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 20 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > 
   1901. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4369806)
So, Ray and FPH have argued that a man in a committed relationship, or a married man, or a man who has planned a pregnancy with his partner, should have no right to walk away from responsibilities to a child. However, a pregnant woman has a right to an abortion even if she is married or in a committed relationship or has planned the pregnancy. If this is about her responsibilities for her rights, why does she have the right to demand support from a man who has changed his mind? She can, but he can't. That seems obviously wrong, by your logic.
   1902. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4369808)
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?


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.
   1903. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4369810)
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.


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.

You can't disagree with that


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?
   1904. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4369814)
Not really. The fetus is part his. It only resides on her property. Think of the law of condominiums. The structure/dwelling can have a different ownership from the property on which it resides.

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.
   1905. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4369878)
For some oddball reasons it is children deserve support from two parents instead of children deserve support. This whole two parent thing is simply a "because" answer to a question one really can't answer without saying "because" if you wish to force people who don't want kids to support kids.
   1906. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4369893)
Also, the idea that a mother can't put up a baby for adoption without the father's permission is nice in theory but it doesn't really apply in the real world. Lots of kids get put up for adoption without the father knowing it happened.

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.
   1907. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4369895)
For some oddball reasons it is children deserve support from two parents instead of children deserve support. This whole two parent thing is simply a "because" answer to a question one really can't answer without saying "because" if you wish to force people who don't want kids to support kids.

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.
   1908. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4369900)
It isn't just adopting a kid that can result in one parent but also artificial insemination. As I said before and got dismissed with something about technology this whole notion of two parents supporting one child is an antiquated notion that doesn't really apply accept for the most part for poor people seeking assistance from the state.
   1909. Lassus Posted: February 14, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4369913)
In vitro accounted for something like 1.75% of births one of the recent years in the US. I'd have to look around again for where I saw that.

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.
   1910. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 14, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4369920)
So, Ray and FPH have argued that a man in a committed relationship, or a married man, or a man who has planned a pregnancy with his partner, should have no right to walk away from responsibilities to a child. However, a pregnant woman has a right to an abortion even if she is married or in a committed relationship or has planned the pregnancy. If this is about her responsibilities for her rights, why does she have the right to demand support from a man who has changed his mind? She can, but he can't. That seems obviously wrong, by your logic.


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.
   1911. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 07:00 PM (#4369961)
Children don't have fully formed human rights. ... Rights accrue over time.


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.
   1912. Greg K Posted: February 14, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4369963)
computer, tea, Earl Grey" world

You're envisioning a world where you don't have to specify that it be hot? Even Rodenberry didn't dare dream that idealistically.
   1913. Lassus Posted: February 14, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4369970)
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?
   1914. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 14, 2013 at 07:27 PM (#4369971)
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.


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.*

I believe a child has a right to support from both its parents.


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.
   1915. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 14, 2013 at 07:30 PM (#4369972)
Who knows what the hell they do in the south?


Whatever the hell we want. Often with our cousins.
   1916. Howling John Shade Posted: February 14, 2013 at 07:52 PM (#4369980)
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."


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?
   1917. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 14, 2013 at 07:56 PM (#4369982)
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.
   1918. Howling John Shade Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4369986)
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.
   1919. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:12 PM (#4369988)
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.


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.
   1920. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:14 PM (#4369989)
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?

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.
   1921. rr Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:17 PM (#4369991)
the daddy-game but got roped into the deal by a random sex partner should be considered a "parent."


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.
   1922. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4369992)
McCoy -

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.
   1923. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4369994)
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.
   1924. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4369995)
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.
Count me as entirely confused as to which parts of Puritan ethics Sam wants to keep and which he wants to jettison. Apparently the marriage contract remains sacred and binds a man to caring for a child, regardless of whether it was intended or whether he wanted it, and only if the marriage can be voided in time may the man abrogate his responsibilities. That is not at all the direction I expected him to take.
   1925. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:26 PM (#4369996)
If there is a contract or agreement in place before conception that agreement is in effect.
There is no such thing as a baby contract. What sort of agreement are you envisioning? How would it be confirmed? How would it be enforced?
   1926. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:27 PM (#4369998)
A man and a woman have consensual sex.

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.
   1927. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:30 PM (#4370000)
So, Morty, regardless of the relationship status of the couple, and regardless of whether the pregnancy was planned, a man should have the option to freely shed any responsibility for the child?
   1928. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:35 PM (#4370002)
No, why do you ask that? Everything I write should be regarded in the overall context we've been discussing this issue. Which others have pointed out here on numerous occasions too.
   1929. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:35 PM (#4370003)
There is no such thing as a baby contract. What sort of agreement are you envisioning? How would it be confirmed? How would it be enforced?

