User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7800 seconds
72 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Yeah, that's what we're asking? If he tells her at the outset of the pregnancy, I don't want a baby, and she says she does and will, then it's hers and hers alone, and the state should not force him to provide child support. And he can get on with his real life, just as the mother and child can.
The child's rights are not limited against just the mother though. They go against both parents. You ask why, and I ask that is the way it is, why are you trying to change that? You suggest because now the woman has a choice, and I mention her choice does not change the child's rights.
Yes I can. Both parents contribuite genetic material. Do you disagree with that?
Both parents had sex knowing that a child was a possible (not sure, but possible) outcome. Do you disagree with that?
The child exists (and is not property) and someone has to support it. It sounds like you agree with that.
Because of this and the fact that genetic heritage matters (inheritance for example) means both are obligated. She is not obligateing him, the child is obligating both (OK, the existence of the child is obligating society to obligate the parents).
I am not misrepresenting your position. You think that because the woman can engage in a medical procedure after sex and the man doesn't have this option then the child rights are limited. I say hogwash, rights are not limited by such things.
Does any nation on Earth have laws in accordance with what you want? Is there any historical society which showcases the sort of rights and obligations you want?
I'm only about 10 posts into page 18 but these kind of statements have been bothering me all thread. I will never understand some people's need to analogize complex moral questions and problems. Analogizing pregnancy to condo ownership (a) does not help your cause from a p.r. standpoint and (b) is simply wrong. They aren't analogous. Situations such as pregnancy and responsibility for children are complicated in part because they are unique. You need to address them on their own terms (as society does, as Bitter Mouse and some others here do) rather than trying to find an analogous legal construct from a completely different part of life that would enable you to pull a "gotcha". Such a construct does not exist.
Secondly an unwed father does not have an absolute veto to adoption. He can contest the adoption but his veto will not automatically squash the adoption.
Yep. Which is why, as noted above, society countenances two birth parents giving a child to one adoptive parent. You could simply think of the structure we're advocating as precisely the same thing. The child provisionally has two birth parents giving support, which if the father renounces and the mother takes to term, legally becomes one parent giving support.
I think that refutes that we live in Sam's "regular sex is only one of many ways to get pregnant; computer, tea, Earl Grey" world. Other than that, at this point I have no idea which side that figure supports. Probably both, somehow.
Assuming this is a concise and correct summary of positions (and I trust MCoA to summarize effectively and honestly, moreso than most in fact), then Ray and FPH are wrong to the extent that the disagreement over carrying to term could and may dissolve the marriage contract. In the case that the marriage contract is voided prior to the magical viability moment, then the woman is responsible for her choices.
I seem to have missed some conversation about the "rights of children," and instead of Dialing back the thread, I'll simply throw some thoughts into the mix here:
Children don't have fully formed human rights. This is obvious. A 2 year old doesn't have a right to privacy. A 6 year old doesn't have the right to "happiness" if his parents tell him no. Rights are accrued over time, as children develop into adults, culminating with the right to vote (18) and the right to happiness/bourbon (21.) There is a clear continuum of "rights" development in the human animal. A fetus has no rights. A viable pre-birth fetal-baby has a right to life sometime in the second trimester (per Roe.) A post-birth infant has a more universal right to life (you can terminate a late term fetus if the mother's life is in danger, but you can't terminate a post-birth child under any circumstance.) Rights accrue over time. It's counter factual to argue that children have "rights" in the same way adults do. If you can't join a legal contract, you don't have rights in the constitutional sense, outside of what the adults decide to let you play with on any given day.
Hey Sam. I agree with this. I would add that rights also can decrease over time. Once you are an adult you can be tried as an adult, you lose that protective shield. You are considered capable of making you own decisions, and largely lose te right to expect support from your parents.
It is the right to expect support that is most contentious obviously. SBB believes I am being typically liberal in making rights and principles whimsical.
I believe a child has a right to support from both its parents.
