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 4 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   301. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4362015)
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.


I'm not creating a mythical moral/legal universe out of thin air. This is the universe of Roe v Wade.
   302. Lassus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4362017)
This is the universe of Roe v Wade.

This is your personal, philosophical expansion of Roe v. Wade. I don't recall what you've written on the previous page in the Supreme Court transcripts.

   303. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4362019)
Really weird how it seems our Christian guilt/punishment plays a role in all of this. A man knocks a woman up out of wedlock. He must pay for his sins. Yet our liberalism also plays a role in all of this. A woman is not shackled to her child or would be child just because she had sex out of wedlock. It's like we have one foot in a bucket of cold water and the other foot in a bucket of hot water.
   304. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4362022)
This is your personal, philosophical expansion of Roe v. Wade.


No, I'm simply applying basic moral reasoning to the universe as physically defined in RvW.

If you and I go out and I drink too much, get schnockered, and then stumble toward my car; you are like "dude, you shouldn't drive man, and I'm not having any part of it; let's take the train." But I refuse to do that. I make a personal decision to drive, while you take the train. If, after that happens, I crash into a family of four and kill some kids, you are not morally responsible for my actions simply because you were present at the beginning. I am responsible for my decisions and their repercussions.

In the post-Roe world, the decision to carry a pregnancy to term past "viability" is left exclusively to the woman. As such, the responsibility for that decision is left exclusively to the woman.
   305. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 10:55 AM (#4362027)
Gack this thread has gone many places since last I was here (offline most of the weekend).

Outing people. There were a couple threads here. What is ethical and what is effective. First of all I think there are different ethics for public people versus private folks. Outing a politician is not ethically the same as outing George who sits inthe cube next to me (because of there public position of authority). One of the downsides of being a public person is you lose some of the privacy afforded normal folk, but there are upsides (obviously) as well.

As to the effectiveness, clearly outing (and similar such things) can be an effective tactic. I wish it wasn't because it obscures more than it reveals regarding the policy in question (as oppssed to ad hominem attacks on the person behind the policy), but as was stated politics ain't beanbag.

Regarding the feud (bickering, whatever) in the thread. I think it was/should have been standard stuff, but I think it escalated because Jack (as he openly admits he tends to do) reacted very strongly; as so it keeps going. In generalI think folks would be better served (myself included) to not escalate so quickly. I guess BBTF ain't beanbag either though.

Quite aside from that - date who you will (consenting adults and all), but walking into a locker room of the opposite gender by "accident" is bad form, and no I don't care how old you were. Being young is really really no excuse - it is wrong. Full stop. It is not murder or anything like it (clearly), but it is wrong.

Regarding the pregnancy/child support argument I think ... well the discussion is OT even for this OT thread and think that part should move to the OT: Politics thread (whichis a bit slow right now). If it doesn't I reserve the right to chime in later though.
   306. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4362032)
I find this neither moral nor ethical nor based in reality.

I agree. I think a man engaging in casual unprotected sex, and then abandoning any children that come from that is horrible and disgusting. I also think a woman engaging in casual unprotected sex and then having an abortion is horrible and disgusting.
In both cases, i support the right of an individual to make that choice however.
   307. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4362042)
I agree. I think a man engaging in casual unprotected sex, and then abandoning any children that come from that is horrible and disgusting. I also think a woman engaging in casual unprotected sex and then having an abortion is horrible and disgusting.
In both cases, i support the right of an individual to make that choice however.


That describes me completely. As much as I agree that a man who impregnates a woman should be responsible, I agree with Sam. As long as the decision to carry rests solely on the woman, then it's simply not logical to legally bind him to the consequences of a decision he had no say in.

As McCoy said, if abortion is outlawed (I don't know that adoption would need to be), you'd have no problem. Each party was a willing participant in the act, and thus each party must share the responsibilty of the fallout from that act. But that's no longer what happens.
   308. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4362047)
As McCoy said, if abortion is outlawed (I don't know that adoption would need to be), you'd have no problem. Each party was a willing participant in the act, and thus each party must share the responsibilty of the fallout from that act. But that's no longer what happens.


Agreed. Our child support laws have not caught up with modern constructions of sexual and procreative agency.
   309. Lassus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4362056)
As long as the decision to carry rests solely on the woman, then it's simply not logical to legally bind him to the consequences of a decision he had no say in.

And the answer is the same. You want a different biological world with different physical laws and occurrences. That is not where we exist. The event of getting pregnant is not solely the woman. The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant. It is the way of nature, sorry.
   310. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4362064)
And the answer is the same. You want a different biological world with different physical laws and occurrences. That is not where we exist. The event of getting pregnant is not solely the woman. The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant. It is the way of nature, sorry.


What does a fetus growing inside a woman have to do with a man choosing to have a child or not?
   311. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4362067)
And the answer is the same. You want a different biological world with different physical laws and occurences. That is not where we exist. The event of getting pregnant is not solely the woman. The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant. It is the way of nature, sorry.


And I consider it wholly inconsistent.

Nature, the law and advanced medicine has rendered the man pretty inconsequential in the entire process. So to me, it's just not logically consistent to determine that the man, who has no say in the ultimate decision on whether a child is carried to term, is still liable for the results of that decision.

If this were an "If, then" situation, then the man should be legally responsible. If you get her pregnant, then you're on the hook.

But it's no longer "If, then," it's "If, if, then." The man is excluded from inclusion in the second "if," so I don't know how you reasonably hold him to the "then."

Now I think someone who knocks a girl up should be a man, so to speak, and take responsibility, whatever her choice is. I just don't how the legal system can justify mandating that position.

   312. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4362068)
There is a hierarchy of rights and responsibilities.

As someone said last page, I am on the side of the child. Once the child is born, everyone who participated has a responsibility to it. So no, the guy doesn't get to just have a fun night and then bail.

Before the child is born we have Roe v Wade, with all it means, and I think it reasonable the woman controls the vast majority of the decision, because it is in fact her body with the parasite.

The man gets the short end I guess, but so what? I think the child has a more compelling case than the man (for what I hope are obvious reasons) and I think the woman before birth also has a more compelling case than the man. Conflating before and after birth and playing the rights of the various parties against each other to rationalize the man getting off after getting off is sophistry.

The man however is not a victim. He should know what is up and can easily take precautions that eliminate a huge amount of the downside (looking at you Shawn Kemp, Wilt managed and so can you). If the condom (or whatever) fails, well you took a risk, but if that happens the child and mother both get priority.

   313. Depressoteric Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4362070)
The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant. It is the way of nature, sorry.
You are inviting disaster with this line of logic. I could think of countless things to substitute in place of "The fact that [X] are upset that [Y] get [Z] is understandable, but it's the way of nature." Would you sign on to each and every one of them?

