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 5 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   401. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:00 PM (#4362283)
Of course not. You have way too much faith in birth control tech. They do not PREVENT pregnancy, they lower the risk.

It has nothing to do with faith of the birth control product but an agreement between two people. Using BC means you do not wish to have a child created from this particular sexual activity. If the BC fails then there is a cost attached to the risk one took in having sex that particular time and that cost, for a man, should be half the price of an abortion or pregnancy if both sides don't wish to terminate the pregnancy nor want the baby.
   402. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:00 PM (#4362284)
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.


If society (as it has in this case) has decided that the father (along with the mother) is the first one society goes to, then this is a distinction without a difference. Either the father has responsibility or society does and society has decided the father needs to step up.

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?


Addressed above (I hope). You will likely not like my answer though.

EDIT: Addressed in #399
   403. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4362287)
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.


Protecting the woman is not primary. Child first. Once resolved then figure out between mother and father, and no matter what both are living to one degree or another with the consequences.
   404. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4362288)
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.


That's included in the terms of the contract. If she elects to pick up the option and allow any resultant fetus to develop into a child, then he is obligated to support it, just like if Cliff Lee picks up a player option for a future season, the Phillies have to pay him.

As always, if the man isn't happy with those terms of service, he can take his business elsewhere.

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.


And in the absence of direct intervention, the one will inevitably lead to the other. Your argument is the moral equivalent of dropping a rock from the top of a skyscraper and then arguing that you didn't kill a passer-by who happened to be struck on the head. Gravity means that rocks generally fall when dropped, and biology means that fetuses generally develop into live young.
   405. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4362290)
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.

The child's rights are resolved by the fact that the state will take care of raising the child thus the child's rights do not enter into the equation.
   406. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4362292)
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.


That is true, for limited values of true. She is running a risk that the man might die before the child is born, or otherwise attempt to evade his legal responsibility to support his offspring.

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 sex and the woman still gets pregnant through some fluky occurrence?


Them's the breaks, I guess.
   407. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4362296)

That's included in the terms of the contract. If she elects to pick up the option and allow any resultant fetus to develop into a child, then he is obligated to support it, just like if Cliff Lee picks up a player option for a future season, the Phillies have to pay him.

As always, if the man isn't happy with those terms of service, he can take his business elsewhere
.

Where else can he take his business? Another country? That seems like a Hobson's choice.
   408. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4362300)
The child's rights are resolved by the fact that the state will take care of raising the child thus the child's rights do not enter into the equation.


The child's rights are primary. Under certain circumstances it is determined that those rights are best met by taking the child away from the biological parents, however that is not the assumed outcome. Ths assumed outcome is the biological parents care for the children. An exception process is in place because children are so important, so valuable, and their rights are so primary that sometimes the parental rights are reassigned.

And when that happens I am pretty sure it is in totality, so child support from the father doesn't enter into it.
   409. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4362301)
Where else can he take his business? Another country? That seems like a Hobson's choice.


Christie Brinkley handpuppet (to quote my brother, many years ago).
   410. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4362302)
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.


She's allowed to have a child without a man around, if she so chooses. She can visit a sperm bank whose agreement is compatible with that worldview, for example, and she's allowed to decline financial support from the father if she doesn't want it.

However, a man who fathers a child has a moral and legal responsibility to support that child if the mother is interested in receiving that support.

If I'm "going a long way" here, it's only because you're going an equally long way in an attempt to evade the obvious.
   411. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:10 PM (#4362305)
And in the absence of direct intervention, the one will inevitably lead to the other. Your argument is the moral equivalent of dropping a rock from the top of a skyscraper and then arguing that you didn't kill a passer-by who happened to be struck on the head. Gravity means that rocks generally fall when dropped, and biology means that fetuses generally develop into live young.


Because a woman making a decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term has exactly the same agency as a rock falling through the air. Because women are dumb objects in the world.
   412. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:11 PM (#4362306)
However, a man who fathers a child has a moral and legal responsibility to support that child if the mother is interested in receiving that support.


Stating your assumptions is not an argument. Why is this the case?
   413. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4362309)
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).

If that is your belief, you really have to support outlawing putting children up for adoption.

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).

