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 3 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
   201. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4361105)
No one is saying, gay marriage should be legal because Larry Craig is a closeted gay man. No one is saying, the true meaning of the Bible is that gay love has inherent God-given dignity and beauty, because Ted Haggard is a closeted gay man.

The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.
We've had people argue that it was *inappropriate*. Also when pointing out rich Democrats who don't sent their kids to public schools. I am bookmarking this thread, so in the future, I can have a bipartisan defense against those people.
Well, it's not inappropriate. It's just not a good argument.
   202. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4361111)
Also when pointing out rich Democrats who don't sent their kids to public schools.


Time to chime in to point out that I find there to be no difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to public education. They both are actively trying to destroy it. Ergo, those Democrats are not being hypocrites! But they're making my life as a public school teacher a lot harder. Fruckers.
   203. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4361112)
Well, it's not inappropriate. It's just not a good argument.

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't a good tactic? I was just told it was. I'm so confused now.
   204. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4361113)
Well, it's not inappropriate. It's just not a good argument.

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't a good tactic?
I point you to the key to your misunderstanding.

Also, my argument was that it was a valid tactic. It's not necessarily a good one - that depends on context.
   205. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4361116)
The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.

Does this go for all rights? Just gay rights? Just the rights that progressives believe exist?
   206. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4361118)
Does this go for all rights? Just gay rights? Just the rights that progressives believe exist?
Did you lose the ability to read English in the last few months? Or are you trolling again?

"In particular" is a way of highlighting a subset of individual importance, not a subset which has an exclusive claim. Of course this is just one of many aspects of a powerful person's private life which may validly be made public for a variety of reasons.
   207. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4361121)
So, you would *not* be in favor of outing gay politicians for voting against gay marriage?


I've basically been referring to legislative actions that cause harm to gay people -- things like employment discrimination, housing discrimination, etc. To answer both you and Esoteric, gay marriage is a different beast. I don't see how anyone who thinks the issue through could be opposed to (secular) gay marriage, to be honest -- the creation of a structure that permits gay people to form the same sturdy, lasting relationships that heterosexuals take for granted has vastly more upside for a stable society than downside. (I have never heard a credible non-religious argument against gay marriage, and since we're talking about secular marriage, the religious arguments are irrelevant in this context.)

BUT. If one does happen to oppose gay marriage, and one is gay himself, that probably doesn't qualify as hypocrisy or elitism -- there are probably legitimate reasons to be against it (though, again, I'm unaware of any that are not religion-based). I stand by the idea that gay politicians who act to HARM gay people deserve to be outed. But it's not clear to me whether opposing marriage qualifies as harm -- while promoting anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, adoption, etc. most certainly does. So I'm willing to draw the line on marriage.
   208. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4361127)
The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.


Exactly. And a community that is harmed by a politician's legislative actions has every right to push back against that politician.

   209. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4361136)
I stand by the idea that gay politicians who act to HARM gay people deserve to be outed. But it's not clear to me whether opposing marriage qualifies as harm -- while promoting anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, adoption, etc. most certainly does. So I'm willing to draw the line on marriage.

[...[

Exactly. And a community that is harmed by a politician's legislative actions has every right to push back against that politician.

You can veil it an language as much as you desire, pile the arbitrary, gently couched constructs to the sky, but you're still saying "I can out gay people if I feel they deserve it." I fundamentally disagree with this stance, which I find to be personally abhorrent, counterproductive, and grossly immoral. You're certainly free to do so -- I'm not arguing that it should be illegal -- but I also believe in freedom of association and the related freedom to not associate, that freedom which I will now exercise.
   210. SoSH U at work Posted: February 03, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4361151)
The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.


Then it's not a right.

I don't think closeted gay politicians who vote for anti-gay legislation should expect everyone will respect their right to privacy on the issue. People behave badly, after all.

But that still doesn't make outing that guy right, in my opinion.
   211. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4361155)
I don't really think it's wrong. It's part of how the system works.

One clarifying question - I recognize you're against outing a Larry Craig. What about a George Rekers?
   212. SoSH U at work Posted: February 03, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4361161)
One clarifying question - I recognize you're against outing a Larry Craig. What about a George Rekers?


Believing in the principle means I don't have to click the link.

I did anyway. And yes, even him. You defeat his repugnant ideas by taking on the ideas, not the man. Like I said, that kind of character shouldn't expect to be able to keep his secret to himself, but I still don't support actively outing him.

As for Larry Craig, he got arrested for trying to engage another man in sexual relations in a bathroom stall. He outed himself.
   213. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 02:51 PM (#4361165)
I don't really think it's wrong. It's part of how the system works.

I reject that notion. Lots of things in the system are wrong. That doesn't make it right.

I recognize you're against outing a Larry Craig. What about a George Rekers?

Legal. And wrong.

Tony S. is perfectly free to feel that it's OK to out the private sexual lives of people that he feels deserve it. And I'm perfectly free to disagree with him and given there's no complicating personal or professional factors at free, I've chosen to disassociate myself with him. As he (or anyone else) is free to do with me. I'm not friends with nor do I hang out with any white supremacists, hardcore bible beaters, or angry, militant leftists, either. And just like them, someone who thinks outing closeted homosexuals is a valid tactic, is nothing but another hatemonger to me, and someone who I do not wish to know, unless there are sufficient mitigating factors that necessitate me putting up with them. There are none such here.

(And as SoSH notes, Craig turned his private sexual life into a public one himself, which is a different matter).
   214. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4361171)
A Rekers may deserve to be outed, that doesn't mean it's right to do it.
   215. The District Attorney Posted: February 03, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4361178)
I'll say this, I sure don't know who outing a gay politician with anti-gay stances is supposed to convince.

"I vote for Larry Craig, because he shares my belief that gay people should be discriminated against."
"Ah-ha! Turns out Larry Craig is himself gay!"
"Okay, now I think gay people should be treated equally."

Seems unlikely. It seems like only your own choir would be impressed. (I also don't think it's right, but even if it were, I don't see what doing it even accomplishes.)
   216. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4361186)
I'll say this, I sure don't know who outing a gay politician with anti-gay stances is supposed to convince.


It's because it's not intended to convince. It's simply doled-out retribution from those without the stomach to admit it.