And my god, Sam Hutcheson is actually the closest to being correct in this thread. Gonna check outside for a planetary alignment.
   314. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4362076)
The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant.


To be clear, "boys" are upset that women get to control boys' bodies, not that women get to control women's bodies. The problem is that a casual night of sex, for a "boy" comes with the rather odd, puritanical follow-on possibility that the random stranger you hooked up with last night now gets to decide, carte blanche, if you have to toil and labor to support some snot-nosed brat for the rest of your adult life.

I have no issue with a woman controlling her own body. I fully support that. I have an issue with a woman's decision being meted out to her random sexual partners just because her baby factory time clock was ticking and she decided to pop one out.
   315. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4362078)
Conflating before and after birth and playing the rights of the various parties against each other to rationalize the man getting off after getting off is sophistry.

Again, we have the issue of sex and sin clouding the issue. If a man has sex out of wedlock he must pay for it. A woman has sex out of wedlock and, hey, baby this is America. It's cool, don't worry about it.
   316. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4362079)
The man gets the short end I guess, but so what? I think the child has a more compelling case than the man (for what I hope are obvious reasons) and I think the woman before birth also has a more compelling case than the man. Conflating before and after birth and playing the rights of the various parties against each other to rationalize the man getting off after getting off is sophistry.

The man however is not a victim. He should know what is up and can easily take precautions that eliminate a huge amount of the downside (looking at you Shawn Kemp, Wilt managed and so can you). If the condom (or whatever) fails, well you took a risk, but if that happens the child and mother both get priority


Pure, puritanical moralism.
   317. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4362082)
The man gets the short end I guess, but so what? I think the child has a more compelling case than the man (for what I hope are obvious reasons) and I think the woman before birth also has a more compelling case than the man. Conflating before and after birth and playing the rights of the various parties against each other to rationalize the man getting off after getting off is sophistry.


And if the man wants the child, but the woman just wants to get off and then get off, that's OK.

To me, it's not about shirking responsibility. It's about not having a say in the decision that determines whether a child is brought to term. Which is fine, I don't know how you can handle it any other way. But once you've granted that, I don't know how you can justify reintroducing the man as a responsible party.

   318. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4362084)
As long as the decision to carry rests solely on the woman, then it's simply not logical to legally bind him to the consequences of a decision he had no say in.


He had his say when he made the decision to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman who was possibly fertile. If he wasn't willing to accept the fact that a kid might result, he should have just asked her for a BJ instead (or a handjob, or anal, or whatever non-procreative acts the two of them are into).
   319. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:52 AM (#4362091)
There is a vagina in that equation as well but apparently in our liberated society a woman doesn't have to accept the fact that a kid might result from penis-in-vagina sex. Clearly what we need to do here is to make BJ, HJ, and anal sex more exciting for females.
   320. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:52 AM (#4362093)
He had his say when he made the decision to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman who was possibly fertile


As McCoy says, the boy has to be punished for his sins, apparently. The inversion of traditional Puritanical sexual politics here is fascinating.
   321. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4362097)
There is a vagina in that equation as well but apparently in our liberated society a woman doesn't have to accept the fact that a kid might result from penis-in-vagina sex.


Yeah, that's biology for you. On the day a man runs the risk of having to shove a ten-pound object out of his urethra, he can make the decisions on whether or not to carry a child.
   322. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4362099)
He had his say when he made the decision to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman who was possibly fertile.


And if he did that because he wanted a kid, then he must be a happy dude since he'll obviously have a little bundle of joy nine months hence.
   323. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4362100)
Again, we have the issue of sex and sin clouding the issue. If a man has sex out of wedlock he must pay for it. A woman has sex out of wedlock and, hey, baby this is America. It's cool, don't worry about it.


Pure, puritanical moralism.


This is crazy talk. I am not in the slightest puritanical (and for the record I am an Atheist, so sin doesn't enter into it.

I was clear. There is a hierarchy of rights (deservings, to coin a word if right is too strong and distracts you). Once born the child deserves support from both its parents. The man does not get to weasal out of that. There is no sin here and I could care less in wedlock or out - I care about the child, if for no other reason than as a member of society I want the children in that society not in poverty, struggling or whatever. I also want them living in a society where they know actions (like having sex) have consequences.

It has nothing to do with puritanism, sin or anything else like that and I have no idea why you would think that from me (Unless you have totally missed out on my entire posting history).
   324. Depressoteric Posted: February 04, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4362103)
He had his say when he made the decision to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman who was possibly fertile. If he wasn't willing to accept the fact that a kid might result, he should have just asked her for a BJ instead (or a handjob, or anal, or whatever non-procreative acts the two of them are into).
And yet the consequences would be the same in a scenario where the woman sabotaged the man's birth control (I know people laugh about this as being one of those "oh yeah right, maybe in stories" things, but I actually KNOW a girl who did it, successfully, to get pregnant. And was proud of it). Or where she lied about taking the pill. Or was taking the pill, but it just didn't work for whatever reason. There was no "irresponsibility" on the man's part as we commonly understand the term in these scenarios. Should he still be equally on the hook?

I mean, Vlad, if you want to have a world where we return to the sexual puritanism of the 19th century, hey that's your call. But I'm the conservative Republican in this thread, and crap, even *I* think that's a rather brutally punitive view of sex. Why is all the risk placed upon the shoulders of the man as opposed to the woman? (The woman, after all, has a choice whether to get a morning-after pill or an abortion.) Isn't that rather...sexist?
   325. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4362104)
To me, it's not about shirking responsibility. It's about not having a say in the decision that determines whether a child is brought to term. Which is fine, I don't know how you can handle it any other way. But once you've granted that, I don't know how you can justify reintroducing the man as a responsible party.


To be fair, the way it is now, the man doesn't have any responsibility for the abortion decision either. What I would like to see is:

(1) Woman is obligated to inform man of pregnancy during period when abortion is legal. If she fails to do so, man has no obligation to provide child support.
(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.
(3) If such an abortion request is delivered, and the woman chooses to carry the child to term, there is no obligation for the man to supply child support.
(4) The above shall have no effect on a woman's right, in her sole discretion, to seek an abortion under existing law.
   326. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4362105)
This is crazy talk. I am not in the slightest puritanical (and for the record I am an Atheist, so sin doesn't enter into it.

So did you live in the bubble next to John Travolta's?
   327. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4362106)
Yeah, that's biology for you. On the day a man runs the risk of having to shove a ten-pound object out of his urethra, he can make the decisions on whether or not to carry a child.