The other side believes the child has a right to support from the parent that choose to have it, unless I guess they are married (I too will believe MCOA, but I did not think it was that clear). Also unless the woman does not have access to an abortion I guess, because it is (they say) access to an abortion which gives the women the choice and pushes the full support onto her (so if she does not have that access then logically both parents must support the child). I am not sure what happens if the male wants the child and then after an abortion is no longer possible then changes his mind, I don't know if he has to support the child under that scenario or not.
So yeah clearly my beliefs are a total whim, while the others are built on a rock solid foundation.
You're envisioning a world where you don't have to specify that it be hot? Even Rodenberry didn't dare dream that idealistically.
Who knows what the hell they do in the south?
The Care Bear is going to make that accusation against anyone, as often as possible, until you pry it from his cold dead hands. It's his *thing.*
This is where we part ways. I can accept that a child, once born, has a right to life (if nothing else) and that that right must be provided for, but I see no reason why, under the modernist reading of rights and freedom, a man who didn't want to play the daddy-game but got roped into the deal by a random sex partner should be considered a "parent." Lassus can mock my sci-fi morals all he wants, but if we're going to argue that this is the world we should build, then for ####'s sake embrace the world you're building and live it honestly.
Whatever the hell we want. Often with our cousins.
How about a man who decides he does want to be a parent after a random sexual encounter? Under your reading of rights and responsibilities, shouldn't it be entirely the woman's choice whether he has any contact with his child?
It is already. Practically, her decision to terminate or carry to term is universal. If she chooses to abort, his desire to be a parent is moot from the start. If she chooses to carry to term but eliminate him from the child's rearing, all it really takes is a couple of trips to family court and a rubber stamp from the judges.
That's entirely unrepresentative of my (admittedly limited) experience of custody situations, but regardless I was looking more for a normative (boom!) answer than a descriptive one.
No. I won’t do that. And, again, I was merely arguing on terms previously mooted by others. You can’t have your special pleading when it comes to the child or the miracle of birth, not when the sausage machines are humming overtime. I don’t recognize your views as sacred. I’m not going to let you dictate the terms or the tone of the argument. That would be deferring to someone’s point of view at the expense of those of others. Moreover, I am also free to explore different ways of looking at this, either based on ways others began or as an experimental exercise. But you are free to carry on the discussion in the tone and with the attitude you prefer and deem appropriate. Your preferences. however, don't obligate me.
If a woman is allowed to abort a fetus without permission from a man then this is how it should work:
A: Woman informs man that she is pregnant.
B: Both sides declare their intent.
B1)If man wants child and woman doesn't then woman pays for abortion alone or man pays for pregnancy alone
B2)If man doesn't want child and woman doesn't want child they split the cost of getting rid of the child (abortion or adoption)
B3)If man doesn't want child and woman does then they split the cost of abortion/pregnancy after which the woman is on her own
C: Whichever side wants the child gets parental rights to the child.
As an addendum to B3 and B1 if the single parent at a later date cannot afford to take care of the child then the child is put into a foster home for X amount of time and if the parent cannot show to society that they can take care of the kid properly the child is put up for adoption.
Well, mostly, AFAIK, he isn't, except in the pure legal sense, so your scare quotes can easily be pointed the other direction. What he mostly has to do (again, AFAIK) is write a check every month. That has been presented here in very dramatic terms, with very dramatic analogies, but that is pretty much what it comes down to. You can argue that the check is too much to ask, or that having to write it violates the guy's rights, or that the state shouldn't lock the guy up if he doesn't have the coin to pay what the mother wants and the court says, but again, AFAIK, if you hook up with a woman after your next big consulting gig in NYC and she gets pregnant and decides against your wishes to have the kid, and you want no part of said kid, the judge is probably not going to order you to pack up your foam tomahawks and your crossbows, move to Manhattan, get an apartment a mile away from her, and change 1/2 the diapers and handle 1/2 the midnight feedings. As fdp said, financial child support is already in many ways a compromise position.
This discussion revolves around two separate issues but interrelated issues, in that it started off with guys talking about dads who wanted to be involved in childrearing but were getting screwed out of that by greedy welfare-wanting women who trapped them to get on the dole, as well as by a corrupt and biased system, but now has moved to some guys wanting to have a full opt-out so men are 100% off the hook for life if they happen to get a woman pregnant (off a hookup, apparently, based on what MCOA is saying, although I am not clear on that point).