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?
   1930. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4370004)
A couple decide they want to have a kid. They have penis-in-vagina sex and in a few short weeks an egg is fertilized. The couple is excited and joyful. 8 weeks later the woman decides she doesn't want the baby anymore so without consulting the man she heads off to a clinic and has the fetus aborted. She has freely shed any responsibility for the child by KILLING IT! The man has no legal recourse against the woman for killing his soon to be child and we've been told over and over that killing that child was her right absolutely.

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.
   1931. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:41 PM (#4370006)
Add to 1928:

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.
   1932. Howling John Shade Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:41 PM (#4370007)
There is no such thing as a baby contract. What sort of agreement are you envisioning? How would it be confirmed? How would it be enforced?


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.
   1933. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:44 PM (#4370011)
Marriage? Where did I say marriage?
   1934. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:45 PM (#4370013)
But a man's obligation outside of wedlock is all about a baby-making he's not allowed to undo or repudiate.

Pre-nuptial contracts are everywhere, and they often are about obligations assumed. why, indeed, shouldn't they concern the baby?
   1935. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4370014)
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.
Child support payments are enforced through an implied contract system. There's no actual contract, except in rare cases of sperm donation.

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.**
So, Morty, regardless of the relationship status of the couple, and regardless of whether the pregnancy was planned, a man should have the option to freely shed any responsibility for the child?

No, why do you ask that?
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...
   1936. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4370016)
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.
Ok. So Fancy Pants Handle and Ray Di Perna have specifically said they disagree with you. FPH even doubted people holding your position exist - he seemed rather morally horrified by it, in fact. I am waiting to hear how and why they differ.
   1937. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4370019)
Ok. So Fancy Pants Handle and Ray Di Perna have specifically said they disagree with you. FPH even doubted people holding your position exist - he seemed rather morally horrified by it, in fact. I am waiting to hear how and why they differ.

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?
   1938. rr Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4370020)
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?


Well, Jack Carter already suggested a "Not Interested" public registry, which, as Carter said, would "immunize" a man from responsibility ahead of time.
   1939. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:54 PM (#4370022)
Child support payments are enforced through an implied contract system. There's no actual contract, except in rare cases of sperm donation.

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.
   1940. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:55 PM (#4370023)
Well, Jack Carter already suggested a "Not Interested" public registry, which, as Carter said, would "immunize" a man from responsibility ahead of time.

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.
   1941. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:56 PM (#4370024)
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?
Abortion isn't killing, not precisely. The fetus or embryo is a part of the woman's body, and she has a right to control over her body - including how much support is given by her various internal organs to the growing embryo. Without her support, it cannot survive. So she can end the pregnancy.

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.
   1942. rr Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:56 PM (#4370026)
So, McCoy, you support the registry idea, then?
   1943. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:57 PM (#4370027)
Child support payments are enforced through an implied contract system. There's no actual contract,


Now, remember this, if later I engage in the language of contracts as to these sacred arrangements.

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.


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.
   1944. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:58 PM (#4370028)
Abortion isn't killing, not precisely. The fetus or embryo is a part of the woman's body, and she has a right to control over her body - including how much support is given by her various internal organs to the growing embryo. Without her support, it cannot survive. So she can end the pregnancy.

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!
   1945. Howling John Shade Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:59 PM (#4370029)
Marriage? Where did I say marriage?


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.
   1946. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4370031)
It's weird to see how many hoops one has to jump through to say abortion is okay and men have no say.
Bodily autonomy. Done. There was basically nothing to that argument but a working out of how "bodily autonomy" justifies a right to an abortion for a pregnant woman that does not apply to folks who aren't pregnant women.

McCoy's hard right turn into anti-abortion rhetoric might surprise his various allies, too.
   1947. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4370032)
Abortion isn't killing, not precisely.


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."
   1948. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:06 PM (#4370035)
Bodily autonomy. Done. There was basically nothing to that argument but a working out of how "bodily autonomy" justifies a right to an abortion for a pregnant woman that does not apply to folks who aren't pregnant women.


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.
   1949. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:06 PM (#4370036)
McCoy's hard right turn into anti-abortion rhetoric might surprise his various allies, too.

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.
   1950. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:12 PM (#4370038)
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.
Because we all have bodily autonomy, but only pregnant woman have a right to an abortion based on that bodily autonomy. No one who isn't pregnant has such a right, for obvious reasons of biological fact. You want to institute a non-biological parallel to abortion, for men, in the interests of "fairness." I think that is a terrible idea, because your non-biological parallel to abortion involves a living child whose demands on his or her parents should not be abrogated just to make you feel better about the abortion unfairness.

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.
   1951. Howling John Shade Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:15 PM (#4370040)
Child support payments are enforced through an implied contract system.