We have this thing nowadays called an abortion.
   328. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:02 PM (#4362107)
I was clear. There is a hierarchy of rights (deservings, to coin a word if right is too strong and distracts you). Once born the child deserves support from both its parents.


When you divorce sex from procreation - which we have already done as a society - you divorce sexual partners from "parenting." The idea that the guy who happened to be riding the pony on a given night is the biological donor in no way indicates that he should be required to be a "parent."

It has nothing to do with puritanism, sin or anything else like that and I have no idea why you would think that from me


90% of the moral argumentation of self-identified atheistic liberals is Puritanism wrapped up in the swaddling clothing of secularism. You don't think you're being Puritanical because you identify as a secular atheist, therefore there's no way you could be doing that. But your moral system and your positioning on the subject is pure Puritanism without the out of fashion religious robes.
   329. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4362110)
To be fair, the way it is now, the man doesn't have any responsibility for the abortion decision either. What I would like to see is:

(1) Woman is obligated to inform man of pregnancy during period when abortion is legal. If she fails to do so, man has no obligation to provide child support.
(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.
(3) If such an abortion request is delivered, and the woman chooses to carry the child to term, there is no obligation for the man to supply child support.
(4) The above shall have no effect on a woman's right, in her sole discretion, to seek an abortion under existing law.


That seems perfectly sensible way to handle this (sadly), though I'd probably choose "preferring the woman have an abortion" to requesting. Seems a little less heavy-handed.

   330. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4362112)
(1) Woman is obligated to inform man of pregnancy during period when abortion is legal. If she fails to do so, man has no obligation to provide child support.
(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.
(3) If such an abortion request is delivered, and the woman chooses to carry the child to term, there is no obligation for the man to supply child support.
(4) The above shall have no effect on a woman's right, in her sole discretion, to seek an abortion under existing law.


This is the only way for the current construction of choice and reproductive rights to work going forward.
   331. Depressoteric Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4362115)
(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.
(3) If such an abortion request is delivered, and the woman chooses to carry the child to term, there is no obligation for the man to supply child support.
The reason this will never, ever happen is because it acts as if religious objections to abortions don't exist. Politically, it would be DOA. I can already imagine the howls of outrage: you're brutally penalizing people for having religious convictions!

Women's groups would violently oppose it too, though for more venal reasons. This arrangement would equalize the power differential between men and women w/r/t pregnancy, but that of course isn't what most activist groups want at all (not all, but most). They want the upper hand, an advantage, and now that they have it both legally and economically in this area they'll never willingly give it up for a question of principle.

EDIT: There are also all sorts of major issues that would arise involving notice w/r/t (1) and (2) on that list as well. It would turn into the sort of service-of-process-ducking games you see in the legal system, with the crucial difference that while a trial can simply be delayed or a case dismissed, a child is coming on a set schedule and can't be pushed back. How do you construct a regime to handle and adjudicate the inevitable "That bitch never told me she was pregnant!"/"That scumbag never told me he wanted an abortion!" counterclaims? It would quickly turn into nearly as much of a clusterf**k as our current regime of child support laws.
   332. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4362118)
Politically, it would be DOA. I can already imagine the howls of outrage: you're brutally penalizing people for having religious convictions!


If you're pregnant by a relative stranger out of wedlock, you don't have religious convictions.
   333. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4362119)
The reason this will never, ever happen is because it acts as if religious objections to abortions don't exist. Politically, it would be DOA. I can already imagine the howls of outrage: you're brutally penalizing people for having religious convictions!


It respects religious convictions. No one is requiring anyone to have an abortion. If a woman has religious objections to an abortion that the man doesn't share, then she should bear the cost of those beliefs. Conversely, a man who cannot, for religious reasons, formally request a woman to have an abortion shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the skirt of a less-observant baby-oven.
   334. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4362122)
There are also all sorts of major issues that would arise involving notice w/r/t (1) and (2) on that list as well. It would turn into the sort of service-of-process-ducking games you see in the legal system, with the crucial difference that while a trial can simply be delayed or a case dismissed, a child is coming on a set schedule and can't be pushed back. How do you construct a regime to handle and adjudicate the inevitable "That ##### never told me she was pregnant!"/"That scumbag never told me he wanted an abortion!" counterclaims?


Its imperfect, sure. But OTOH, it is a vast improvement on the current system, which gives men no rights or responsibility with respect to abortions. Given that woman are carrying the fetus, it makes sense that they should have an sole discretion override to the whole process - i.e., if they want an abortion, it happens, period - but men should have the ability to seek an abortion in lieu of supporting the child.
   335. Depressoteric Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:17 PM (#4362125)
It respects religious convictions. No one is requiring anyone to have an abortion. If a woman has religious objections to an abortion that the man doesn't share, then she should bear the cost of those beliefs.
Okay, you've made a purely rationalistic argument. One that I'm not sure I agree with, but I see your logic.

Now try selling it politically. And getting laws passed to that effect. Imagine the coverage from both sides: religious and anti-abortion groups shrieking about how women will be pressured to abort if a man "changes his mind" about having a kid after initially agreeing, and unless she commits what she believes to be the murder of her own child, she'll be completely on her own without support, even if the decision to have a child was made by BOTH of them originally. (Seriously: that one scenario right there kills your idea stone dead. It's compelling, it's emotionally gripping, it will get the women of America -- and a number of the men too -- up in arms.)

Imagine women's groups shrieking about how women are having control over their bodies stripped away from them by legislators in [state capital X]. How this law gives incredible power to men over women, in that they can have unprotected sex, get the woman to commit to bearing their children, then back out four months later while forcing the mother to raise the child alone if she refuses to abort what she has likely already come to think of as "her baby."

Imagine the world's most unlikely alliance between NARAL, NOW, the Catholic and Evangelical Churches, and National Right To Life to kill this thing stone dead in every state in the land and get the people who proposed it run out of their legislatures on a rail.

Never gonna happen.

   336. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4362132)
I would add to #325 that if the man requests an abortion, he has to cover the costs of the procedure. Otherwise, I am on board.
   337. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4362133)
Imagine the coverage from both sides: religious and anti-abortion groups shrieking about how women will be pressured to abort if a man "changes his mind" about having a kid after initially agreeing, and unless she commits what she believes to be the murder of her own child, she'll be completely on her own. (Seriously: that one scenario right there kills your idea stone dead. It's compelling, it's emotionally gripping, it will get the women of America -- and a number of the men too -- up in arms.) Imagine women's groups shrieking about how women are having control over their bodies stripped away from them by legislators in [state capital X].


