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 19 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > 
   1801. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4369624)
Anything she wants. She doesn't have a court order threatening incarceration over her head.
This is just idiotic. If the mother is not the custodial parent, she is responsible for providing child support subject to legal sanction. If the mother is the custodial parent, she has the massive list of responsibilities that attend to parenthood.
   1802. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4369625)
Yep. Incarceration doesn't impinge upon bodily autonomy.

Women get to decide to be responsible for the caring of a child because they have this thing growing inside them and it isn't really a picnic having it inside them.

A man gets no say and has to dedicate the next 21 years of his life to labor in order to care for the child because apparently working and or going to jail isn't hard on men. So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor. Oaky, gotcha.

A woman gets to say, "this is hard. I'm not doing it" but a man isn't allowed to say that. Gotcha.


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.
   1803. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4369628)
Yep. Incarceration doesn't impinge upon bodily autonomy.

Women get to decide to be responsible for the caring of a child because they have this thing growing inside them and it isn't really a picnic having it inside them.

A man gets no say and has to dedicate the next 21 years of his life to labor in order to care for the child because apparently working and or going to jail isn't hard on men. So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor. Oaky, gotcha.

A woman gets to say, "this is hard. I'm not doing it" but a man isn't allowed to say that. Gotcha.


Co-signed.
   1804. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4369630)
This is just idiotic. If the mother is not the custodial parent, she is responsible for providing child support subject to legal sanction. If the mother is the custodial parent, she has the massive list of responsibilities that attend to parenthood.

A woman who decides to give birth chooses to have a baby thus she gets to do whatever she wants.
   1805. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4369632)
So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor. Oaky, gotcha.

What in the hell do you think she is doing for those 21 years?


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.
   1806. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4369634)
Pregnant women have a right to an abortion because of the peculiar bodily facts of pregnancy.


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?

They also bear a variety of responsibilities because of these bodily facts.


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.
   1807. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:17 PM (#4369636)
I have to say in this really long and "Groundhog Day" like thread my favorite odd assertion came at the very beginning.

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.
   1808. BrianBrianson Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:17 PM (#4369638)
During the pregnancy (for the time period an abortion is allowed) there is only the father and mother.


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.
   1809. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4369640)
This really is just childish whining, in the end. "I want to be able to get an abortion!" You can't, if you aren't pregnant. Only pregnant people can have abortions.

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.
   1810. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4369641)
A woman who decides to give birth chooses to have a baby thus she gets to do whatever she wants.


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.
   1811. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4369642)
When their rights conflict, because it is the body of the mother her rights supercede the fathers

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.
   1812. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4369643)
Pregnancy, the physical fact of having an embryo or fetus that is at once part of your body, does not have any analogue for non-pregnant people, and we shouldn't write laws to pretend as if it does.

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.
   1813. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4369644)
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.


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.
   1814. Jay Z Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4369645)
How many children are born with defects and debilities because of the mother's actions during gestation? Many children are born drug addicts/alcoholics, effects of smoking, etc. Does the child have cause of action against the mother? Shouldn't he, if his interest are paramount?


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.
   1815. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4369647)
Many more, but many fewer people are married.


??? There are more lasting marriages now than in 1950?

Sex and procreation have a lot less to do with marriage, but marriage (when it happens) has more to do with children. In 1950, it was the default way of life.


That sounds like a backhanded way of conceding the point.
   1816. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4369649)
By the way no parent gets to do whatever they want. If you knew anything about the law you would know that.

So now you wish to play the pedant card?
   1817. Poulanc Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4369653)
This really is just childish whining, in the end. "I want to be able to get an abortion!" You can't, if you aren't pregnant. Only pregnant people can have abortions.

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.



Well said.
   1818. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4369655)
1795:

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?
   1819. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4369657)
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.


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.

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.


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.
   1820. Jay Z Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4369659)
And also dead wrong. Marriage is much more about children than it was 100 years ago. People have sex constantly without getting married. They tend to marry when they are ready to have children.


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.
   1821. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4369661)
??? There are more lasting marriages now than in 1950?