This is why I asked the question about practical aspects of family law, in response, actually to Jack's asking what "productive" directions because the rights discussions seem to be overly-analogy driven, as Dave noted, as well as being pretty circular, and there is no doubt that there are issues with family courts. You yourself reacted to my asking that question with a mocking reference to MLK (mocking me of course, not him).
Another problem that I have with the rights discussions is that guys toss the word around like it's Thor's Hammer, but I don't see many guys discussing distinctions among legal and natrual rights, among possible other kinds. An infant or a kid may lack legal rights in the contractual sense, but I think it is pretty clear that what might be called natural rights of the kid or baby factor heavily in everyone's thinking here.
So, just to be clear, regardless of the couple's relationship status or whether the pregnancy was planned, the man can freely opt out of any responsibility for the child, if he wants? This is the position that FPH claimed no one held, and that Ray has denied holding. I'm interested in where you and they differ.
If there is a contract or agreement in place before conception that agreement is in effect.
She becomes pregnant as a result.
They both agree to the pregnancy being carried to term.
In that case, they’re both parents and obligated to provide support.
He wants to have the child; she wants to terminate the pregnancy.
In that case, pregnancy terminated. He has no say as to that.
She wants to carry the pregnancy to term. He doesn’t.
Child carried to term. Both are obligated to support the child.
Despite the father expressly on record as not wanting a child, only he has no rights after sex. Only his dependent and can trumped.
He is helpless; it is all up to the mother. Mother knows that the father doesn’t want the child, and knows he will be forced to subsidize her and the child.
Does this seem fair? Snarks and sneers aside, just as a simple matter, does that seem fair? Then why is it this way? Why is the status of the other participants changed, but his must remain the same, even though his only input is that one thing, which is demeaned except when as to bind him for the benefit of the other two? Think well, for his attitude toward you and the system depends on the way he is treated and viewed. Mistakes are tolerated, even encouraged, but not if they are by him, and only because they are by him.
If two people say "let's have a kid" that is an agreement. How would it be enforced? How about the same way they enforce child support payments? But seriously the same way all other contracts are enforced through threat of damages.
So, Morty, regardless of the relationship status of the couple, and regardless of whether the baby was planned, a man should have the option to freely shed any responsibility for the child?
If the woman can opt out at any time before the deadline why shouldn't a man be able to do so as well?
Now flip it around. The couple want a kid. She gets knocked up. The couple is excited. 8 weeks later the guy decides he doesn't want the kid. Tough titty. It's coming and there is nothing you can do and you better pay up.
Yeah. That sounds fair and what is best for the child.
But I do reserve the right to moot it on those terms. Discussions like this I view as a work in progress. What i say here is not to be taken as if chiseled in marble. I am open to being informed, and information and evidence can result in a change in one's view. I don't have to act as if there is a perfect model that I am in possession of before I post, and I hold in low esteem those who pretend they do and want to hold me to a ludicrous standard like that.
Right. This whole idea that a couple being married makes it legally clear that they expect children and both agree to support them is a little odd. You could craft a marriage contract that said that, but most people don't. And, to steal a line from Sam, I think we've clearly moved past the time when we as a society view marriage as being all about baby-making.
Pre-nuptial contracts are everywhere, and they often are about obligations assumed. why, indeed, shouldn't they concern the baby?
You are proposing instituting a massive new contractual system. Are you suggesting that women and men would need to sign a contract before they started trying to have a baby? And if the woman didn't get her partner to sign, he could walk? Or are you suggesting that a man should have every sex partner with whom he doesn't want to have child sign a contract freeing him from parental responsibilities?
Further, what are the punishments for breaking these contracts? If a woman signs a contract that she intends to have a child, is she liable for damages if she then aborts the pregnancy? This all seems like a nightmare to me, practically.**
To understand your logic. Your claim is that it is obviously unfair that a woman can have an abortion and end a pregnancy, but a man cannot opt out of supporting his child in any analogous way. Now, obviously, a woman can have an abortion and end a pregnancy regardless of the relationship status of the couple and regardless of whether the child was planned. So to be consistent in your invocation of fairness, you would need to say that the man can walk away at any time.