Now, if someone researches and outs Gary Gaybasher because they think they sucks and they hate his politics, that's not something I find morally superior, but at least it's honest. If you're going to be an amazing #######, at least have the balls to admit that's what you're doing.
   217. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 03, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4361189)
Yeah, if homosexuals shouldn't be outed, then they shouldn't be outed. Outing Congressman Gary Gaybasher or Senator Larry Craig is no more moral than outing Tom Cruise or Tyler Clementi.


   218. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 03, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4361190)
By the way, the Larry Craig police interview is interesting, for those who haven't heard it before.
   219. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: February 03, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4361192)
It's because it's not intended to convince. It's simply doled-out retribution from those without the stomach to admit it.
It really is all about retribution. It's not like the outed politician is suddenly going to start voting differently in response to the vindictive and public humiliation. And it's not like his constituents are suddenly going to shift their opinion on the matter: he was only representing their views after all anyway.

It is solely about revenge. Which is what's appalling about Tony S and the people who feel like him -- they have come up with a tissue of rationalizations to justify what is, ultimately, nothing more than an atavistic yawp of hatred against someone who sits on the opposite side of a political divide. As I said earlier, it's the fascist impulse imported into American politics: "I disagree with you so strongly that I wish to violate you in the most personal way in order to self-actualize, and pour encourager les autres."

Shudder-inducing.
   220. McCoy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4361198)
It really is all about retribution. It's not like the outed politician is suddenly going to start voting differently in response to the vindictive and public humiliation.

Well, he is suddenly going to stop voting as he resigns and his constituents if they were that anti-gay or don't like to be deceived will vote him out of office or recall him if they detest him that much.

It isn't about revenge at all but about continuing the fight for equality. Disenfranchising the other team's base is like election 101.
   221. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4361215)
Post 158 is so many kinds of ewwwww.


If a then-23 year old taking an opportunity to sneak a peak into a locker room full of naked ladies (which seemed to be the aim of every 80s movies) makes your 'ewwww' scale, I can only encourage you to take the stick out of your ass, as it has clearly gotten stuck so far up there it's interfering with your speech.



   222. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4361223)
Are you insane?

Hey Jack, remember that thing where I apologized? That was, assuredly, a mistake, and I retract said apology.

176. Jack Carter, International Man of Minstrelry Posted: January 15, 2013 at 07:30 PM (#4347847)

I'm sure there is. Like I said, I wasn't deploring that generation (never remotely suggested it, afaict). Outside my family the 17-25 cohort doesn't seem any more or less bright than they ever were. I remember at that age being appalled at what a lot of my cohort was into. The only difference, now versus then, seems to be in attention spans.

Also, I tend to date women 20 to 30 years younger than I am, and there's no shortage of bright, quirky, interesting women out there.


"Tend" is not "once or twice". My use of "frequently" was as dead on as I could get without actually quoting you, lying scumbag that I am.


Do you think at all about what you post? I said I've mentioned dating younger women 'once or twice'--on topic, no less--in response to your bizarre, whining, delusional confection that I "frequently" talk about dating younger women; and here you manage to come up with (pretty creepy of you, actually, to find it so important) a single example? Why are you monitoring my dating habits? Ewwww, indeed.

You pull this garbage about once a month, where I write something you don't like, and you respond with these bizarre, personal attacks, that you never support. I very rarely address anything you write, because you're always banal. You never put any real effort into it--I assumed it was because you're lazy, but it's become abundantly clear you have nothing to say. And because you have nothing to say, you come after me because you're a typical internet coward with the courage of his keyboard.

When I brought up the issue of child support and personal responsibility, it was clear you didn't like it, but you didn't have the brain power to argue cogently***; instead you started shrieking like a cut little bitch about men's rights advocates. You're no better than the idiots who shout 'feminazi' in response to arguments favoring 'equal pay for equal work'.

***What's your longest post, little buddy? Eighty words? Clearly the extent of your ability to think.





   223. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:18 PM (#4361227)
Jack Carter, please cease and desist, por favor.
   224. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:20 PM (#4361231)
Lassus, instead of continuing to be a whiny little bitch about an opinion I have that you don't like, show some balls and take it apart, logically. Even one focused disagreement will do. One specific. One quote, with a rebuttal.

   225. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:20 PM (#4361232)
Eso--why? When you're personally attacked, how do you respond?

I didn't start this, in any sense. Why this advice from left field?
   226. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4361233)
Jack, you're doing yourself a disservice.
   227. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:27 PM (#4361236)
There had been a swim meet, and there was a new, small, easy to overlook, handwritten sign on the men's locker room door that said, 'women's changing room for meet'. I instinctively turned away, but then, being young and ardent, realized how easy it would be to walk in and pretend not to have seen the sign.


Wow, talk about a transgression.


You cannot be serious. A young man takes the opportunity to sneak a peek at some naked ladies. The horror!

Or, to take you seriously, 'how so?' I realize it's more fun to be dismissive, but seriously, how so? How does it differ from looking through the knothole at summer camp at the ladies swimming at the lake, enjoying the possibility of a glimpse of a little skin?


   228. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4361241)
Jack, you're doing yourself a disservice.


Okay... how so? I've had what I consider pretty ordinary opinions, and indulged in pretty ordinary (even common) behavior. I was then personally attacked. I'm genuinely curious--how is an admittedly angry reply, spurred by an unfortunate history with someone who makes a point, for whatever reason, of hassling me from time to time with vague generalities and accusations, doing myself a disservice?

These are honest questions, DK. My experience of you on this site is that you're a reasonable soul. What am I missing?
   229. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:30 PM (#4361242)
Eso--why? When you're personally attacked, how do you respond?

I didn't start this, in any sense. Why this advice from left field?
As you may or may not know, I'm no stranger to the occasional Primer feud. But after a certain point it's counterproductive. We get it. Y'all don't care for one another. You've said your piece, and now it's just one lengthy block of text after another, repeating the same general point, and threatening to derail the thread. And you descend into very personal insults and attacks far too quickly. I mean, so does Sam Hutcheson, but 1.) he's actually just working a schtick (which, amusingly enough, I've come around a bit on in recent weeks); 2.) is that really who you want to be emulating anyway?