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.
   1822. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4369663)
Well you never addressed my question whether you think children are property. Are they?


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?
   1823. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4369665)
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?


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?

   1824. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4369666)
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.


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.

   1825. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4369668)
Your desire that humans have a different physical process of reproduction is noted, but it shouldn't affect the law.


Actually, the only one I saw who "desired" that was you, in post 1797:

It would indeed be much more fair, physically, if both genetic parents of the child became pregnant. I think that would be good for the world in any number of ways.


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.
   1826. Poulanc Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:38 PM (#4369672)
since the man was given no say in the decision.


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.
   1827. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:38 PM (#4369673)
the responsibility for the woman's decision fell solely to the woman, since the man was given no say in the decision.
No, this has been responded to an equal hundreds of times.

(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.
   1828. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4369674)
As I have noted, surrogacy shows us that it isn't about "women" and "men", it's about "pregnant women" and "everyone who isn't a pregnant woman." Pregnancy, the physical fact of having an embryo or fetus that is at once part of your body, does not have any analogue for non-pregnant people, and we shouldn't write laws to pretend as if it does.


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.
   1829. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4369676)
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?


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).

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?


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.
   1830. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4369678)
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to have a baby.


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.
   1831. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4369679)
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.


Trolling is what happens when your arguments are roundly defeated.

Not that that was surprising. "Because." and "Tough titty." rarely carry the day.
   1832. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:46 PM (#4369680)
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.


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.
   1833. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4369684)
"I want to be able to get an abortion!" You can't, if you aren't pregnant. Only pregnant people can have abortions.


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.
   1834. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4369685)
(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.

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.
   1835. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:53 PM (#4369686)
Your desire that humans have a different physical process of reproduction is noted, but it shouldn't affect the law.


It has effected law. Once upon time abortion at will and whim was not an institutionalized right. What can be changed can be changed.
   1836. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4369688)
Morty honest question, what do you know about Puritanism? Do you think it has any relation to Secular Humanism? Any at all?

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.
   1837. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4369690)
So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor. Oaky, gotcha.

What in the hell do you think she is doing for those 21 years?

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.
   1838. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4369691)
But the rights and responsibilities of the parties prior to its birth are unfair.


Yup. Hence my sympathy. And also why the child and its rights are central to the discussion.
   1839. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4369692)
We are discussing fundemental morals.

And "fundamental morals" have, once again, been reduced to modern liberal preference and whim. Principles again unwelcome.

   1840. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:58 PM (#4369693)
By the way no parent gets to do whatever they want. If you knew anything about the law you would know that.


What's the legal proscription on a first trimester abortion? And what's the effect of that on parenthood?
   1841. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:58 PM (#4369694)
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.
He has exactly this option. If the pregnancy results in a child, and the father becomes sole custodial parent, he has the option to call on support from mother.
   1842. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4369697)
If the pregnancy results in a child, and the father becomes sole custodial parent, he has the option to call on support from mother.

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.
   1843. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4369698)
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.


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.
   1844. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4369700)
Of course, an alternative spokesperson could be an active, involved father. A father who's defined himself out of the picture, not so much.


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?
   1845. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4369703)
All of which is denied to men in these instances.
This is also denied to women who are not pregnant, including mothers who have a surrogate carry the child to term. Being pregnant is a peculiar state. We can't go about treating non-pregnant people like they're pregnant. Non-pregnant folks don't have an option to get an abortion. All people have a responsibility to take care of a genetic child once it's born.

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.
   1846. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4369704)
What's the legal proscription on a first trimester abortion? And what's the effect of that on parenthood?


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?
   1847. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4369705)
Yup. Hence my sympathy. And also why the child and its rights are central to the discussion.

Because you reach your conclusion first, and then build your discussion around it?
   1848. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4369706)
I am pretty sure I built an emotional connection to my child during the ex's pregnancy.

Yes, because you were in a committed relationship with your ex at the time. We are discussing cases where that isn't the case.
   1849. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4369707)
You feel it's unfair that only pregnant people can get abortions, so you want to


Sigh, no, it was you who feel that way, per your post 1797:

It would indeed be much more fair, physically, if both genetic parents of the child became pregnant. I think that would be good for the world in any number of ways.