I agree with you about political impossibility, but this flaw in particular is easily addressible. You give the option of a man executing a document providing that he consents to a future pregnancy-to-birth. That document can either have a specific term or be indefinite; the consent can be revoked during its term only upon delivery of a legal document to the woman revoking the consent. If a man is married to a woman, consent to a birth is deemed unless a document is delivered stating otherwise.

If the pregnancy commences while consent is "active", the consent cannot be revoked with respect to that pregnancy.


Now, you may be saying - this is a complex legal construction for a simple matter, and discriminates against poor folks who can't hire lawyers. Fair enough, but its not like our current system of hashing it out in Family Court is any more efficient or fair. (In fact, its neither.) It requires a bunch of legal work before having kids or co-habitating, but given the financial burden being placed upon the man (and woman) in connection with having kids, that's a good and fair thing - its sort of crazy you can commit someone to a lifetime of child support with less legal work than a mortgage.
   338. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4362138)
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!


(I'll ignore the hapless attempt to construct a libertarian argument that reflects how or what libertarians think)

The man participated in the creation of a zygote. He should be responsible for his part in the zygote, but if he has no choice in the decision of what to do with the zygote, how can he be held responsible above and beyond that creation without choosing to by an additional overt act?

If I break somebody's window with a baseball, I ought to responsible for paying for the value of that window and perhaps compensation for time and effort of the homeowner to replace the window, or any damages that result in a reasonable time frame (homeowner's obviously not going to get a glazier out there in an hour). If, however, I give them the money and they make the decision to choose to not fix the window and leave the hole or a trash bag there or something, I shouldn't be responsible for repairs to the exposed room for the next 18 years.

As Sam said, if it's *your* body and *your* choice, the responsibility falls on you.
   339. Depressoteric Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4362139)
Seriously, anyone who thinks zop's proposed regime can work isn't think about how it would actually play out in the REAL WORLD. I can think of countless situations where his proposed rules (even a version with certain modifications) would not only create real inequities -- for both sides! -- but also would be less popular, politically, than herpes simplex.

I'm on record as saying the current regime needs to change. But these aren't the changes you're looking for.
   340. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4362141)
And my god, Sam Hutcheson is actually the closest to being correct in this thread. Gonna check outside for a planetary alignment.


Just so you know, Pluto is now a dwarf planet, not the ninth planet. But that happened before Sam made his comments here.
   341. Chicago Joe Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4362142)
It's like we have one foot in a bucket of cold water and the other foot in a bucket of hot water.


And all that gets you is diarrhea.
   342. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4362143)
Seriously, anyone who thinks zop's proposed regime can work isn't think about how it would actually play out in the REAL WORLD. I can think of countless situations where his proposed rules (even a version with certain modifications) would not only create real inequities -- for both sides! -- but also would be less popular, politically, than herpes simplex.

There's already a gigantic, real inequity, a gross misbalance of choice and responsibility. No, it's not practical to get into legislation, but neither was women's suffrage in 1700 - this is a civil rights issue.
   343. Depressoteric Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4362145)
Now, you may be saying - this is a complex legal construction for a simple matter, and discriminates against poor folks who can't hire lawyers. Fair enough, but its not like our current system of hashing it out in Family Court is any more efficient or fair.
The solution for an existing inequitable regime is not to replace it with one that's even more inequitable. And that's what you're proposing, ultimately. Your heart is in the right place, but this thing would fall apart upon contact with the real world. Implementation would be near-impossible.

Also, this:
You give the option of a man executing a document providing that he consents to a future pregnancy-to-birth. That document can either have a specific term or be indefinite; the consent can be revoked during its term only upon delivery of a legal document to the woman revoking the consent. If a man is married to a woman, consent to a birth is deemed unless a document is delivered stating otherwise.
Aside from the fact that Joe & Jane Schmoe in rural America or the ghetto aren't going to either know about these options or have access to the lawyers, notaries, etc. to execute them properly, I think you underestimate just how much the human heart rebels against having life and love reduced to legal documents like this. I dunno, I recoil from any system which attempts to reduce every private human interaction to a series of carefully executed forms and releases. It reminds me of the system (the now-defunct) Antioch College attempted to put in place to govern sexual/romantic relationships between its undergrads, where the men were required to get written permission from the women before each 'escalating' step in a physical interaction, e.g. "I [X] do give permission for [Y] to remove my shirt."

No joke, they actually tried this. Was about as successful as you might imagine.
   344. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4362147)
The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant. It is the way of nature, sorry.

The same line of reasoning can be used to deny any civil right that currently exists. Do you *really* want to go down the "it is the way of nature, sorry" route?

Besides, it doesn't even *work* in this particular context. The neighbor's outside cat just had kittens, if the daddy doesn't bring several juicy dead mice to the house every day, do you think the police are going to come and put him in jail until he starts providing?
   345. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4362149)
I think you underestimate just how much the human heart rebels against having life and love reduced to legal documents like this. I dunno, I recoil from any system which attempts to reduce every private human interaction to a series of carefully executed forms and releases. It reminds me of the system (the now-defunct) Antioch College attempted to put in place to govern sexual/romantic relationships between its undergrads, where the men were required to get written permission from the women before each 'escalating' step in a physical interaction, e.g. "I [X] do give permission for [Y] to remove my shirt."



When life and love lead me to have unprotected sex with a woman, and she carries to term and wants me to pay child support, what happens now?

Seems to me things are already reduced to legal documents and the question is simply when they get executed.
   346. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:40 PM (#4362151)
Aside from the fact that Joe & Jane Schmoe in rural America or the ghetto aren't going to either know about these options, or have access to the lawyers, notaries, etc. to execute it properly,

This is just naive.

I think you underestimate just how much the human heart rebels against having life and love reduced to legal documents like this. I dunno,

Someday soon hopefully America will set up some sort of family court so that issues of custody, child support, and so forth can be resolved. Perhaps one day we'll decide that the courts are the place where settle these issues, one day.
   347. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:45 PM (#4362153)
Aside from the fact that Joe & Jane Schmoe in rural America or the ghetto aren't going to either know about these options, or have access to the lawyers, notaries, etc. to execute it properly,

Rural America seem to be able to get cell phone contracts and mortgages, make financial purchases, and manage a job. What's so hard about circling Yes or No on a standardized form? The basic concept of pregnancy is pretty straightforward.

   348. Depressoteric Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4362154)
This is just naive.
No, based on my experience with both law and romantic interactions, it's correct. It's one thing to hire a lawyer to defend your rights or argue a claim after the fact. But prospectively? I guess standardized forms could be created, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax entirely. You do realize that we're proposing a massive new bureaucratic undertaking with this idea, right?
Someday soon hopefully America will set up some sort of family court so that issues of custody, child support, and so forth can be resolved. Perhaps one day we'll decide that the courts are the place where settle these issues, one day.
If you've read my posts here you should know that I take a dim view of the current legal regime, so this is out of place. Again, I'm talking about the human propensity to act prospectively vs. retrospectively, especially when it comes to something as charged with emotion and sub-rational impulse as love, romance, and sex.