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.
   1952. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:16 PM (#4370041)
Now that is odd. A man can't opt out because the taxpayer would have to foot the bill but a woman can kill her child because she doesn't like the look of her "baby bump".

So abortion is legal and okay because it saves the taxpayers money. Got it.
   1953. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:23 PM (#4370044)
Because we all have bodily autonomy, but only pregnant woman have a right to an abortion based on that bodily autonomy. No one who isn't pregnant has such a right, for obvious reasons of biological fact. You want to institute a non-biological parallel to abortion, for men, in the interests of "fairness." I think that is a terrible idea, because your non-biological parallel to abortion involves a living child whose demands on his or her parents should not be abrogated just to make you feel better about the abortion unfairness.


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.
   1954. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:27 PM (#4370048)
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.


Yes, exactly, but what has been decided can be re-decided and modified. Just as it was wrt the woman and her fetus.

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.


Or, as I have said, envision a brave new world where they go on a date dragging a notary with them.
   1955. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:12 PM (#4370059)
So how about this. The source of the angst seems to be the woman has an "opt out" through a medical procedure (that would be abortion Morty), and there is a timeline for this opt out. So what if we grant the man a similar opt out through a medical procedure with the same timeline?

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?
   1956. Morty Causa Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:40 PM (#4370066)
The source of the angst seems to be the woman has an "opt out" through a medical procedure (that would be abortion Morty)


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.
   1957. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:45 PM (#4370070)
it's only been said hundreds of times by many here what it actually is we object to.


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?
   1958. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:48 PM (#4370071)
In fact spending two seconds on this very page I found
If the woman can opt out at any time before the deadline why shouldn't a man be able to do so as well?


Honestly Morty.
   1959. SteveF Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:53 PM (#4370073)
Vasectomies (on average) involve a permanent reduction in male fertility (even when it's possible to reverse them) on a different order of magnitude than that caused (on average) by an abortion.

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.
   1960. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:00 PM (#4370078)
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.
   1961. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:50 PM (#4370092)
Man. If only there was a pill one could take to disrupt fertilization. Hopefully they'll develop one soon. Perhaps you'll be able to take it the next day. Maybe even the morning after having sex. One day, gentlemen, one day.
   1962. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 12:00 AM (#4370094)
I think that if a male birth control magic bullet that would not have permanent adverse effect on male fertility and potency (something like a dream combination BC/Viagra), males would pounce on them. And there would swiftly follow a radical change in the relationship of the sexes, personally, legally, and socially, just as there was with the original pill for women. I also think it's coming, and I hope to see it (although if I'm alive I'll probably be too old to personally take advantage).
   1963. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 15, 2013 at 09:52 AM (#4370188)
A man who declares he does not want to be a parent gets a vasectomy

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.
   1964. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4370197)
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.
   1965. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4370218)
Count me as entirely confused as to which parts of Puritan ethics Sam wants to keep and which he wants to jettison. Apparently the marriage contract remains sacred and binds a man to caring for a child, regardless of whether it was intended or whether he wanted it, and only if the marriage can be voided in time may the man abrogate his responsibilities. That is not at all the direction I expected him to take.


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.
   1966. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4370219)
Because we all have bodily autonomy, but only pregnant woman have a right to an abortion based on that bodily autonomy. No one who isn't pregnant has such a right, for obvious reasons of biological fact. You want to institute a non-biological parallel to abortion, for men, in the interests of "fairness." I think that is a terrible idea, because your non-biological parallel to abortion involves a living child whose demands on his or her parents should not be abrogated just to make you feel better about the abortion unfairness.


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.
   1967. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4370222)
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.


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.
   1968. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4370225)
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.


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.
   1969. Poulanc Posted: February 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4370227)
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).



What benefits are you talking about?

   1970. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4370231)
On a tangential topic to the discussion at hand (that we seem to be having in circles, talking past each other a bit at this point:)

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.
   1971. McCoy Posted: February 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4370232)
The only thing that matters is how much green is in the father's wallet.
   1972. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4370236)
What benefits are you talking about?



The ability to choose, in her sole discretion, whether or not to carry a child to term, and to compel support from the man.
   1973. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4370257)
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.


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?
   1974. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4370258)
The ability to choose, in her sole discretion, whether or not to carry a child to term, and to compel support from the man.


She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.
   1975. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4370259)
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.


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.
   1976. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4370262)
She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.


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.
   1977. Delorians Posted: February 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4370263)
Been on vacation for a week. Come back to see the topic of the Schilling thread about gay players has morphed into an abortion discussion. I have just looked at bits and pieces of the last 1500 posts and probably won't read the entire thread in detail. I am pro-life and I realize that, Snapper excepted, most of you aren't, and I'm not posting to add anything new to the discussion. I just wanted to say that the fact that abortion can be discussed, with different opinions, and people considering each others comments, without devloving into a war of insults, with the discussion continuing for 1500 posts, is a great thing, and a perfect example of why I enjoy reading the non-baseball discussions on this site. That is all.
   1978. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4370264)
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.


