right to support from both parents supersedes all, neither of them, alone or together, should be allowed to put the child up for adoption. Or alternatively, they should both still be on the hook for child support payments.
You can tell by how studiously they've been avoided by the Council of Betas. The only way they want to consider the obvious practical solution I've clearly laid out is if they can allow their low-status brethren to swoop in at the point of sale and demand a cut. It's all about "What's in it for me" for some people.
Repetition doesn't make it any more relevant this time.
No. Once there is a child, it's helplessness creates a claim, but only on the parent that wants him. Of course, in many, if not most, situations, both parents want him and both parents become obligated. Before birth, it's all in the woman's hands, and that has ultimate bearing on final fruition. She needs to get her ducks in a row, one way or the other--or wait until she has a willing partner.
It's not about providing analogues to a woman's rights. For the 1265th time, it is about her bearing the responsibilities of said rights.
No.
Look, you're being silly. I, and others here, a number of times have said a child has rights--against the mother, the parent who wanted him, the parent who had him despite the other parent not wanting him. She is obligated; she shouldn't be able to obligation he who has "not hand" in the deal. You can't disagree with that--quit misrepresenting the position of those who hold this, though.
So, I take it you are also against men having any sort of legal custodial rights to a child (absent a clear contractual agreement between the parties)?
Adoption transfers parental rights and responsibilities from one set of legal parents (can be birth) to the adopting parents. This does not have to be voluntary. The state can terminate a parent's rights first, then award those prerogatives to adopting parent(s).
And adoptions can be to single mothers. So a birth mother and birth father can agree to transfer their obligations to a single person, and the state will sanction the transfer and release the two from their obligations in favor of only one having obligations.
So the best interests of the child are not necessarily found in having two sources of support as opposed to one, beyond any doubt.
I don't know why people have to be so stupid about his--well, yeah, I do. It's easier to distort what someone actually holds so as to pass muster if you can gin up the moral dudgeon. He should be indentured to them against his will.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main