**You know, it reminds me of this New Yorker cartoon...
What do you think of the examples I gave?
Why do you think it is okay that a woman is allowed to kill her child but the worst thing a man is allowed to do is to send a check in the mail?
Well, Jack Carter already suggested a "Not Interested" public registry, which, as Carter said, would "immunize" a man from responsibility ahead of time.
You are proposing instituting a massive new contractual system. Are you suggesting that women and men would need to sign a contract before they started trying to have a baby? And if the woman didn't get her partner to sign, he could walk? Or are you suggesting that a man should have every sex partner with whom he doesn't want to have child sign a contract freeing him from parental responsibilities?
Further, what are the punishments for breaking these contracts? If a woman signs a contract that she intends to have a child, is she liable for damages if she then aborts the pregnancy? This all seems like a nightmare to me, practically.**
As people keep saying over and over, having a kid is a big deal. It shouldn't be easy and the full weight of the responsibilities should be smacking people in the face constantly before that kid ever leaves a vagina.
If only there was some kind of pill one could take to halt a pregnancy. Darnit. Maybe one of these days they'll get around to inventing it.
No one who isn't pregnant has this right, and I think it's ludicrous to try to create systems where non-pregnant people can abrogate responsibilities to children in order to somehow rectify this situation.
Now, remember this, if later I engage in the language of contracts as to these sacred arrangements.
The only thing I said was I was discussing this in the context proposed. I haven't contemplated it much except the way this was initially argued. That the same logic and argument might applied in a different context is beyond the scope of this discussion. But, I can see why you want to break out the smoke and mirrors.
No one who isn't pregnant has this right, and I think it's ludicrous to try to create systems where non-pregnant people can abrogate responsibilities to children in order to somehow rectify this situation.
It's weird to see how many hoops one has to jump through to say abortion is okay and men have no say.
Day 18: Not killing. Forward sister!
Day 200: You evil bvtch!
I was interpreting your 1923 to mean that relationship status/marriage could be construed as a prior agreement. But 1930 makes it pretty clear that you don't believe that.
McCoy's hard right turn into anti-abortion rhetoric might surprise his various allies, too.
No, that's precisely what it is. It's not a homicide because the fetus is arbitrarily in law defined as not being a person, but it's a killing of whatever it is. And it's done by more than a passive "withholding support."
And with autonomy comes a corresponding responsibility. They go hand in hand, like love and marriage (a little Valentine allusion). You can't hold someone responsible who doesn't have the autonomy just has you can't deem he has the autonomy when it actually rests with someone else.
I'm not against abortion. I've said all along that if a woman is allowed to opt out of being a parent then a man should be allowed to as well. I just find it odd that you support the mother's right to kill her child while you won't allow a man to simply opt out of being a parent. It certainly seems odd to me that some of you guys draw the line on fathers opting out of being a parent. Out of all of you only Snapper is being internally consistent with his views. The rest of you have to contort yourself into various shapes to get all your views under one roof.
An abortion ends a pregnancy, so there's no child to be accounted for. Once there is a child, there can be no parallel to abortion because the child is there and any shedding of responsibility means not accounting for the child.
This isn't really true. Child support payments are enforced through a statutory system. It's not about what two people agreed, it's about what society has decided their responsibilities are.
Does anyone know whether it's possible to contract away potential child-support responsibilities? I suspect it's not. But if it is, you guys could solve all your potential problems by carrying a few unsigned waivers in your wallet next to the condom.
Only vaguely related: the leading California case on the enforceability of prenuptial agreements comes courtesy of our unjustly villified home-run king.
So abortion is legal and okay because it saves the taxpayers money. Got it.
I can't believe you can't see what's plainly before you. The child that would have eventuated has had that right to exist "abrogated." That right to abrogate is much more extreme as to that entity she carries than his right to merely repudiate fatherhood.
Yes, exactly, but what has been decided can be re-decided and modified. Just as it was wrt the woman and her fetus.
Or, as I have said, envision a brave new world where they go on a date dragging a notary with them.