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.

   1850. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4369708)
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?


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.

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?


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.
   1851. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4369713)
Why don't you think the decision to have sex is a decision?


It is a decision to have sex. But it is NOT dispositive as to having a child.
   1852. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4369717)
Ray - the argument you're making in citing my #1797 is so unutterably stupid I assume you're trolling. I specifically argued that we shouldn't determine right or law based on the biology that we want.

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.
   1853. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4369718)
No, you didn't. You answered in a way that evades the issue as I clearly presented it to you.


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?
   1854. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4369719)
(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.


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.
   1855. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4369721)
It doesn't even necessarily follow that the woman being the only one who can physically procure an abortion means the father has no say in the decision.

The prosaic realities of biology are carrying far too much moral weight.
   1856. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:20 PM (#4369723)
Children demand our support by their very helplessness. Parents whose acts produced these children bear these responsibilities first and foremost.


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.
   1857. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:20 PM (#4369724)
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 right to opt out of support for a living child in order to rectify one inequity that you guys are up in arms about.

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
   1858. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4369725)
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.


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".
   1859. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4369726)
What??? There is not an affirmative duty to do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean consequences doesn't flow from that.


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.
   1860. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4369727)
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.


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."
   1861. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4369730)
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)?


Because she...decided...to..bear...the...child. He didn't.
   1862. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4369731)
Also, suddenly you keep saying "pregnant people" and "non-pregnant people," as if what you don't really mean is "women" and "men."
No, I don't. I can say "pregnant women" and "men and non-pregnant women" if you like, but that seems messy.

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).
   1863. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4369732)
All we are arguing, is that under certain conditions, it should be possible for one side to opt out individually.


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?)
   1864. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4369733)
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.


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.
   1865. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4369735)
Because she...decided...to..bear...the...child. He didn't.


And the child decided ... nothing. It is blameless and deserves support from both parents. Mom can't abrogate the child's rights.
   1866. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:29 PM (#4369737)
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.


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.
   1867. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:29 PM (#4369739)
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.


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.
   1868. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4369741)
All we are arguing, is that under certain conditions, it should be possible for one side to opt out individually.
Yes, I know. And I'm arguing that once there's a child, its helplessness creates a moral claim on both parents that trumps your feeling of inequities around abortion. There are inequities which relate to pregnancy, as pregnant women have rights and responsibilities for which men and non-pregnant women have no analogue. You want to create something like an analogue to one of those rights (abdication of responsibility as a proxy for abortion), but at the expense of the good of actual living child. That is a terrible trade.
   1869. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4369748)
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?)

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.
   1870. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4369750)
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).


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.
   1871. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4369751)
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


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.
   1872. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4369753)
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.


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.
   1873. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4369756)
And the child decided ... nothing. It is blameless and deserves support from both parents. Mom can't abrogate the child's rights.

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.
   1874. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4369757)
Also, nobody is suggesting that married men, or committed couples, who had a desire to have a child, should be allowed to walk away.
(1) This is clearly Morty's position. I'm pretty sure it's Ray's.
(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.
   1875. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4369759)
regardless, as usual you're pretending that the rare exceptions make up the vast majority of the cases.
Nope, I'm just using language that is correct instead of language that is incorrect.
   1876. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4369760)
That hardly qualifies as all circumstances.


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!
   1877. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4369762)
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.


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.
   1878. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4369763)
Also, nobody is suggesting that married men, or committed couples, who had a desire to have a child, should be allowed to walk away.

(1) This is clearly Morty's position. I'm pretty sure it's Ray's.


It is not my position, and never has been.
   1879. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4369764)
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.


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.
   1880. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4369766)
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).

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?
   1881. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4369770)
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.

The abortion happens before the child. that is what makes the abortion legal.

Sorry, I meant adoption obviously. I misspoke.
   1882. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4369771)
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.


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).
   1883. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4369772)
Sorry, I meant adoption obviously. I misspoke.