I'm not saying there aren't virtues to the approach, I'm just saying that they have to take into account that laws are written for human beings, not Lockean tabula rasae that we can perfect with the proper amount of socialization and training.
   349. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:48 PM (#4362156)
I'm just saying that they have to take into account that laws are written for human beings, not Lockean tabula rasae that we can perfect with the proper amount of socialization and training.

Yes, and half the human beings are being denied an important civil right, the right to choose.

The decision to engage in intercourse and the decision whether or not to have a zygote possibly grow into an eventual minor child are two separate decisions, one of which the male has no choice in, but is still responsible for the result of that decision.
   350. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4362159)
It's not quite correct to suggest that we're reducing matters of the "human heart" and "life and love" to legal documents. The only situation where this comes into play at all are hookups where love and the human heart are already marginalized. A loving husband is going to come to an agreement with his wife about how to deal with an unexpected pregnancy. The point is that sex isn't constrained to those relationships any more.
   351. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4362160)
If you've read my posts here you should know that I take a dim view of the current legal regime, so this is out of place. Again, I'm talking about the human propensity to act prospectively vs. retrospectively, especially when it comes to something as charged with emotion and sub-rational impulse as love, romance, and sex.

A person gets pregnant and now we have to act. How is that different than a child is born and now we have to act? In both cases something happened and now the parties are reacting.
   352. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4362161)
It's not quite correct to suggest that we're reducing matters of the "human heart" and "life and love" to legal documents.

I'll go farther. It's wrong to suggest that. This is a question of liability and choice.

If I suddenly choose to run over a pedestrian in my car, why would a passenger sleeping in the back seat equally share responsibility?
   353. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:55 PM (#4362165)
Apart from my objections being the same as Bitter Mouse's... I presume that this discussion is independent of concerns about the availability of termination procedures - which are pretty hard to come by in some locales (like Mississippi).
   354. Danny Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4362168)
The discussion regarding the protecting the private lives of politicians misses the point. No one thinks it's an invasion of privacy to disclose the sexuality of a heterosexual politician. No one bats an eye when the media mentions the name of a straight politician's spouse/partner/significant other. The sexuality of a politician is generally not seen as a private matter that the media cannot disclose.

The exception to this general rule is for gay politicians. Some journalists choose not to disclose the sexuality of gay politicians because society has a stigma against gay people. This exception is granted because these journalists think the stigma is unfair, and they think it's OK for gay politicians to remain in the closet to avoid being subjected to this unfair stigma.

If you're furthering this stigma by taking positions that treat gay people as less-than-equal members of society, you do not deserve to be protected from that stigma. You can't use that stigma as both a shield and a sword.
   355. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4362169)
And if the man wants the child, but the woman just wants to get off and then get off, that's OK.

To me, it's not about shirking responsibility. It's about not having a say in the decision that determines whether a child is brought to term. Which is fine, I don't know how you can handle it any other way. But once you've granted that, I don't know how you can justify reintroducing the man as a responsible party.


Because you keep ignoring the child and then wondering how I get where I am. The child takes precedence. Before the child enters the equation (see thousands of Roe v Wade discussions for the complexity of that issue) then it is the rights of the man and woman (see those same threads for that discussion), but once the child is there it needs to be taken care of by all parties including the male.
   356. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4362170)
Apart from my objections being the same as Bitter Mouse's... I presume that this discussion is independent of concerns about the availability of termination procedures - which are pretty hard to come by in some locales (like Mississippi).


Stipulated. My position assumes prima facie that the controlling assumptions of Roe v. Wade are the operative levers within the social contract. Granted, this is an assumption that is not universally applied, as your example of MS shows. My argument is more to the point that IF we accept modern constructions of womens' reproductive rights, we MUST reconceptualize our understandings and assumptions of men's legal and moral responsibilities to live births.
   357. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4362171)
I presume that this discussion is independent of concerns about the availability of termination procedures - which are pretty hard to come by in some locales (like Mississippi).

That's a separate issue.

However, both parties, on the decision on whether or not to risk the creation of a zygote, ought to have knowledge of the expenses that would be required in their jurisdiction to facilitate the removal. And in the event of a termination procedure, the male would still be culpable for his half, as he made a conscious decision to risk the creation of a zygote.

The acceptance of whether or not to allow the zygote to possibly became a minor child is a separate choice.
   358. The District Attorney Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4362174)
I would certainly agree that #325 could never happen as long as there is a large minority of people in society who believe that abortion is the worst possible sin. Abortion has been legal nationwide for 30 years, and that seems quite unlikely to change. The best thing that the pro-life side has going for it at this point is that abortion is nonetheless still in a position where it is solitary, stigmatized, and generally acknowledged as "controversial." A system like #325 would make it legally standard and legitimate in a way that would strip the pro-life side of even that. It would be the ultimate loss for them, and as such, they would throw every Hail Mary (pun perhaps intended) they had against it. We're at least decades away from the point where pro-choice is so overwhelmingly accepted that that could fly.

the system (the now-defunct) Antioch College attempted to put in place to govern sexual/romantic relationships between its undergrads, where the men were required to get written permission from the women before each 'escalating' step in a physical interaction, e.g. "I [X] do give permission for [Y] to remove my shirt."
BTW, this is of course not true.
   359. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4362175)
Clearly what we need to do here is to make BJ, HJ, and anal sex more exciting for females.

This is the best idea in the thread.
   360. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4362180)
However, both parties, on the decision on whether or not to risk the creation of a zygote, ought to have knowledge of the expenses that would be required in their jurisdiction to facilitate the removal. And in the event of a termination procedure, the male would still be culpable for his half, as he made a conscious decision to risk the creation of a zygote.


And for the record, the idea that young men in the rural or inner city ghettos wouldn't know their "out" rights on this issue is the height of patronization and folly. If there's one thing a horny 16-22 year old boy knows, regardless of socio-economic circumstance, it's his escape path from crazy girlfriends to whom he does not want to commit.
   361. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:06 PM (#4362182)
No one thinks it's an invasion of privacy to disclose the sexuality of a heterosexual politician. No one bats an eye when the media mentions the name of a straight politician's spouse/partner/significant other. The sexuality of a politician is generally not seen as a private matter that the media cannot disclose.

The exception to this general rule is for gay politicians. Some journalists choose not to disclose the sexuality of gay politicians because society has a stigma against gay people. This exception is granted because these journalists think the stigma is unfair, and they think it's OK for gay politicians to remain in the closet to avoid being subjected to this unfair stigma.