A man who declares he does not want to be a parent gets a vasectomy with time to allow the woman to get an abortion once she know he is serious. If this happens he clearly does not want a child, has skin in the game, and has zero child support obligations going forward. Basically get a vasectomy and you are free and clear from that point onward.
Society picks up the child support tab for the guy (unless he gets a reversal of course). A vasectomy is pretty minor surgery, is very effective (1 in 2000 failure rate according to the always reliable Wikipedia). Put another way - "A 2005 systematic review of 28 studies described a total of 183 failures or recanalizations from approximately 43,642 vasectomy patients (0.4%), and 20 studies in the same review described 60 pregnancies after 92,184 vasectomies (0.07%)"
So while I am not convinced it really supports the child and so makes me unhappy I suppose all compromise results in some unhappiness and I am curious, would the men's rights crowd go along with it?
No, that is not the source of my angst. Keep foraging--it's only been said hundreds of times by many here what it actually is we object to.
If you're going to engage in caricature, it needs to funny.
Um dude, it has been said many times that people object that woman get an opt out and men don't and that this critical decision happens after sex (rendering the original sex act moot or something I guess). I can't quote all the times it has been said because there is not room on this digital page! Are you even reading the same thread?
Honestly Morty.
I am not passing judgment on how that might relate to your suggestion. I am just making you aware of a medical fact of which you may not be already aware.
Yeah I looked it up. I was trying to come up with something analogous and related on the male side and it was as close as I could get (I still like both my insurance and YRs modest proposal better, I admit).
Still it is reversible to an extent and from the horror stories some might think it worth it. Plus the technology is always improving and I thought there was some in vitro stuff that could be done with harvesting the sperm directly if a man really wanted a child after (I could be wrong, I did not read that much about it).
EDIT: And it means the man has some skin in the game, which I admit annoys me about the she has to have an abortion to opt out, and the male just shrugs and says no thanks.
See, suggestions like this, are why people are accusing you of being puritanical, and interested in punishing men for the audacity of engaging in consensual, casual sex. There is no actual purpose served by demanding a vasectomy. It's all so he has "skin in the game". The woman has to suffer, therefore the man has to suffer. That's what this is all about.
Get this, we are talking mostly about teenagers and guys in their early twenties here. Many of them will actually want to start a family at some point in their life. They just don't want to start one with a hook-up, they went home with from the club one night.
Well at that age they probably masturbate furiously. All they need to do is save up a few gallons and bank their jugs of baby batter at a storage clinic for future insemination. Clinics would spring up nationwide, endorsed by popular celebrities such as Snoop Dogg or, uh, the guy from "Jersey Shore" who looks like Sonic the Hedgehog. The free market would make long-term semen banking affordable and practical, freeing up a generation of men to avoid the perils of scheming harpies intent on enslaving their wages through bio-theft.
By having agreed to a marriage/coupling arrangement, the two have in some ways become one. Of course, I also think a married man has more rights to deny his wife have an abortion than a random sexual partner would for an unmarried woman.
OK, but this cuts both ways. The primary driving force behind disparate pay/promotions between men and women is that women generally are forced, by dint of their baby-incubating role, to take time out of the workforce in their 20's and 30's. Most learned discussion I've seen on this topic notes this as something that we should create systems to rectify; that an accident of nature (that only women can be pregnant) shouldn't be allowed to dictate an unfair result (that women don't have as much professional success, on average, as men). But if women should benefit from the perquisites of the biological accident of pregnancy (in the abortion/child support arena), they should reap the consequences as well (in the professional arena). If we're going to strive to make the world fairer than the biological default (which I think is a good idea, a state of nature being nasty and brutish and all), then the fact that women are naturally pregnant should be merely a obstacle to overcome to instutiting a just and equal set of responsibilities and privileges when it comes to procreation decision-making.
Agreed. My wife and I have been together as a couple 22 years. We've been legally wed for 18 of those years. The closest we've come to baby-making is adopting a dog when I turned 40 (which is far more care intensive than the cats, by the way.)