Additionally, Lassus may get my goat every now and again, but attacking him on the basis of the length of his posts (!) is weirdly self-defeating. On the one hand, what an odd thing to fixate upon. On the other hand, irony abounds given that I'd wager most people would say yours in this thread have been too...erm, voluminous.

Look, I like all of you guys. (Well, except for Andy: that guy, whatta prick!) There's an interesting subject being debated here, and you've both already gotten your licks in, so why not let it go and focus on the actual thing being discussed?

EDIT: Lassus could stand to take a breather on this as well, by the way. It's not all you by any means. But it's not all ABOUT you, either.
   230. Publius Publicola Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4361245)
You cannot be serious. A young man takes the opportunity to sneak a peek at some naked ladies. The horror!


That's what strip joints are for. What you did was the equivalent of what a peeping tom would do. There are peeping tom laws, you know.
   231. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4361247)
@229--Sure. I agree with some of what you wrote. I offered to lay down the gloves earlier in the thread and thought it was done, and little creepy person just couldn't let it go. I'm not Gandhi. Why am I obliged to not respond to an attack? You don't, afaict. Why weren't you there when he started up again? It just seems... odd, to weigh in when you did.

As for the length of Lassus' posts, please. They're perfectly germane and impossible not to notice after awhile, just as it's impossible not to notice that Andy posts in three part harmony, or that you often go into significant detail. Lassus's posts are all but content free in part because of their brevity, and it goes to the point of, instead of his having something specific to say when he doesn't like something I write, which would then engender dialogue, he goes to the personal, and does so very quickly.
   232. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:39 PM (#4361248)
You cannot be serious. A young man takes the opportunity to sneak a peek at some naked ladies. The horror!

That's what strip joints are for. What you did was the equivalent of what a peeping tom would do. There are peeping tom laws, you know.


Please.

Ever get behind the wheel not too terribly long after a glass of wine? There are drunk driving laws, you know.
   233. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4361249)
What Esoteric said.
To be clear, I've got no beef with you, Jack, Lassus or virtually anybody else on this site - but continuing to fuss about this stuff can possibly make you seem less credible/hinged when you try to articulate your beliefs. Do what you like, obviously, but... the two cents were offered because I care.
   234. flournoy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:42 PM (#4361251)
I've had what I consider pretty ordinary opinions, and indulged in pretty ordinary (even common) behavior.


I don't believe that a man walking into a women's locker room or an old man dating women generations younger than him is ordinary or common.
   235. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:44 PM (#4361253)
Thanks, DK. I won't prolong the point with you. I just don't get why, after offering to let it go, thinking that had happened, then returning to the site to find a strange post aimed squarely at me, I'm the one who is admonished. I really don't get that part. I could easily see something on the order of 'hey, you two, knock it off'. That would have made sense to me. This doesn't.
   236. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:50 PM (#4361257)
More, longer posts?
Anyway, I meant it more as gentle advice than admonishment; we're good.
   237. Publius Publicola Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:51 PM (#4361259)
Ever get behind the wheel not too terribly long after a glass of wine? There are drunk driving laws, you know.


The weird part, if we continue this analogy (not a very good one, mind you) is that you seem to think that driving drunk is just sort of a harmless lark. Very strange, Jack.
   238. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:51 PM (#4361260)
I don't believe that a man walking into a women's locker room or an old man dating women generations younger than him is ordinary or common.


"Old"? You're lucky I have a thick skin. "Generations", plural?

It's interesting, though, since someone else brought it up. Btw, it's not all that uncommon for a 45 year old to go out with, say, a 22 year old. I know it's more fun to be dismissive and go 'icky', but I love the difference and, apparently, so do they. It's a little like what I imagine meeting an alien culture would be like. We have things in common, but so many things that are different, too. It's how I get introduced to music I otherwise wouldn't listen to, and new authors. I feel more alive, too, which I doubtless should be ashamed of. And, my god, are they beautiful.

   239. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:55 PM (#4361264)
Ever get behind the wheel not too terribly long after a glass of wine? There are drunk driving laws, you know.

The weird part, if we continue this analogy (not a very good one, mind you) is that you seem to think that driving drunk is just sort of a harmless lark. Very strange, Jack.


Ad hominem much, PP? Lassus, I expect that from, as he has nothing else to offer. You, though? I would have thought you'd disdain the low road.

My point, obviously enough, is that you took a harmless lark and brought it into the most denigrating set of transgressions imaginable. Hence, my stretching a single glass of wine into a drunk driving offense, which was equally absurd.

We can stop any time, so you know.


   240. Publius Publicola Posted: February 03, 2013 at 04:57 PM (#4361265)
I don't think anyone cares who you date as it seems consensual. What you did in the locker room wasn't consensual. You violated a boundary there.
   241. Publius Publicola Posted: February 03, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4361267)
Unless you weigh 50 lbs, having a single glass of wine is not going to impair your driving ability and your blood alcohol level would be well below the threshold so that's why its a bad analogy. Driving after one glass of wine is perfectly acceptable, and legal. Walking into a women's locker knowing full well you weren't suppose to is not an equivalent act.
   242. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: February 03, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4361268)
Hey guys, anyone have on opinion on whether it's acceptable to 'out' gay politicians if they're pursuing policy goals that are perceived as anti-gay? Seems like it could be an interesting question!
   243. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4361272)
I don't think anyone cares who you date as it seems consensual.

Lassus does. I didn't bring it up.

What you did in the locker room wasn't consensual. You violated a boundary there.
I'm human. You're not. I think we've established that your moral rectitude is unimpeachable. Congratulations.

Unless you weigh 50 lbs, having a single glass of wine is not going to impair your driving ability...
Tell it to the officer who pulls you over.

...and your blood alcohol level would be well below the threshold so that's why its a bad analogy.
Nice to see how you're beginning to grasp that that is exactly what I thought of your analogy.

Driving after one galls of wine is perfectly acceptable, and legal.
This is certainly not true for everyone.

Walking into a women's locker knowing full well you weren't suppose to is not an equivalent act.
For which, thanks to your willingness to impart your unimpeachable moral philosophy, I stand deeply ashamed. It was a shocking transgression. What could I possibly have been thinking?

We can stop any time. As I keep saying.
   244. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 05:12 PM (#4361274)
Also when pointing out rich Democrats who don't sent their kids to public schools.