If a politician is legally married or civil unioned, then divulging the identity of his spouse is perfectly fine. It's a matter of public record.

If he is very publicly dating someone, of either sex, then that's OK too. If he just wants to share his sexual proclivities, we don't have to put our fingers in our ears and say "I can't hear you."

But if a politician (well, any person) is not any of these things, but instead wants to keep the identity of his sleeping partners (or desired partners) to himself, then that privacy should be granted regardless of his sexual orientation. The closet should be open to everyone.
   362. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:07 PM (#4362183)
When you divorce sex from procreation - which we have already done as a society - you divorce sexual partners from "parenting." The idea that the guy who happened to be riding the pony on a given night is the biological donor in no way indicates that he should be required to be a "parent."


And you say my arguments are moralistic?

It is interesting that you and others in the pro-"let the guy have sex and walk away" camp refuse to address the issue of the Child's rights. It is those right's that are key and you keep ignoring them. The rights of the child do not disapear, are not abrogated, no matter what the woman does.

The man is the biological father. He has a responsbility. And again it has nothing to do with puritanism (and your lecture about Atheism is pure assertion with zero backing) and everythign to do with children being accorded a special place in this and every other society in history. They are and should be important, and if providing for them means no responsibility free nookie for men then too bad.
   363. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4362184)
If you're furthering this stigma by taking positions that treat gay people as less-than-equal members of society, you do not deserve to be protected from that stigma. You can't use that stigma as both a shield and a sword.

In other words, "it's wrong to out people's private sexual history unless they totally deserve it." But at least Danny was much more honest about this being his position.

It's wrong to summarily execute a pedophile in my book, and all the dancing that "well, you undermined the laws of society, so why should you be protected by them?" doesn't change that for me. I was raised to believe that two wrongs aren't a right and that ethics are meaningless if you can't stick to them when it's hard - it's easy to be ethical in easy decisions.

   364. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:10 PM (#4362189)

Because you keep ignoring the child and then wondering how I get where I am. The child takes precedence. Before the child enters the equation (see thousands of Roe v Wade discussions for the complexity of that issue) then it is the rights of the man and woman (see those same threads for that discussion), but once the child is there it needs to be taken care of by all parties including the male.


I get what you're saying. I think the idea of not supporting a life you create is pretty damn despicable. I just don't know how one reconciles, legally, the idea that a man has no voice in the decision whether a pregnacy is brought to term but does have a responsibility for that decision. Your argument is certainly compelling, it just doesn't, to me, stand up to logical scrutiny.

   365. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4362192)
There was no "irresponsibility" on the man's part as we commonly understand the term in these scenarios. Should he still be equally on the hook?


If you didn't use birth control because a woman assured you that she was on the Pill, I would consider that to be irresponsible behavior on your part.

Why is all the risk placed upon the shoulders of the man as opposed to the woman?


It's not all "placed on the shoulders of the man". There's no chance, for example, of the man dying as a result of medical complications resulting from the pregnancy.
   366. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4362199)
The neighbor's outside cat just had kittens, if the daddy doesn't bring several juicy dead mice to the house every day, do you think the police are going to come and put him in jail until he starts providing?


Animals, of course, do not have the same moral standing as humans. That's why bestiality is a crime.

The man participated in the creation of a zygote. He should be responsible for his part in the zygote, but if he has no choice in the decision of what to do with the zygote, how can he be held responsible above and beyond that creation without choosing to by an additional overt act?


He has lots of choices as far as "what to do with the zygote" - they're called parental rights, and they start after the zygote develops into a baby and is born.
   367. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4362201)
I'm not ignoring the child because it isn't here yet. You keep talking about what people should do after a child is born and we keep talking about what people should do when a woman is impregnated. Two different issues.

Though I will say, again, that a woman is allowed to give up her parental rights at any time and give the child to the state, or to the father should he want the child, but the father has no such right. Either he pays for the child and or fights for his parental rights or oh well. At no time is a man allowed to say this was a stupid idea, I made a mistake, and I want to get out of this while a woman is allowed, at times, to say this this was a stupid idea, I made a mistake, and I want to get out of this.
   368. Depressoteric Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4362202)
If you didn't use birth control because a woman assured you that she was on the Pill, I would consider that to be irresponsible behavior on your part.
But that only addresses one of the three scenarios I came up with (off the top of my head). What about when the BC is sabotaged? Or just doesn't work despite the conscientious efforts of both parties?
   369. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4362205)
The idea that there is a difference in responsibility based on what birth control was, or was not, used is folly. No birth control is 100%. If you engage in sex that puts the penis and vagina exposed and close to each other, you are risking pregnancy. You can take measures to lower the risk, but you can not eliminate it. Your moral and legal responsibility, whatever that may be, should not change with whether or not you used birth control or not.
   370. Danny Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4362206)
In other words, "it's wrong to out people's private sexual history unless they totally deserve it." But at least Danny was much more honest about this being his position.

No, as I made clear, a person's sexuality is generally considered to be perfectly fair game for disclosure. Try (re)reading the first paragraph of my comment.

Summarizing my position as "it's wrong to out people's private sexual history unless they totally deserve it" is entirely dishonest. Not only was your reply dishonest, it also failed to even respond to my point about using the stigma as both a shield and a sword. What's the point in arguing so dishonestly?
   371. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4362210)
Your moral and legal responsibility, whatever that may be, should not change with whether or not you used birth control or not.

But haven't you entered into an agreement or an understanding with the other party by using birth control? Aren't you saying I wish to have sex with you but I do not wish to have a child with you, so do you still want to have sex? If the other side says yes doesn't that mean the two parties have come to an agreement that they wish to have sex and not have a child created because of that sex?
   372. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4362213)
It is interesting that you and others in the pro-"let the guy have sex and walk away" camp refuse to address the issue of the Child's rights. It is those right's that are key and you keep ignoring them. The rights of the child do not disapear, are not abrogated, no matter what the woman does.

If children have a right to 2 parents, than millions of children in single parent households are currently having their rights violated. That's before we get into the children who don't have any parents at all.

The man is the biological father. He has a responsbility.

Morally yes, legally no. A child does not have a legal right to have 2 parents. If a woman decides to bring a child into the world knowing that it will have only 1 parent to support it, that is her responsibility.
   373. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4362214)
What about when the BC is sabotaged?


Once RISUG is approved in America, that'll likely be a moot point.

Or just doesn't work despite the conscientious efforts of both parties?


By agreeing to engage in penis-in-vagina sex, the male is implicitly accepting the possibility that an accidental pregnancy might result if the birth control fails. If he doesn't want to run that risk, he should have a different kind of sex (BJ, HJ, anal, etc.).
   374. PreservedFish Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4362215)
(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.