Why does one child have the right to a different level of financial support than another child. If one child is not having his/her rights violated by being raised by a single mother, with only support from that parent and the government, because no father could be found, than neither is the child which has that same level of support, because his father decided to opt out during the pregnancy.

Either all of those children are having their rights violated, or none of them are.
   414. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4362310)
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?


Per state law (see <a href="https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/consent.cfm">here</a), a mother can not give up a child for adoption without the father's consent, with a few fairly reasonable exceptions (abuse, abandonment, mental incapacity, etc.). The law is applied in the same way to both parents.
   415. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4362315)
Using BC means you do not wish to have a child created from this particular sexual activity.


As I have already noted several times, this simply isn't true, since people often use birth control for reasons having nothing to do with contraception.
   416. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4362317)
The child's rights are primary. Under certain circumstances it is determined that those rights are best met by taking the child away from the biological parents, however that is not the assumed outcome. Ths assumed outcome is the biological parents care for the children. An exception process is in place because children are so important, so valuable, and their rights are so primary that sometimes the parental rights are reassigned.

And when that happens I am pretty sure it is in totality, so child support from the father doesn't enter into it.


First, apparently a child's rights are primary only after it is born, which is odd. Before that it appears a woman's right trump all others. Not only that but it appears a woman's whims trumps all others. I guess that is the price we pay for sexual and gender liberation. Second, a child isn't only taken away sometimes it is given up even if the parents could in fact take care of the child. Has the state ever refused to allow a woman to give her child up for adoption? So again a child's right are not primary in this case. If a woman wants to go off and party and not have to be burdened with a child she is allowed to do that. If a man wants to go off and party and not have to be burdened with a child he is not allowed to do that. It seems pretty obvious to me that we have set up a society where a woman's righs are primary and all other rights for all other parties are secondary. Like I said before it is the price we pay for the "liberation of women".
   417. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4362322)
As I have already noted several times, this simply isn't true, since people often use birth control for reasons having nothing to do with contraception.

It is absolutely true. Are you telling me that people use birth control to get pregnant? Do you honestly believe that a person would buy a condom that reduces the risk of transmitting STD but doesn't do a thing to prevent pregnancy?
   418. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4362325)
Because a woman making a decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term has exactly the same agency as a rock falling through the air.


If a woman does not procure an abortion (or sustain a miscarriage), then a fetus within her will gradually develop into a child over the passage of time. Morality doesn't come into it - in the absence of any decision by the woman, affirmative or negative, a baby will inevitably result.

Stating your assumptions is not an argument. Why is this the case?


He has a legal responsibility because the law states that he does. He has a moral responsibility because various popular philosophical conceptions of morality state that he does.
   419. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4362326)
She's allowed to have a child without a man around, if she so chooses. She can visit a sperm bank whose agreement is compatible with that worldview, for example, and she's allowed to decline financial support from the father if she doesn't want it.

Seems to me this is good evidence that a man shouldn't have to pay for a child he didn't want but the woman did.
   420. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4362330)
Per state law (see <a href="https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/consent.cfm">here</a), a mother can not give up a child for adoption without the father's consent, with a few fairly reasonable exceptions (abuse, abandonment, mental incapacity, etc.). The law is applied in the same way to both parents.

I've stated it, I believe, several times now that a father can take the child if the mother doesn't want it. I didn't think I needed to state it a 15th time.
   421. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4362331)
He has a legal responsibility because the law states that he does. He has a moral responsibility because various popular philosophical conceptions of morality state that he does.


So "because it's been that way so far." Utterly uncompelling. There is this weird undercurrent of needing to keep women from having to live with the consequences of their hard fought freedoms.
   422. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4362333)
Where else can he take his business? Another country? That seems like a Hobson's choice.


He can have penis-in-vagina sex with a transwoman, since pregnancy can never result from that. He can also have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman who is biologically incapable of having children for other reasons, such as one who's had a hysterectomy.
   423. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4362334)
First, apparently a child's rights are primary only after it is born, which is odd. Before that it appears a woman's right trump all others. Not only that but it appears a woman's whims trumps all others. I guess that is the price we pay for sexual and gender liberation. Second, a child isn't only taken away sometimes it is given up even if the parents could in fact take care of the child. Has the state ever refused to allow a woman to give her child up for adoption? So again a child's right are not primary in this case. If a woman wants to go off and party and not have to be burdened with a child she is allowed to do that. If a man wants to go off and party and not have to be burdened with a child he is not allowed to do that. It seems pretty obvious to me that we have set up a society where a woman's righs are primary and all other rights for all other parties are secondary. Like I said before it is the price we pay for the "liberation of women".