We have always made our decisions to not have children together, as a couple. That's what marriage is, regardless of state or ceremony. The agreement that you and the other person involved are going to act as a single unit, not as two individuals. As such, if *we* decided to have a child, *I* would not have the option to back out again later without her consent, because it's a decision *we* made, not a decision *I* made. If a man or woman attempts to abrogate decisions made in tandem by the married couple, then they are essentially withdrawing from the marriage contract in all practical purposes.
Well, I believe I'm on record from previous conversations, much to Dan's chagrin, of questioning the existence of "natural rights" outside of legal rights. But I may be an outlier there.
RE: "the guy should get a vasectomy," again, when RISUG becomes as universally available as the morning after pill, this becomes a better argument. Current vasectomy tech is almost universally permanent, which means it's not a decision made to "not have a child with this chick at the bar," so much as a decision "never to have a child at all, with anyone I might meet along the way." RISUG changes that calculus in that it is easily reversible.
What benefits are you talking about?
The failure of the US to embrace European style parental leave for the father, giving both mother and father months of personal time off from work to care for and bond with their newborn, gives the lie to how much Americans really care about the care of the child.
The ability to choose, in her sole discretion, whether or not to carry a child to term, and to compel support from the man.
Sure because it was a suggestion I threw out there to see how people responded and never presented as something I fully endorsed (unlike my insurance scheme). But yeah other than throwing stuff out there and not putting any moral judgements (aside from distaste at the cavalier attitude some men take towards the woman having an abortion), this like totally makes me a puritan.
Do you know what puritans believe? And this aligns to that how?
She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.
Well I support both expanded parental leave and your pie-in-the-sky safety net (way back in the thread). Americans are not a monolith. You can't assign everything you don't like to the side you happen to be arguing with at the moment.
But if she is choosing to take the child to term, she's not being compelled - well, she can't change her mind after she brings the child to term, but she has a decision at the start. And that is all the difference in the world.
Americans don't have a policy set where parental leave is required. Thus it's a problem for Americans.
Can't she just give twice as much support and let the poor lad be?
In the context of this discussion, the relevant beliefs would be punishment for adultery and fornication outside of marriage, ranging from public humiliation, to whippings, and up to death.
Sorry, but FPH characterized you exactly. And now, as you admit, we can add trolling to your pile (something I would never have thought you prone to). Solemn proclamations of heartfelt sympathize for men and then to come out with this #### shows you're just shedding crocodile tears. As someone here made clear, if you could you have men selling body parts to support women's choice and children's rights. It's Zombie system, anyway, let's just cut out the pretense, eh? One dire day you and they will need those guys and wonder why they feel no allegiance to you, her, it, and this system and society.
No. Her choice to carry to term negates right there any claim to compulsion. That same choice, contrary to the impregnator's wishes, compels him to pay support. She volunteered. He didn't. Why not just set up milking machines, then compound that outrage by charging a fee to those forcibly milked?
Hang on now hippie, don't bury honest attempts at free market solutions under your disingenuous trolling. A man should be allowed to sell "body parts" to service any sort of debt or obligation, whether it's the care of his own children, a college education, or the note on his low rider. Nobody should have to be out of pocket just because some do-gooders think they're too special to remove a kidney to benefit a dying man.
Well, she should support the baby, yes, since it's her baby, that was allowed to come into existence totally and only through her will, yes, she should do that. And if that means she has to pay twice what she would force a man to pay, that comes with the territory of making choices. So, ts. Then she could make a soup with the afterbirth to feed the rest of you zombies.
Since she owns it why can't she just sell it?
But for some reason, women under the default contract dont seem to have any trouble finding sex partners. Why is that, do you suppose?
To hold that all his rights are neutered and all responsibilities imposed on him are set irrevocably for him at the time of the sex act is is atavistic, antediluvian, and hypocritically self-serving to one sex and one new class that comes into being only through that sex's subsequent supervening free act. It barely escapes irrationalism. For her, though, we've evolved in our attitude as to her duties and burdens of responsibility. For him, though, it's like he's still at that tribal campfire picking and eating insects he speared from the air. Got it.
It's as if we would insist on keeping certain aspects of Jim Crow; otherewise some really nice and deserving plantation owners might become indigent. And there are some baby plantation heirs--think of them.