I'm just wondering about the kids that grow up after being indicated on these documents.
   375. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4362223)
I'm just wondering about the kids that grow up after being indicated on these documents.

How is it different than any child that grows up in a single parent home where the other parent isn't around because they don't want anything to do with raising a child or having a child or having/raising that that particular child?
   376. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4362224)
If the other side says yes doesn't that mean the two parties have come to an agreement that they wish to have sex and not have a child created because of that sex?


Women are allowed to change their minds about whether or not they want to have sex right up until the actual moment of penetration. This situation would seem to be analogous to that.

Furthermore, you are making an unwarranted extrapolation by assuming that a willingness to use birth control necessarily indicates affirmative agreement with a desire to not have children. Many people use birth control for other reasons, such as to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Unless it's explicitly stated that the birth control is being used in order to prevent conception, I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that you are suggesting.
   377. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4362226)
So a woman is allowed to have an agreement to not have a child but then change her mind but not have to inform the man until after the fact and the man is stuck paying the consequences of that woman changing her mind?


If you are using something that prevents impregnation it is at the very least an implicit agreement that you do not want to have a child created from this particular sexual act.

edited.
   378. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4362230)
It is interesting that you and others in the pro-"let the guy have sex and walk away" camp refuse to address the issue of the Child's rights


At the point of contention, THERE IS NO CHILD! The child only exists if the pregnant woman chooses, of her own volition, and with no legally required input from the biological father, to carry the pregnancy to term. This is the fundamental disconnect. We approach women's procreative rights as a set of choices, but demand that men be tied to their decision to tap casual ass for the life of any child the woman (and only the woman) chooses to have.
   379. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4362231)
The man is the biological father. He has a responsbility.


Why?
   380. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4362233)
So a woman is allowed to have an agreement to not have a child but then change her mind but not have to inform the man until after the fact and the man is stuck paying the consequences of that woman changing her mind?


If you'll read my post, you'll see that I reject your assertion that a woman agreeing to use birth control is necessarily agreeing not to keep any pregnancy resulting from the sex act.

That said, yes, I believe that women should be able to change their minds about whether or not to keep a pregnancy once it occurs, even if there is an explicit (or implicit) understanding between the two parties prior to the sex act. If a man doesn't want to run the risk of the woman changing her mind, he shouldn't engage in penis-in-vagina sex with her.
   381. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4362236)
By agreeing to engage in penis-in-vagina sex, the male is implicitly accepting the possibility that an accidental pregnancy might result if the birth control fails. If he doesn't want to run that risk, he should have a different kind of sex (BJ, HJ, anal, etc.).


By agreeing to engage in penis-in-vagina sex, the female is implicitly accepting the possibility that an accidental pregnancy might result if the birth control fails. If she doesn't want to run that risk, she should have a different kind of sex (BJ, HJ, anal, etc.).

Congratulations. You've just argued that women should not have the right to terminate pregnancies. You should probably go picket Planned Parenthood now.
   382. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4362239)
If you are using something that prevents impregnation it is at the very least an implicit agreement that you do not want to have a child created from this particular sexual act.


As noted before, I reject your interpretation. It's possible that the woman does not want to run the risk of contracting an STD from the man, and is entirely indifferent to the possibility of a pregnancy, in the unlikely event that one should happen to occur.
   383. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4362240)
That said, yes, I believe that women should be able to change their minds about whether or not to keep a pregnancy once it occurs,


Of course she's free to change her mind. What she's not free to do is change HIS mind.
   384. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4362241)
Congratulations. You've just argued that women should not have the right to terminate pregnancies.


Not really, no. The female has the right of self-determination over her body and things that happen within it. The male does not have the same rights over her body, since it is hers, not his.
   385. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4362244)
I'm just wondering about the kids that grow up after being indicated on these documents.


They are undoubtedly as ###### up as the kids being raised in the ubiquitous poor, single-mom households we have now. The situation is already terrible.
   386. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4362245)
Of course she's free to change her mind. What she's not free to do is change HIS mind.


She doesn't need to change his mind. He already implicitly agreed to support any child resulting from the sex act when he engaged in the sex act in the first place. He is, in essence, granting her a fixed-term option W/R/T the child question. Whether she chooses to exercise or decline that option is up to her.
   387. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4362249)
She doesn't need to change his mind. He already implicitly agreed to support any child resulting from the sex act when he engaged in the sex act in the first place.


Abject bullshit. Sorry man, but this completely ignores the fact that modern law and moral codes fail to name a fetus a "child" until midway through the second trimester.
   388. PreservedFish Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4362251)
They are undoubtedly as ###### up as the kids being raised in the ubiquitous poor, single-mom households we have now. The situation is already terrible.


Yeah, I suppose it's just an added insult.
   389. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4362252)
We approach women's procreative rights as a set of choices, but demand that men be tied to their decision to tap casual ass for the life of any child the woman (and only the woman) chooses to have.


Do you believe that the man for some reason lacks the moral standing to make the decision in question? Does he not understand that pregnancy can result from intercourse, even with "casual ass"?
   390. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4362253)
Not really, no. The female has the right of self-determination over her body and things that happen within it. The male does not have the same rights over her body, since it is hers, not his.


Yet you grant her determination of the products of his body, via the earnings of his bodily labor at the very least, because she wasn't willing to abort.
   391. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4362256)
Does he not understand that pregnancy can result from intercourse, even with "casual ass"?


Of course. The problem is that you continue to conflate "pregnancy" with "having and caring for a child." A pregnancy is a potential result of unprotected sex. A child is the result of a woman choosing to carry her pregnancy, planned or unplanned, through live birth, rather than terminating it within the first or second trimester.
   392. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4362259)
If a man doesn't want to run the risk of the woman changing her mind, he shouldn't engage in penis-in-vagina sex with her.

And by the same token if a woman doesn't want to risk a man not supporting a child after she changes her mind she shouldn't engage in penis-in-vagina sex.

You continual use of the phrase of penis-in-vagina sex brings up an interesting question though. What if a man and a woman do not engage in penis-in-vagina kind of sex but say a messy HJ or BJ or out of control anal sex and the woman still gets pregnant through some fluky occurrence?
   393. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4362261)
I'm not ignoring the child because it isn't here yet. You keep talking about what people should do after a child is born and we keep talking about what people should do when a woman is impregnated. Two different issues.


At the point of contention, THERE IS NO CHILD! The child only exists if the pregnant woman chooses, of her own volition, and with no legally required input from the biological father, to carry the pregnancy to term. This is the fundamental disconnect. We approach women's procreative rights as a set of choices, but demand that men be tied to their decision to tap casual ass for the life of any child the woman (and only the woman) chooses to have.