Once society has decided the child is in fact a child (a person) then it has primary rights, because children occupy a special place in this and every other society I know of.

When the "personhood" decision is made, how it is decided, and so on is a complex topic (as seen in many abortion threads), but once it is made then it is very simple. The Child comes first.

Why does one child have the right to a certain level of financial support than another child. If one child is not having his/her rights violated by being raised by a single mother, with only support from that parent and the government, because no father could be found, than neither is the child which has that same level of support, because his father decided to opt out during the pregnancy.

Either all of those children are having their rights violated, or none of them are.


The right to around support from the parents. It is not equal support. Freedom of speech does not mean everyone gets a printing press or an equal sized megaphone.

Neither parent gets to opt out. Once the child is born they both have a responsibility towards it. Of course if society decides the welfare of the child is best served by removing it from the parents responsibility then that is what happens - again because the Child has a primary role. The child's needs come first.
   424. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:24 PM (#4362336)
Are you telling me that people use birth control to get pregnant?


No, I'm telling you that some people use birth control without making any decision, either affirmative or negative, W/R/T pregnancy. Either they aren't sure whether or not they want to have children, or they simply haven't given the issue any thought.

I've stated it, I believe, several times now that a father can take the child if the mother doesn't want it. I didn't think I needed to state it a 15th time.


In which case I suppose I don't understand the nature of your objection in #398.

Seems to me this is good evidence that a man shouldn't have to pay for a child he didn't want but the woman did.



I'm not sure why you would think that. Can you be more specific?
   425. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:24 PM (#4362337)
Seems to me this is good evidence that a man shouldn't have to pay for a child he didn't want but the woman did.


If it was all about the man and woman then sure. But it isn't.
   426. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4362340)
Seems to me this is good evidence that a man shouldn't have to pay for a child he didn't want but the woman did.


Of course it is. The only purpose of maintaining traditional child support demands is to keep men bound to a procreative view of sex while women exit that rubric entirely.
   427. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4362341)
If it was all about the man and woman then sure. But it isn't


A woman who gets pregnant due to casual sex and chooses to have the child is no different from a woman who chooses to artificial insemination. (The notable difference is socio-economic cohorts.)
   428. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4362342)
Of course it is. The only purpose of maintaining traditional child support demands is to keep men bound to a procreative view of sex while women exit that rubric entirely.


The primary purpose of child support is to support the child. It is right there in the title.
   429. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4362344)
Neither parent gets to opt out. Once the child is born they both have a responsibility towards it. Of course if society decides the welfare of the child is best served by removing it from the parents responsibility then that is what happens - again because the Child has a primary role. The child's needs come first.

You keep saying this but society doesn't always and often times never does decide what is best for the welfare of the child. Again, a woman can give her child up for adoption at any time. Society in that instance doesn't decide a thing.

There are probably thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children in America that are probably better served not being with the caretakers they are with right now but since their rights are in fact subservient to the parents they have no choice but to live with it.
   430. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4362346)
So "because it's been that way so far." Utterly uncompelling.


That is not in any way an accurate summation of my position.

There is this weird undercurrent of needing to keep women from having to live with the consequences of their hard fought freedoms.


A woman who is pregnant has to live with many serious consequences. She faces the prospect of either an invasive medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy or the obligation to oversee the well-being of a child for many years to come.
   431. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4362348)
A woman who gets pregnant due to casual sex and chooses to have the child is no different from a woman who chooses to artificial insemination. (The notable difference is socio-economic cohorts.)


Casual sex is sex for fun. Artifical insemination is non-sex (every type of artifical insemination I have ev er heard about) for procreation. So women who engage in different acts with different motivations are the same? That would be no.
   432. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4362350)
Again, a woman can give her child up for adoption at any time.


Children can only be given up for adoption with the consent of both parents. The man in that situation has exactly the same rights that the woman does.
   433. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4362351)
Neither parent gets to opt out.