That makes more sense. Both parents have to (or should have to) agree to adoption. It is not just her.
   1884. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4369774)
Also, nobody is suggesting that married men, or committed couples, who had a desire to have a child, should be allowed to walk away.

(1) This is clearly Morty's position. I'm pretty sure it's Ray's.


It is not my position, and never has been.
Since a pregnant woman has a right to change her mind and abort a planned child, regardless of her marital state, and your position is based on providing analogues to the pregnant woman's rights to abortion, I presumed it followed that you did not think that a man signed away rights, either by marriage contract or non-contractual commitment / planning, which a woman did not.

Please explain.
   1885. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4369775)
And the child decided ... nothing. It is blameless and deserves support from both parents. Mom can't abrogate the child's rights.


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.
   1886. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:52 PM (#4369780)
Sorry, I meant adoption obviously. I misspoke.

That makes more sense. Both parents have to (or should have to) agree to adoption. It is not just her.

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.
   1887. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4369781)
EDIT: On the flip side YR's posts are clearly the best and most compelling.


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.
   1888. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4369782)
Adoption is a process of transferring responsibilities, done with the consent of the birth parents and the adoptive parents. There is no process of transfer in your proposal, just a unilateral walk-out.
   1889. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4369784)
Her decision does not abrogate the child's rights (I have typed this so many times it just flows at this point).


Repetition doesn't make it any more relevant this time.
   1890. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4369785)
And I'm arguing that once there's a child, its helplessness creates a moral claim on both parents that trumps your feeling of inequities around abortion.


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.
   1891. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4369786)
Since a pregnant woman has a right to change her mind and abort a planned child, regardless of her marital state, and your position is based on providing analogues to the pregnant woman's rights to abortion

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.
   1892. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4369787)
Once there is a child, it's helplessness creates a claim, but only on the parent that wants him.
FPH - Morty is pretty clear on this point, no?
   1893. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4369789)
1874(1):

No.
   1894. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4369791)
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.
That makes no difference to the point. If a woman has to bear the responsibilities of her right to abortion, why should the state force a man have to provide child support to a child he didn't want? (Say he changed his mind.) Why does his relationship status preclude his walking away when it does not preclude her having an abortion?
   1895. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4369795)
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).


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.
   1896. Howling John Shade Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4369797)
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.


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)?
   1897. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:07 PM (#4369799)
Adoption is a process of transferring responsibilities, done with the consent of the birth parents and the adoptive parents. There is no process of transfer in your proposal, just a unilateral walk-out.


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).
   1898. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4369800)
That is correct and entirely tangential to the argument.
   1899. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4369801)
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.

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.
   1900. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4369803)
For the 1265th time, it is about her bearing the responsibilities of said rights.


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.
Page 19 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 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
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4341 - 2:13pm, Nov 24)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(31 - 2:12pm, Nov 24)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogSources: Kyle Seager nearing $100 million extension with Mariners - Yahoo Sports
(16 - 2:12pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogBoston Red Sox in talks to acquire free agent Hanley Ramirez - ESPN Boston
(11 - 2:10pm, Nov 24)
Last: Danny

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(119 - 2:06pm, Nov 24)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(124 - 2:06pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-24-2014
(7 - 2:06pm, Nov 24)
Last: esseff

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1021 - 2:03pm, Nov 24)
Last: Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor

NewsblogSandoval agrees to Red Sox deal, as Boston looks for free agent sweep - CBSSports.com
(21 - 1:53pm, Nov 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(65 - 1:13pm, Nov 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8654 - 1:03pm, Nov 24)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(456 - 12:33pm, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

Newsblogred sox - Trying to make sense of Red Sox reunion with Hanley Ramirez - WEEI | Rob Bradford
(1 - 12:20pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jose Molina wants a nickname like "A-Rod"

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(25 - 10:59am, Nov 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogSunday Notes: Arroyo’s Rehab, Clark & the MLBPA, Doc Gooden, AFL Arms, ChiSox, more
(17 - 9:30am, Nov 24)
Last: depletion

Page rendered in 1.1406 seconds
52 querie(s) executed