This seems more than reasonable. It's a perfectly acceptable, "You're not putting your money where your mouth is" argument. More than fair, imo.
   245. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 05:18 PM (#4361278)
The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.

Exactly. And a community that is harmed by a politician's legislative actions has every right to push back against that politician.


Tony, I tend to agree with this, but do you have a bright line in mind? What about a Senator against gay rights, who had an affair prior to becoming Senator. Is it permissable to damage his credibility by bringing that affair to light?

I use gay rights here because I see being against them as actively harming and diminishing the lives of a great many people, which in turn would seem to justify more extreme measures than if someone was against, say, a seat belt law, or putting a maximum size on sugary beverages.
   246. BDC Posted: February 03, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4361286)
putting a maximum size on sugary beverages

Video of Bloomberg sneaking over to Jersey for a Big Gulp would command a premium, for sure.
   247. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4361300)
This seems more than reasonable. It's a perfectly acceptable, "You're not putting your money where your mouth is" argument. More than fair, imo.


Really? It's impossible to support a base minimum public educational system while at the same time opting to use your own personal resources to opt your child out for a better, luxury educational experience?
   248. Publius Publicola Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4361301)
We can stop any time. As I keep saying.


Then why don't you? You're making an ass out of yourself.
   249. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4361303)
If someone thinks more money needs to be put into the schools to make them better, then that person thinks they're not good enough. What's hypocritical about not sending your kid to a school that you think isn't good enough?
   250. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:18 PM (#4361315)
This seems more than reasonable. It's a perfectly acceptable, "You're not putting your money where your mouth is" argument. More than fair, imo.

Really? It's impossible to support a base minimum public educational system while at the same time opting to use your own personal resources to opt your child out for a better, luxury educational experience?


It's perfectly possible to so support, but it's the kind of thing that helps put a lid on any claims for public education as (if it even is) anything more than exactly as you describe, "a base minimum public educational system".

It's good to know that a specific pol does indeed believe there is better, that

"Public education is good enough for your kids, but not good enough for mine."

Which would make for a hella good political ad, come to think of it.
   251. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:21 PM (#4361317)
Yeah, if homosexuals shouldn't be outed, then they shouldn't be outed. Outing Congressman Gary Gaybasher or Senator Larry Craig is no more moral than outing Tom Cruise or Tyler Clementi.

Wait! Who? What? Whoa!
   252. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:24 PM (#4361318)
We can stop any time. As I keep saying.

Then why don't you? You're making an ass out of yourself.


Says the disingenuous jackass who weighed in out of nowhere with 'Gasp! You pervert!!', then invented an offensive analogy, then kept backing himself into corners. You started this, for no particular reason. You thought it would be fun to get a punch in, or something?

In any case, you're being an infant. You want the first shot, and the last. That isn't going to happen. We can stop any time, as I keep saying. The problem is, you don't want to.

.
   253. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4361320)
Wait! Who? What? Whoa!


Joe, you should take something for that :-)
   254. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4361321)
putting a maximum size on sugary beverages

Video of Bloomberg sneaking over to Jersey for a Big Gulp would command a premium, for sure.


I want to see this. Badly.
   255. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:43 PM (#4361330)
It's perfectly possible to so support, but it's the kind of thing that helps put a lid on any claims for public education as (if it even is) anything more than exactly as you describe, "a base minimum public educational system".


Is there a contingent of people who think proponents of public education think of public education in anything other than these terms? Of course public education is the lowest common denominator of the market, which can be bought out of by luxury and access. What else would it be?
   256. Lassus Posted: February 03, 2013 at 06:45 PM (#4361332)
I'm going to make this brief, because I know you like that:

Do you think at all about what you write?

Yes, I do, and better than you do. You can check, but this is what I wrote in post #123 that pissed you off so much:
"...a guy who touts frequently dating women two to three decades younger than himself..."
I chose my words specifically, because what I didn't want to say was "a guy who frequently touts dating women two to three decades younger than himself", which is something different. Therefore I did not say it. Looking at it, I can understand the confusion, for which I am sorry; but it is written properly. When I retracted my apology, it was based on you having understood the syntax of what I wrote.

When you write
in response to your bizarre, whining, delusional confection that I "frequently" talk about dating younger women
it is incorrect. The adverb is in front of a different verb in yours. What you think I said is not at all something that I said, and is something I specifically made a point not to say. If you demand answers from me for something I did not say, I will have nothing to say.

Overall, I stand by my point. I do not at all agree with your stance on sexual politics and rape reporting. More specifically, I think based on numerous posts on this topic over the months as well as stories you have made a point to tell about yourself I find your lectures on the topic in posts like #102 to be worth questioning.
   257. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: February 03, 2013 at 07:12 PM (#4361344)

Joe, you should take something for that :-)


Got any?
   258. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4361348)
Oh god. Seriously, Lassus? You first bother to take pointless shots, starting with 103, then defend it with this extraordinary parsing (which is actually your most engaged post in... ever, so that's good, at least).

Beyond belief.

I'm the problem on this thread? Sweet Jesus.

___________

The only point worthy of comment is your last 'graf. You persist in doing everything but troubling yourself to be direct about what it is wrt to my 'stance on sexual politics and rape reporting' that you find disagreeable; instead, I've gotten snotty inneundo from you, including your disgusting and completely off-target attempt at parody in post 103,

I totally love the ladies, especially the young ones, but ####### be liars.


That was your 'questioning'? Talk about offensive bad taste. Talk about a digusting, low blow that has nothing to do with anything I've ever said. It was utterly contemptible, but a little vague, a little cowardly in its vagueness, so I pretty much let it go. But I'll note here, that you're a contemptible, sniveling, sneaky little rat who for want of real intelligence resorts to creepy innuendo to try to score points.

And, since you brought it up, again, and in the unlikely event you want an honest conversation, I firmly believe that it is in everyone's best interests, and especially in women's best interests, that rape statistics be reported accurately.

You disagree with that?

As for my 'sexual politics', I doubt you have any clear sense of what they are, but I recall you taking some typically personal shots when I posted that in an age of safe and legal abortion, a woman choosing to have a child by bringing a fetus to term, even knowing the man in question did not, does not, and will not want to have a child with her, should not automatically be entitled to child support...