Americans don't have a policy set where parental leave is required. Thus it's a problem for Americans.
   1979. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4370286)
She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.


Can't she just give twice as much support and let the poor lad be?
   1980. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 15, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4370291)
Do you know what puritans believe? And this aligns to that how?

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.
   1981. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4370297)
1973:

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.
   1982. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4370300)
She is not compelling support from the man. Support is compelled from both parties.


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?
   1983. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4370301)
As someone here made clear, if you could you have men selling body parts to support women's choice and children's rights.


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.
   1984. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4370304)
Can't she just give twice as much support and let the poor lad be?


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.
   1985. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4370306)
Well, she can support the baby, yes, since it's her baby,


Since she owns it why can't she just sell it?
   1986. zenbitz Posted: February 15, 2013 at 01:55 PM (#4370312)
Morty, I agree that would be a fair contract. But just because its more fair to the man, doesnt mean any given woman has to sign it. Obviously, a woman who was personally opposed to abortion might not think it fair. The default contract (in most US states) is less fair to the man. However, it cant be said that any man would be *surprised* that he has to pay child support for a kid he'd rather been aborted. He should have held out his penis for a better deal.

But for some reason, women under the default contract dont seem to have any trouble finding sex partners. Why is that, do you suppose?
   1987. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4370318)
Well, we can never get beyond the mindset that somehow wants to hold him to an outworn paradigm while allowing her (and it) access to all the benefits and perquisites of a new one, which can only be if we assume that one sex act is dispositive as an indenture that is to last 20 years or so.

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.
   1988. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 15, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4370322)
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.


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.

Well, we can never get beyond the mindset that somehow wants to hold him to an outworn paradigm while allowing her (and it) access to all the benefits and perquisites of a new one, which can only be if we assume that one sex act is dispositive as an indenture that is to last 20 years or so.


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.
   1989. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 15, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4370325)
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?


You wish it negated it, but here in the US it doesn't. I don't know that it does anywhere in the world.
   1990. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4370328)
Again, with your hokey-pokey. Sometimes lit's law you argue. When that's inconvenient, you go to what's right and moral. Do you realize how expediently unprincipled this looks?

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.
   1991. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 02:43 PM (#4370329)
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?"


Words. Mere empty words. You're patting on the back while picking pockets
   1992. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4370330)
Since she owns it why can't she just sell it?


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.
   1993. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4370337)
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.


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.
   1994. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 15, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4370339)
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.

And as soon as I advocate any of that

There is no other reason to even suggest forcing a man to undergo a vasectomy after conceiving the fetus, than as a punishment.
   1995. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 15, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4370346)
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.

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.
   1996. Jay Z Posted: February 15, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4370348)
A lot of the problems here are that the goal was achieved to make all sex acts the same (no shaming for shacking up or hookups.) In some ways that has been worse for certain men. For men that are fans of the hookup, in the past you could say that there was no realistic expectation of family, since the two of you weren't married. Now, excepting bigamy, families are self-defined. Heck, you can even do bigamy, you just can't have multiple legal marriages. You can do informal bigamy.

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.
   1997. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 15, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4370359)
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.


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?
   1998. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 15, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4370373)
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.
   1999. Morty Causa Posted: February 15, 2013 at 06:18 PM (#4370442)
Yes, especially since most family courts are run more like administrative agencies that actual courts. The evidentiary protocols can be loosey-goosey and the judge is much more active and is given great deference, as he is designated officially as more the agent acting on behalf of the child than a mere judge deciding between two adversaries.
   2000. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 15, 2013 at 07:10 PM (#4370467)
@1999: and successful appeals of the judge's support award are routinely sent back to that judge's for his/her "reconsideration". Think about that for a second. The judge issuing an award is encouraged by a higher judge within that court (it's not a distinct appellate court) to rethink the award. Amazing.

Flip this.
Page 20 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 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
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(17 - 3:03am, Oct 26)
Last: steagles

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(872 - 2:55am, Oct 26)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(482 - 1:31am, Oct 26)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(90 - 1:16am, Oct 26)
Last: DFA

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3811 - 12:24am, Oct 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(521 - 10:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(30 - 10:52pm, Oct 25)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(396 - 8:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com
(14 - 7:58pm, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(16 - 7:30pm, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(5 - 6:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Bug Selig

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(8 - 6:29pm, Oct 25)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(12 - 6:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cat8

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(872 - 6:02pm, Oct 25)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(20 - 4:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Baldrick

Page rendered in 0.9122 seconds
52 querie(s) executed