Again, do you support a ban on putting children up for adoption? Because right now, mothers get to opt out whenever they want to.
   434. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4362354)
You keep saying this but society doesn't always and often times never does decide what is best for the welfare of the child. Again, a woman can give her child up for adoption at any time. Society in that instance doesn't decide a thing.

There are probably thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children in America that are probably better served not being with the caretakers they are with right now but since their rights are in fact subservient to the parents they have no choice but to live with it.


Gosh society is not perfect? Really? Well then let's just ignore what is right and do whatever we want with no ethics or rights or responsibilities!

Yes I am overstating, but the fact that there are issues in the world, the fact that we are all flawed and our society is flawed is no reason at all to ignore what is right. Unless you are suggesting your faviored set of rules will eliminate all those problems you are writing about?
   435. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4362355)
Again, do you support a ban on putting children up for adoption? Because right now, mothers get to opt out whenever they want to.


Again, no I do not. The right of the children is primary. Sometimes that right is best met by adoption. There are even rules and laws about it, primarily to see to the best interests of the child which is as it should be. How on Earth would banning adoption favor the child?
   436. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4362356)
In which case I suppose I don't understand the nature of your objection in #398.

It's quite obvious. A man who doesn't want a child has no say in the matter once a woman is impregnated. If after birth a woman doesn't want that kid she can give the child up for adoption. You're giving a woman two outs and giving a man no outs.

No, I'm telling you that some people use birth control without making any decision, either affirmative or negative, W/R/T pregnancy. Either they aren't sure whether or not they want to have children, or they simply haven't given the issue any thought.

So what? They are still using a device that reduces the risk of pregnancy and is one of the main functions of the device. It's like trying to argue that you shouldn't have to register your vehicle because you only bought it for the AC and radio.
   437. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4362359)
A woman who gets pregnant due to casual sex and chooses to have the child is no different from a woman who chooses to artificial insemination.


That is untrue on a number of different levels.
   438. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4362361)
A woman who is pregnant has to live with many serious consequences. She faces the prospect of either an invasive medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy or the obligation to oversee the well-being of a child for many years to come.

So does the man. He has to live with the fact that he aborted a fetus that was going to be his child or oversee and/or pay for the well-being of a child for many years to come.
   439. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4362363)
Again, no I do not. The right of the children is primary. Sometimes that right is best met by adoption. There are even rules and laws about it, primarily to see to the best interests of the child which is as it should be. How on Earth would banning adoption favor the child?

Because unless CPS deems otherwise, the default should be that a child is best served by being supported by his/her parents, and not being put up for adoption because he/she has become inconvenient. If the right of the child is paramount, then the mother has to continue to raise and support the child as well, whether she wants to or not.
   440. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4362364)
Gosh society is not perfect? Really?

This is odd. You keep stating that a child's rights are primary and I keep showing how that isn't the case and your rebuttal is that society isn't perfect?
   441. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4362366)
It's quite obvious. A man who doesn't want a child has no say in the matter once a woman is impregnated. If after birth a woman doesn't want that kid she can give the child up for adoption. You're giving a woman two outs and giving a man no outs.


This shows where you go wrong. The second "out" is not for the benefit of the mother, it is primarily for the benefit of the child. The child needs to be taken care of/supported, and sometimes that means not being taken care of by someone who doesn't want them. If the woman wants to give the child up (and the father doesn't want the child either) then the child should be placed where it is wanted. This is not an "out" for mother or father, it is for the child.
   442. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4362368)
Children can only be given up for adoption with the consent of both parents. The man in that situation has exactly the same rights that the woman does

So how come a man doesn't get exactly the same rights as a woman in all other situations? Here we have evidence that the law treats both sexes as equal and yet you're advocating that this shouldn't be.
   443. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4362370)
This is odd. You keep stating that a child's rights are primary and I keep showing how that isn't the case and your rebuttal is that society isn't perfect?


No you have stated that there are flaws and less than ideal outcomes, not that the child's rights are not nor should be primary. How does the fact that some children are in less ideal situations suggest their rights are not primary? It would be like saying there is theft so there are no property rights, or there is murder so shooting people is OK. Just becomes it happens says little about what should be.