Because...

It's no longer child support. It is instead support for a woman's decision to bring a fetus to term.

Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

I mention it specifically because I can't recall any other position I've taken here that isn't comfortably within the center left to far left position wrt "sexual politics", women's rights, gay rights, individual rights, human rights, and so forth.

   259. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 07:32 PM (#4361359)
Is there a contingent of people who think proponents of public education think of public education in anything other than these terms?


I think there most definitely are some people who want to persuade us that public education is in perfectly good shape; especially among pols who either want no increase in funding, or to actually cut funding for public education.

YMMV, of course, but I do think this is rather different than outing a gay pol, since it involves freely available public information. I think it's fair to ask Senator X,

"X, in voting against increased funding for the state's public schools, you've said they're in good shape, and need no increase. Yet, for all that, you send your own children to private schools. What is it you find lacking in the public education system compared to where you send your own children, and why do you not think that all children are entitled to the level of education you want for your own children?"

I'd put it on a par with pointing out that Senators vote against increased funding for Medicare while enjoying excellent health insurance themselves, on the public dime.

Of course public education is the lowest common denominator of the market, which can be bought out of by luxury and access. What else would it be?


THIS.

The fun starts around 0:38.

.
   260. Lassus Posted: February 03, 2013 at 07:40 PM (#4361363)
If you're going to make such a point of telling me what I said about you, how I was lying, and how pissed off you are about it, don't just wave it away as parsing when it's clear it isn't at all what I said about you.

I admit you are a good liberal soldier, which I honestly appreciate.


when I posted that in an age of safe and legal abortion, a woman choosing to have a child by bringing a fetus to term, even knowing the man in question did not, does not, and will not want to have a child with her, should not automatically be entitled to child support...
Because...
It's no longer child support. It is instead support for a woman's decision to bring a fetus to term.
Do you disagree with that? If so, why?


I do disagree with it. Because if he did not, does not, and will not want to have a child with her, he should not have engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse to the completion where pregnancy was a high probably outcome. Or even a low probably outcome. He's has created a life, and he had as much responsibility in the creation of that life as she did. On the other side of that, if someone by now can't accept or understand the biological reality that a woman is the one who gets to decide about the life or death of a fetus growing in her body, one shouldn't be in a position to get someone pregnant.

There are outliers such as condom breakage, but I'm going to put that at a rather low percentage of unwanted pregnancy.



   261. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 07:46 PM (#4361375)
Child support should be about responsibility to the kid, not who took what precautions.
   262. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: February 03, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4361379)
It always used to bother me when leftists engaged in cannibalism, but that was when the pendulum was far to the right.
   263. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 08:05 PM (#4361407)
when I posted that in an age of safe and legal abortion, a woman choosing to have a child by bringing a fetus to term, even knowing the man in question did not, does not, and will not want to have a child with her, should not automatically be entitled to child support...
Because...
It's no longer child support. It is instead support for a woman's decision to bring a fetus to term.
Do you disagree with that? If so, why?


I do disagree with it. Because if he did not, does not, and will not want to have a child with her, he should not have engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse to the completion where pregnancy was a high probably outcome.


This is the rub, of course. Carelessness may introduce a very different issue. For the purposes of discussion, then, it can be useful to divide things into four parts (assuming genders as a binary):

a) proper care was taken by both parties;
b) proper care was exercised by the woman;
c) proper care was exercised by the man:
d) abundant carelessness was exercised by both parties.

Having thus divided it, I'll take the extreme position--and not only for the sake of argument--that in all four cases, we're still at the stage, let's say, where the woman, three weeks in, does an EPT and discovers she's pregnant. She is now the only member of the group of two who has any say in whether she proceeds with the pregnancy (as it should be--there's simply no workable alternative).

That's where I arrive at my position, and that this is the critical point of the discussion. There's no child, yet (snapper, notwithstanding). No child to support. Support here and ever after is not support for a child, but support for a woman's decision to go ahead, in the full knowledge the man does not want this, and have a child.

I'm also very discomfitted by the idea that once a pregnancy does occur that the man is responsible, because that's not the decision point. The man obviously is not responsible for support if the woman chooses to abort. He's only responsible for support once the woman chooses to go to term. By putting the focus back where I think it belongs, on the woman's decision (and not treating awareness of conception as commensurate with the birth of a child), I get to the position where she should be responsible for the consequences of what is entirely her decision.

Finally, we do not (and should not) any longer tell women that just because they become pregnant that they are responsible for bringing a child into the world. Similarly, I think we should not tell men, that just because they conceive, that they are responsible for supporting the decision of someone else to bring a child into the world.
   264. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4361408)
There are outliers such as condom breakage, but I'm going to put that at a rather low percentage of unwanted pregnancy.


Fair enough, so to clean up the discussion at the margins, perhaps we should have two discussions, including one where both parties agree measures where taken, yet the condom failed.
   265. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 08:13 PM (#4361423)
Child support should be about responsibility to the kid, not who took what precautions.


My claim, though, is that at the decision point, there is no kid. There is only the woman's decision to have a kid.

I'm reluctant to make the leap all the way from moment of conception to viola!, our bundle of joy, without taking into account a rather key moment in the matter, the woman's free decision to go to term.

Another way I look at it is, the woman, who can have a safe and legal abortion (or simply take a pill, as might be the case), calls Fred, and tells her she's (say) three days pregnant. Fred says, "I don't want to have a baby with you. You know that."

How is that different than if Mary--this time not yet pregnant--calls up Fred and says, "Do you want to have a baby with me, and support it until it's 21?" Fred says, "I do not".

   266. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 08:36 PM (#4361466)
You're looking at who should be responsible for the kid's welfare - I'm saying the kid exists, that kid is owed something.
   267. McCoy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 08:50 PM (#4361501)
You're looking at who should be responsible for the kid's welfare - I'm saying the kid exists, that kid is owed something.

True enough but I believe Jack is arguing that the parents had a choice before the kid existed and thus a person who chose to opt out while the other chose to keep on shouldn't have to pay. I happen to agree with that.
   268. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 09:00 PM (#4361518)
You're looking at who should be responsible for the kid's welfare - I'm saying the kid exists, that kid is owed something.


I don't know whether to reply,

Well stated, and I think this is one of the key (many) points where the discussion can break down.