I agree there are two different issues. But I begin with the "what happebns when there is a child" part of the equation. Once there is a child then that child has rights. And those rights can not be abrogated by actions taken by the mother. A child has a right to be supported, it is not an obligation the mother completely takes on, it is a right the child has inately (I can discuss why in a separate post if folks care).

I also find it totally diengenuous that two posters claim the child doesn't exist yet (at the point of sex or even after), but then talk about child support which also doesn't exist yet, and in fact doesn't exist until the child does. The child support and child are linked. Once the child is born then the obligation on both parents to support that child comes into being, regardless of the actions of the mother.

If the mother acts in an unethical manner than that is a bad thing. If the condom breaks that is a bad thing. If an abortion was chosen or not that is a decision that was made. But however it ends up being made it is irrelevent to the point that once the child is born it has a right to be supported by its parents.

If children have a right to 2 parents, than millions of children in single parent households are currently having their rights violated. That's before we get into the children who don't have any parents at all.


This is just silly. I never said anythign about being in the houshold, getting married or anything like that (which is what the term single parent houshold refers to).
   394. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4362263)
But haven't you entered into an agreement or an understanding with the other party by using birth control? Aren't you saying I wish to have sex with you but I do not wish to have a child with you, so do you still want to have sex? If the other side says yes doesn't that mean the two parties have come to an agreement that they wish to have sex and not have a child created because of that sex?

Of course not. You have way too much faith in birth control tech. They do not PREVENT pregnancy, they lower the risk. Vaginal intercourse carries a risk of pregnancy. I think you guys are largely arguing a gray issue that requires a black and white answer: I think there are good arguments on both side (sorry to be wishy washy). I come down on moral responsibility for the man, but no legal responsibility.

But the idea that what birth control was or wasn't used has anything to do with it is absurd. You can't have sexual intercourse without risk of preganancy.

EDIT: all that is to say, by using birth control you're obviously saying you don't want a pregnancy to result but are willing to take the risk to get laid. If you absolutely do not want to cause a pregnancy, you don't have sex.

   395. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4362264)
Sorry man, but this completely ignores the fact that modern law and moral codes fail to name a fetus a "child" until midway through the second trimester.


The fetus isn't a child up until that point, but if left alone, it will inevitably develop into one (barring any complications in the pregnancy, of course).

If you want to be hyper-technical and pedantic on the language, by engaging in the penis-in-vagina sex act, the man is implicitly granting the woman an option to determine (at her sole discretion) whether or not to allow any fetus resulting from the aforementioned sex act to develop into a child. If he doesn't like those terms of service, he can request a different sex act from which pregnancy can not result, or pursue sex from a different vendor who is biologically incapable of becoming pregnant.
   396. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4362269)
Once the child is born then the obligation on both parents to support that child comes into being, regardless of the actions of the mother.


That's not quite right, is it? Once the child is born, the obligation of society to support comes into being. In the not-distant past, the obligation to support the elderly fell on their children, and it was perceived as a biologically-mandated, innate responsibility. Then, all of a sudden, it wasn't.
   397. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4362273)
If you want to be hyper-technical and pedantic on the language, by engaging in the penis-in-vagina sex act, the man is implicitly granting the woman an option to determine (at her sole discretion) whether or not to allow any fetus resulting from the aforementioned sex act to develop into a child. If he doesn't like those terms of service, he can request a different sex act from which pregnancy can not result, or pursue sex from a different vendor who is biologically incapable of becoming pregnant.


That's a long way to go to protect the woman from the consequences of her decision. It's almost like you don't think she's capable of making and carrying through on her decision to have a child without a man around.
   398. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4362276)
And those rights can not be abrogated by actions taken by the mother

Okay, but you are saying one of the rights of the child is to have two parents support it and that isn't true. A mother can give up her child to the state and the state can then take care of the child. A father does not get that option. Why?
   399. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4362279)
Though I will say, again, that a woman is allowed to give up her parental rights at any time and give the child to the state, or to the father should he want the child, but the father has no such right. Either he pays for the child and or fights for his parental rights or oh well. At no time is a man allowed to say this was a stupid idea, I made a mistake, and I want to get out of this while a woman is allowed, at times, to say this this was a stupid idea, I made a mistake, and I want to get out of this.


This is a reasonable point. the sad part is there is no possible way to construct a set of laws that is perfectly fair to the three parties in this system. It is just a fact of life that someone (father, mother, or child) will get the short end of it. That is why I treat it as a hierarchy and deal with the most improtant party - the child - first.

Once the child and it's rights are resolved then the matter between the father and mother can get resolved. If you go the other direction and try to resolve them all at once or resolve the mother/father dilemma first then the child - the most important actor - risks getting short changed.

You could dispute that children are the most important of the three, and if you want to we can devote a subthread to that discussion.
   400. Lassus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4362280)
What about when the BC is sabotaged?

At least you guys aren't paranoid.
Page 4 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDerek Jeter's historic hit that tied Honus Wagner ruled an error by MLB
(1 - 2:48am, Aug 20)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogPosnanski: The need – the need for speed
(8 - 2:46am, Aug 20)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogKepner (NYT): Astros’ Jose Altuve Doesn’t Let Height Be a Disadvantage
(3 - 2:43am, Aug 20)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-19-2014
(69 - 2:25am, Aug 20)
Last: odds are meatwad is drunk

NewsblogIwakuma gives Mariners a second true ace
(5 - 2:24am, Aug 20)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogMinor League manager undresses during epic home plate tirade
(8 - 2:09am, Aug 20)
Last: The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season

Newsblog[Ubaldo] Jimenez to the bullpen
(9 - 2:03am, Aug 20)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogRingolsby: Helton's numbers stack up against the best
(61 - 1:26am, Aug 20)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(40 - 1:14am, Aug 20)
Last: steagles

NewsblogKeidel: Don’t Be Fooled — The Yankees’ Season Is Over
(57 - 1:07am, Aug 20)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogPirates activate Andrew McCutchen from the disabled list
(8 - 12:57am, Aug 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(271 - 12:40am, Aug 20)
Last: robinred

NewsblogMooney: Javier Baez, Kyle Hendricks aren’t showing any nerves with Cubs
(33 - 11:48pm, Aug 19)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogGammons Notes - 8/17/14
(53 - 11:11pm, Aug 19)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogRoth: The Mets' Matt Harvey problem is a Mets problem
(6 - 10:55pm, Aug 19)
Last: MNB

Page rendered in 0.9446 seconds
52 querie(s) executed