Minor edits.
   444. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4362372)
This shows where you go wrong. The second "out" is not for the benefit of the mother, it is primarily for the benefit of the child. The child needs to be taken care of/supported, and sometimes that means not being taken care of by someone who doesn't want them. If the woman wants to give the child up (and the father doesn't want the child either) then the child should be placed where it is wanted. This is not an "out" for mother or father, it is for the child.

So if a mother isn't thoughtful enough to realize what is best for the child then it is oh well? Quite clearly adoption is an out for the parents and not for the child. That it might result in a benefit for the child is clearly secondary and or a side effect of the decision most of the time.
   445. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4362374)
No you have stated that there are flaws and less than ideal outcomes, not that the child's rights are not nor should be primary. How does the fact that some children are in less ideal situations suggest their rights are not primary? It would be like saying there is theft so there are no property rights, or there is murder so shooting people is OK. Just becomes it happens says little about what should be.

No. I keep showing that in society child rights come secondary to the parents. It takes a lot of obvious and overt infringement upon the rights and freedoms of the child to get society and its various apparatuses to spring into action to protect the supposedly primary rights of the child.

If a child's rights were primary there would be a hell of a lot more laws, regulations, and oversight surrounding procreation and the raising of children.
   446. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4362376)
So men are prisoners of women's procreative urges because think of the children. Thanks, McCain.
   447. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:46 PM (#4362378)
A man who doesn't want a child has no say in the matter once a woman is impregnated.


Yes, that's true. And a man who grants a buyer an option to purchase his house has no say in the matter once the check clears. If you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of the option, should it be picked up, don't offer the option in the first place.

You're giving a woman two outs and giving a man no outs.


The man has an "out" - it comes at the moment when he chooses whether or not to have penis-in-vagina sex with the woman. If, at that point, he decides that the potential responsibility of raising a child (should one result) is too much for him, he can put his pants back on and leave. She isn't allowed to tie him down and extract his sperm without his consent.

So what? They are still using a device that reduces the risk of pregnancy and is one of the main functions of the device. It's like trying to argue that you shouldn't have to register your vehicle because you only bought it for the AC and radio.


The law varies from state to state, but in general, if you don't intend to drive a vehicle, you aren't obligated to register it in the usual manner. Here are the guidelines for California and Colorado, for example.
   448. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4362382)
I will take any extension of this conversation to the OTP thread. I think we may have run the gamut in this thread.
   449. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4362386)
Vlad, if we don't accept the "should have chosen to not have sex option", when it comes to a woman wanting to have an abortion, then we shouldn't accept it here either.
   450. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4362388)
She faces the prospect of either an invasive medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy or the obligation to oversee the well-being of a child for many years to come.

So does the man.


I will admit that I have never been involved in an abortion, but I'm pretty sure that at no point in the process is the father required to undergo an invasive medical procedure.

So how come a man doesn't get exactly the same rights as a woman in all other situations?


Because when a pregnancy occurs, it occurs within the woman's body, rather than the man's. She has a greater stake in the state of her own body than the man does in her body, and between conception and birth/extraction, the fetus is a part of her body.
   451. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4362389)
Yes, that's true. And a man who grants a buyer an option to purchase his house has no say in the matter once the check clears. If you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of the option, should it be picked up, don't offer the option in the first place.


Okay, and say a woman turns down the option but then changes her mind why she is allowed to do that? In no other contract situation would she be allowed to decline an option and then say, "oops, changed my mind".
   452. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4362395)
Vlad, if we don't accept the "should have chosen to not have sex option", when it comes to a woman wanting to have an abortion, then we shouldn't accept it here either.


I don't see any reason why that would be the case. The main reason why a pregnant woman is allowed to have an abortion is that the fetus is a part of her body, and all individuals are allowed to exercise control over their own bodies. At no point in the process is the fetus part of the man's body, and as such, his own right of self-determination over his own body does not come into play.
   453. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4362396)
Because when a pregnancy occurs, it occurs within the woman's body, rather than the man's. She has a greater stake in the state of her own body than the man does in her body, and between conception and birth/extraction, the fetus is a part of her body.

This is an argument for a man to help pay for the cost of a pregnancy/abortion not an argument for a man to have to pay for a child's next 21 years on the planet.