OR

Sure. The kid is owed a responsible mother able to support that kid without dragooning the plasmid donor into a situation he's known not to want to be a party to for the next 21 years.

Both seem reasonable, imo.

As a practical matter, if we disregard everything that comes before birth, then mandating child support from the plasmid donor works, sort of. That it sort of works doesn't make it right, though. It's important to me to distinguish between what's effective and what's ethical.

There's a real cost, though, to asserting 'the kid is owed something'. Child support, unwillingly given, is enough to hinder or forbid the creation of families voluntarily, never mind the full range of other life choices. 17% of ones gross, which is standard for one child, is more than many people can pay without giving up on creating the family of their choosing. We would also see a rise in abortions of unwanted children, if it was known in advance the mother would not have access to support from the birth father.*** I also wonder, how many of those forced father-child relationships are plusses rather than minuses; to the child and to the father.



***To me, anyway, whether support is paid, and whether it's enough, are distinct questions not relevant to the issue at hand.
   269. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4361519)
You're looking at who should be responsible for the kid's welfare - I'm saying the kid exists, that kid is owed something.

True enough but I believe Jack is arguing that the parents had a choice before the kid existed and thus a person who chose to opt out while the other chose to keep on shouldn't have to pay. I happen to agree with that.


Once again, McCoy says in a hundred words what took me a thousand.
   270. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 09:24 PM (#4361557)
I'll grant a lot of that and understand your position (and don't feel antipathy for it or anything) - it doesn't move me from what I consider both most efficacious and ethical.

Having said that, I also hope reliable male birth control (akin to the pill) emerges sooner than later.
   271. Lassus Posted: February 03, 2013 at 09:26 PM (#4361561)
True enough but I believe Jack is arguing that the parents had a choice before the kid existed and thus a person who chose to opt out while the other chose to keep on shouldn't have to pay.

The opting part is irrelevant to the responsibility part.
   272. McCoy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 09:40 PM (#4361589)

The opting part is irrelevant to the responsibility part.


No, it is the starting line of responsibility. If a woman can opt out of a pregnancy then so should a man.
   273. Lassus Posted: February 03, 2013 at 09:56 PM (#4361620)
If a woman can opt out of a pregnancy then so should a man.

You're conflating two different types of events.
   274. McCoy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4361734)
So?
   275. BDC Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:18 AM (#4361873)
Of course public education is the lowest common denominator of the market, which can be bought out of by luxury and access. What else would it be?

Well, it could be thought of as a great bargain, since the state has resources that swamp any but the richest private foundations. In three educated generations of my leftish family, only my father (two years of Catholic college) and I (three years of Friends middle school and four of graduate school, and at that I was on a state grant at a private grad school) spent any time outside of the public system – my son never went to private school at all except for three college credits. We could have scraped together funds for private options at several junctures, but the power of the public option was pretty awesome for the price in all our cases. All of us went to public elementary and high schools.

   276. flournoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:07 AM (#4361905)
One of the risks a man assumes when he has sex is that it will result in pregnancy. Even if he believes (for whatever reason) that he and/or she is protected, or that she will opt to abort if a pregnancy occurs, it is a risk he assumes. If he is unwilling to accept the risk and its potential consequences, then he is most certainly welcome to abstain from sex.
   277. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:13 AM (#4361909)
Well, it could be thought of as a great bargain, since the state has resources that swamp any but the richest private foundations.

And the state is responsible for an amount of students so great and so spread out it would swamp any but the richest private foundations.
   278. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:17 AM (#4361911)
One of the risks a man assumes when he has sex is that it will result in pregnancy. Even if he believes (for whatever reason) that he and/or she is protected, or that she will opt to abort if a pregnancy occurs, it is a risk he assumes. If he is unwilling to accept the risk and its potential consequences, then he is most certainly welcome to abstain from sex.

It is not an inherent responsibility but a responsibility we as a society have decided to place upon a man and we can change that if we want to. If two consenting adults decide to have sex and it results in pregnancy it should be to each individual to decide whether or not they want the child or will care for the child.
   279. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:27 AM (#4361914)
One of the risks a man assumes when he has sex is that it will result in pregnancy. Even if he believes (for whatever reason) that he and/or she is protected, or that she will opt to abort if a pregnancy occurs, it is a risk he assumes. If he is unwilling to accept the risk and its potential consequences, then he is most certainly welcome to abstain from sex.


But this is no different from the argument that a women must bear a child if she becomes pregnant, that that's the risk she takes when she has sex, and if she isn't willing to accept that risk and its consequences, she is most certainly welcome to put an aspirin between her knees.

We no longer consider that a credible stance.

Further in that vein, the converse leaves us at a standstill: Why isn't it the case, that if a woman is not willing and able to care for her child completely, unaided, that she should refrain from having sex? Why is what's fine for the goose in your book not at all acceptable for the gander?
   280. steagles Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:39 AM (#4361916)
i'd just like to say a word about the previous conversation re: outing public figures.


i believe that every gay man has a responsibility to stand up as an advocate for gay rights and while i understand the desire to just say that "my personal life is noone else's business", anyone who believes that needs to understand that they owe a debt to the people who have come before them, the people who have made it possible for them to live their life, privately or otherwise, without being persecuted.

the debt that they owe is to make this world better for the next generation, maybe not in the same way, but at least in the same vein, as their lives have been made easier because of the sacrifices that were made for them.


and i'm not just talking about the alex rodriguezes and john travoltas of the world, i believe this is a debt that every gay man owes, be they a millionaire athlete or just a 9-to-5 office worker. just simply by living as an openly gay man, at work, at home, at school, at the gym, you make this world a safer place for the next generation because the dirty little secret about homophobia is that a lot of it is driven by a fear of the unknown and that fear becomes much less pervasive when a person can put a face on the issue, rather than just think about it as an abstract concept.


with all of the talk about bullying, and the effect that it has on gay youths, i believe that the reason why its effect is so harsh is less because of the physical pain, or even the mental trauma, but because of the isolation that the victims feel. people talk about how the fight for gay rights cannot be compared to the fight to end segregation, but that difference is at the root of why gay teens are so at risk. a black kid has a black mother and a black father and black brothers and black sisters, but a gay kid has two straight parents, straight siblings, straight uncles, straight cousins, and when he looks at his family and wonders why he is bullied and they are not, it's very easy to come to the wrongful conclusion that there is something wrong with him and when you pile religious bigotry and cultural homophobia on top of that, you get a suicide rate among gay teens that is 6-10 times higher than the national average.



player X coming out as gay is not going to change all of that, but it helps, and it's necessary. whether he's willing or not.
   281. steagles Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:41 AM (#4361917)
It is not an inherent responsibility but a responsibility we as a society have decided to place upon a man and we can change that if we want to. If two consenting adults decide to have sex and it results in pregnancy it should be to each individual to decide whether or not they want the child or will care for the child.
shawn kemp is intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


*edit* oh, and he also has two illegitimate children for every word in this post. including this one. and this one. and this one.