And as soon as I advocate any of that, or you manage to link any of that to secular humanism (which Sam did long ago) get back to me.
Morty (1981) - Color me shocked you are still unable to read and comprehend. What part of "So while I am not convinced it really supports the child and so makes me unhappy I suppose all compromise results in some unhappiness and I am curious, would the men's rights crowd go along with it?" Suggests this is what I think ideal and this is what I am agitating for? It was something to throw out and see how folks reacted (just like I said it was), it is not a suggestion that reflects my true inner beliefs.
By the way do you still think this thread has nothing to do with the extra option woman get versus men (which is what you claimed earlier and then dropped)? Your 1956 is a treasure.
Morty you are so florid and over the top it is hard to take seriously sometimes. A single act can impact someone throughout there life. A single drive in a car, a single signature on a document, a single pull of a trigger. Sex should be different in your world, should be free of consequences (for the man). I get that, but that does not make it right.
You wish it negated it, but here in the US it doesn't. I don't know that it does anywhere in the world.
It's cognitive dissonance and a conveniently divided (or dueling) paradigms. And you can't even acknowledge how unjust and illogical this is as a matter of principle.
Words. Mere empty words. You're patting on the back while picking pockets
Why can she? We're back to property analogues? I own my house. Can I sell it for any cause, to be put to just any use, to anyone? Are there restrictions to any kind of ownership of any kind of property? (Again, if we're going to moot your property analogues.)
The problem with the attempts at humor and satire, ala Swift, is that the situation as to the man is at present Swiftian. It's telling that you can't see that. In fact, it's Swiftian.
I go along with the first part of that. What you don't get is the idea of a supervening event that renders the initial event moot. If you are going to insist on getting your way on mere but-for causation, there's nothing that you can't do--there are no restrictions on what you can inflict and oppress. You've basically abandoned all rational system.
EDIT: And I am over the top sometimes, as you, YR, and everyone just about can be. It is to make you think out of the box.
There is no other reason to even suggest forcing a man to undergo a vasectomy after conceiving the fetus, than as a punishment.
I want to go back to this, cause it's really where the pro-support argument falls apart.
Transferring responsibilities is in fact possible.
Single people can in fact take on the responsibilities of 2 people, so there is nothing magical about the number two.
Flowing from that there is no reason why a woman exercising her choice, to carry the fetus to term, against the express wishes of the man, cannot be deemed to have transferred those responsibilities to herself.
Her choice, her rights, her responsibilities. This has been the crux of the pro-rights side the whole time. The only coherent argument against that, has been that those rights are non-transferable, and are innate rights of the child. The fact that they are transferable completely nullifies the only coherent argument the pro-supporters have brought to the table.
So everything normally is worked out between the man and the woman. Woman gets pregnant, she gets an abortion, you want that, you're out free and clear. Woman gets pregnant, she has the baby, but she doesn't want you in her life and doesn't ask for support, you're essentially out free and clear. Woman gets pregnant, she has the baby, you want out, she disagrees... you head to court.
Without a "hard" structure of marriage as a realistic thing anymore, the aggrieved father of the child is expecting some judge to wade Solomon-like through all of these cases and decide - "Hey buddy, I feel I know you like I know my own brother. Why, you only had sex with her three times and didn't like it very much. $200 should about cover that one!" The courts are going to implement one size fits all solutions. They are not going to look at all of these different cases, and assume that one guy really is a father and the other one isn't, when none of them have ever bothered to sign any contracts (usually, in rare cases I suppose there's some sort of pre-nup.) Given the current societal structure, I think the courts are doing the right thing. The courts didn't change the societal expectations of sexual relationships or marriage.
Why shouldn't a judge do exactly what you think is so ridiculous? How is that any different from the role of a fact-finder in any usual trial?
Good lord, a thousand times, *this.* The problem with our legal system today is that judges don't do this and attempt to apply cookie cutter outcomes to every issue or crime. This is the fundamental problem with drug sentencing laws in America. Judges shouldn't think of fact finding and tailoring rulings to the local cases and individuals in their courtrooms as some kind of hardship.
Flip this.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main