   282. flournoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:52 AM (#4361919)
If two consenting adults decide to have sex and it results in pregnancy it should be to each individual to decide whether or not they want the child or will care for the child.


In the event that they decide not to care for the child, what do you propose? Actions have consequences.

But this is no different from the argument that a women must bear a child if she becomes pregnant, that that's the risk she takes when she has sex, and if she isn't willing to accept that risk and its consequences, she is most certainly welcome to put an aspirin between her knees.


It is not the same argument. As I'm lead to believe that you understand, given your escapades detailed above, men and women are biologically different, and have correspondingly different roles in the childbirth process. Since the child grows inside the woman, and not the man, the woman and man should be afforded different decision opportunities.

We no longer consider that a credible stance.


Who is "we?"

Further in that vein, the converse leaves us at a standstill: Why isn't it the case, that if a woman is not willing and able to care for her child completely, unaided, that she should refrain from having sex? Why is what's fine for the goose in your book not at all acceptable for the gander?


By "should," do you actually mean "should," or do you mean "must?" If the former, then I would say, "probably so." But nobody ever asks me for advice on these things, and I am generally loathe to give it away unsolicited, especially if it pertains to a specific situation about which I know nothing. If you really meant "must," then no. I wouldn't support any such regulation.
   283. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:58 AM (#4361922)
In the event that they decide not to care for the child, what do you propose? Actions have consequences.

If both sides decide not to care for the child then it is either an adoption or an abortion. If a female decides to keep the child and the male doesn't wish to have it then she is on her own in terms of raising it. If the man wants the child and the female doesn't then the man has to raise the child and compensate the female for the pregnancy. If she didn't want it, well, that is the risk you take when you have sex.

Since the child grows inside the woman, and not the man, the woman and man should be afforded different decision opportunities.

Which means what exactly?
   284. steagles Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:02 AM (#4361924)
If both sides decide not to care for the child then it is either an adoption or an abortion. If a female decides to keep the child and the male doesn't wish to have it then she is on her own in terms of raising it. If the man wants the child and the female doesn't then the man has to raise the child and compensate the female for the pregnancy. If she didn't want it, well, that is the risk you take when you have sex.
in this scenario, what incentive is there for an unattached male to ever claim financial responsibility for the child?


   285. Jay Z Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:04 AM (#4361925)
Hey Jack,

If a man rapes a woman, does he still get to opt out of parental obligations? What if he uses a condom?

Abortion is relevant to pregnancy, which is a burden that falls on one party only. Men do not have pregnancy obligations.

In the year 2013, it's immature to think that intercourse is consequence free. Men are not free from the burden of choosing sex partners wisely. There is always the possibility of something going wrong in the relationship, or of someone who seemed trustworthy beyond a reasonable doubt but was not, or of a partner simply dying young and leaving the caregiving to the other party. But what can I say, in my life I did expect to bear the consequences in the worst case scenario. Being risk averse, this eliminated casual sex.
   286. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:05 AM (#4361926)
in this scenario, what incentive is there for an unattached male to ever claim financial responsibility for the child?

Why does there need to be an incentive? What is the incentive for an unattached female to have a child?
   287. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:09 AM (#4361929)
In the event that they decide not to care for the child, what do you propose?

Abortion. My complaint about self, legal, and rare is the last descriptor, not the second one.

As far as I'm concerned, if the woman wishes to go ahead with the pregnancy and the man doesn't, the woman is agreeing to be the sole ward of the future child. If the man wishes to go ahead with the pregnancy and the woman doesn't, then the man ought to be able to attempt to negotiate a surrogacy price with the woman, at the conclusion of which he would be the sole ward of the minor child (and if negotiations fail, the woman is free to terminate the pregnancy.

Obviously, if both the man and woman agree to either complete the pregnancy or to terminate the pregnancy pre-viability, there's no real conflict.
   288. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:41 AM (#4361937)
If this hypothetical male opts out of financial responsibility for his offspring would he still be entitled to a share of the profits from the sale of the child and/or its internal organs on a free market?
   289. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:57 AM (#4361939)
Hey Jack,

If a man rapes a woman, does he still get to opt out of parental obligations? What if he uses a condom?


Hey Jay,

It's clear you're still the same useless fucking idiot you were last time this topic came up. And since ad hominems appear to be the order of the day for you, from here on out I'll be referring to you as the "Pro-rape Jay Z", 'kay?

And yes, the next time you rape a woman, without a condom, you will nonetheless be allowed to pursue visitation. Apparently in 33 states. Is that what you wanted reassurance on?

.
   290. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 09:37 AM (#4361978)
The opting part is irrelevant to the responsibility part.


False reasoning. Jack and the others have the right of this. One of the functional requirements of moving the decision to carry pregnancies to term to the woman - as opposed to societal mandates that pregnancies *must* be carried to term - is the shifting of parental responsibility from the couple equally onto the woman who owns the decision itself. You can't argue on the one hand "the woman has the final decision in whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term" and then in the same breadth argue that "the man has full parental responsibility for the decades long fall out of the woman's decision to carry a pregnancy to term."

1. Dinner and a movie, after dinner drinks.
2. Would you like to come up?
3. Brown chicken brown cow.
4. Had a blast! Call me maybe.
5. Four weeks later, "um, yeah; we should talk."

At this point, by every modernist reading of the facts, including those that underpin Roe v Wade, there is no "child" present. There is a pregnancy, a zygote-fetus, and a possibility. But there is no child. That's *why abortion is still an option for the woman to choose.*

If at this point there is a disagreement between the two parties of the hookup, then the party that chooses to carry the pregnancy to term must carry the responsibility for that DECISION. Her body, her decision, her RESPONSIBILITY. If the guy is clear on the "I was just in it for a night's fun, and I want no part of this," then his responsibility ends there - prior to the fetus becoming a child. As such, it's disingenuous to demand that he commit the next 30 years of his life to supporting a child he explicitly did not want, just because someone else decided she did want it.

You are wanting to have it both ways. You want the woman to have full right to terminate the pregnancy if she doesn't want to carry to term, but you don't want her to have full responsibility for carrying the pregnancy to term. That's a no-go. With great power comes great responsibility.
   291. formerly dp Posted: February 04, 2013 at 09:50 AM (#4361982)
"Paying child support" does not equal "full parental responsibility". I would have thought that this goes without saying, but even the most basic facts evade a room when its populated solely by dudes.
   292. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4361984)
"Paying child support" does not equal "full parental responsibility". I would have thought that this goes without saying, but even the most basic facts evade a room when its populated solely by dudes.


"Paying child support" indicates that a party was involved in having the child. The current construct of women's rights/abortion rights is that NO CHILD EXISTS prior to the second or third trimester. As such, any man who wishes to opt out prior to the magical "viability" moment has no compelling reason to pay "child support." Only an equivalent share of the cost to abort. If the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term, then the existence of the child is her responsibility. You can't demand all of the right to choose but then want to farm out the responsibility for your personal, sole-discretion choice.
   293. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4361989)
Her body, her decision, her RESPONSIBILITY.

This. I know this-ing is kind of lame, but I don't get to do it often with Sam, and without any reservation.

No doubt, someone (though not many) will protest that this would lead to more abortions. To that, I would say, "so?" It's a routine medical procedure. Hopefully, it would lead to an increase in the percentage of completed pregnancies that take place in a situation in which the child can be properly taken care of.
   294. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:19 AM (#4361994)
No doubt, someone (though not many) will protest that this would lead to more abortions. To that, I would say, "so?" It's a routine medical procedure. Hopefully, it would lead to an increase in the percentage of completed pregnancies that take place in a situation in which the child can be properly taken care of.


Yep. You can't argue "abortion is just a medical procedure if the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy" but then argue "abortion is a terrible thing and you'd have too many of them if you required the woman who chooses to carry the responsibility for the child she chose to have."
   295. Lassus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4361995)
You want the woman to have full right to terminate the pregnancy if she doesn't want to carry to term, but you don't want her to have full responsibility for carrying the pregnancy to term.

When you find your ideal utopialand of someone other than the female carrying a pregnancy to full term, get back to me.

And for the use of Stan Lee I award you no points.
   296. Jay Z Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4361997)
From a libertarian standpoint (I'm not a libertarian), this argument is amusing because the libertarians are all about only negative rights and responsibilities. Well, in this situation, the male is taking a positive action. If the female takes no positive further action, a baby may develop. But the male shouldn't be liable to a claim or tort for his positive action!

Looking at it another way, if Man A and Woman B have sex producing Child C who, once born, performs actions against D that require a tort. So D sues A and B for producing C. (Not how the law works, I know.) Again A took the positive action. He can't renounce ownership just because it's inconvenient.

In the male rights world I don't know that the man is even required to use a condom. Sure he released his sperm very near the egg, but he didn't want the woman to get pregnant, why are the sperm his responsibility? Or that a married man would even be responsible for a child conceived in the marriage, if he didn't want to be. That's how ridiculous this position is.
   297. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:24 AM (#4361999)
When you find your ideal utopialand of someone other than the female carrying a pregnancy to full term, get back to me.


Tim, responsibility for a decision lies with the person who made the decision. If the woman is the sole decision maker in the process of converting a fetus to a "child," then by necessity she is the sole responsible party. Welcome to the consequences of sexual liberation.
   298. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:29 AM (#4362004)
What I think is ridiculous is that if a woman wants to keep a baby then it is oh well for the guy. If the woman wants to abort the pregnancy it is oh well for the guy. Somehow men must be responsible but have absolutely no say in the process. That is ridiculous. Either you ban abortion and adoption and make the parents responsible for the child or you allow the parents to opt out of parenting.

Which brings me to another issue. A man could not want a child and still have to pay for the child while a woman can have a child and say "holy cow, this is hard" and give the baby up for adoption and never have to pay a dime again for that child.
   299. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4362005)
In the male rights world I don't know that the man is even required to use a condom. Sure he released his sperm very near the egg, but he didn't want the woman to get pregnant, why are the sperm his responsibility? Or that a married man would even be responsible for a child conceived in the marriage, if he didn't want to be.


You are confusing "getting pregnant" with "carrying a pregnancy to term." You are confusing impregnation with "baby." In the world of pro-choice activism, those things are simply not identical. If a woman is carrying a "child" at the moment she gets pregnant, the abortion rights must be limited, due to the rights of the "child," and all of the pro-choice movement has to be reconsidered. (Of course, no good liberal wants to think that way, because it reduces the freedom/option of the woman post sexual interlude.)

In the modern reading of the facts, "releasing his sperm" does not create a child. It creates a pregnancy. The pregnancy can be aborted at any point for some 4-5 month following the O-face. The sole owner of the decision as to whether to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term is the woman. As such, the responsibility of converting an impregnation to a "child" rests solely on the woman who made the sole decision to do so.
   300. Lassus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:43 AM (#4362013)
Responsibility for a decision lies with the person who made the decision. If the woman is the sole decision maker in the process of converting a fetus to a "child," then by necessity she is the sole responsible party.

I find this neither moral nor ethical nor based in reality. Again, if you want a biological world other than the one we have, get to work in the lab.
Page 3 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(13 - 3:52am, Nov 23)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4170 - 3:40am, Nov 23)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(99 - 3:12am, Nov 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(18 - 2:55am, Nov 23)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(966 - 2:27am, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(12 - 1:50am, Nov 23)
Last: ptodd

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(553 - 1:35am, Nov 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(28 - 11:04pm, Nov 22)
Last: Squash

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(134 - 10:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(19 - 10:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(4 - 10:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.7178 seconds
52 querie(s) executed