I will admit that I have never been involved in an abortion, but I'm pretty sure that at no point in the process is the father required to undergo an invasive medical procedure.

okay, so a man has to get a catheter stuck up his penis. Now we're even. Abortions for the most part are invasive in that they surgery but it isn't like they are removing a hip. The physical cost of an abortion dwarfs the emotional costs and women do not hold a monopoly on that cost.
   454. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4362398)
The law varies from state to state, but in general, if you don't intend to drive a vehicle, you aren't obligated to register it in the usual manner. Here are the guidelines for California and Colorado, for example.

The argument was that the person is still driving the car since a person using birth control is still getting a device that reduces the chances of pregnancy.
   455. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4362399)
No. I keep showing that in society child rights come secondary to the parents. It takes a lot of obvious and overt infringement upon the rights and freedoms of the child to get society and its various apparatuses to spring into action to protect the supposedly primary rights of the child.

If a child's rights were primary there would be a hell of a lot more laws, regulations, and oversight surrounding procreation and the raising of children.


There are a ton of laws regarding children. There is also the societal belief that parents raising children is what is generally best for the children. Put another way parents are better at deciding what is best for children than the state is, and so there are very specific places the state inteferes with that, but it is because of the assumption that parents know what is better for the child than the state does, not because the parents have rights and the children don't. And so naturally when parents decides what is best for the child is adoption the state goes along with it.

The common thread is not parental rights, but the well being of children - even if the system is flawed.

EDIT: Minor edits for clarity.
   456. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4362402)
Okay, and say a woman turns down the option but then changes her mind why she is allowed to do that?


By engaging in sex, the man is granting the woman an option to carry any resultant fetus to term (and agrees to support the resultant child if she exercises the option). If she turns down the option, she terminates the pregnancy. There isn't really any way for her to "change her mind" once the pregnancy has been terminated.
   457. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4362407)
The main reason why a pregnant woman is allowed to have an abortion is that the fetus is a part of her body, and all individuals are allowed to exercise control over their own bodies. At no point in the process is the fetus part of the man's body, and as such, his own right of self-determination over his own body does not come into play.

But by that same token, if the fetus is just a part of the woman's body at that point, both literally and morally, then how would a man be responsible for things that emanate purely from that woman's body? If it's purely her body and purely her choice, how is it not purely her responsibility?
   458. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4362411)
This is an argument for a man to help pay for the cost of a pregnancy/abortion not an argument for a man to have to pay for a child's next 21 years on the planet.


The financial support of the child is one part of the "cost of a pregnancy".

okay, so a man has to get a catheter stuck up his penis. Now we're even.


Not really, no.

The argument was that the person is still driving the car since a person using birth control is still getting a device that reduces the chances of pregnancy.


The contraceptive function of birth control is passive - a person using a condom or taking The Pill obtains the results of that usage whether they intend to exercise them or not. There is no way to use birth control for disease prevention or management of the female reproductive cycle without simultaneously receiving the results of its birth control properties. That is fundamentally different from the car example, where merely sitting in the car and turning the radio and AC on does not cause the car to drive. One must actively choose to drive a car by starting the engine and putting it in gear in order to exercise its function as a vehicle.
   459. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4362414)
But by that same token, if the fetus is just a part of the woman's body at that point, both literally and morally, then how would a man be responsible for things that emanate purely from that woman's body? If it's purely her body and purely her choice, how is it not purely her responsibility?


The words "just part" are doing much lifting here. But to answer, I present a link explaing sexual reproduction.

EDIT: More snarky in retrospect than I was trying for. Anyway it resides in her body, but it really does come from both parents is what I was saying, in an overly snarky and unclear fashion. My bad.
   460. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4362415)
The financial support of the child is one part of the "cost of a pregnancy".

Correct. But only because at this point in time we have decided that is how it should be. At points in time earlier than this that wasn't how it would be and in the future there is no guarantee that that is how it will be.

Not really, no.

Correct again. It's much worse.
   461. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4362416)
But by that same token, if the fetus is just a part of the woman's body at that point, both literally and morally, then how would a man be responsible for things that emanate purely from that woman's body? If it's purely her body and purely her choice, how is it not purely her responsibility?


If together you and I improperly dispose of radioactive waste (our joint property) in violation of federal law on land that belongs to you, we are both responsible for any legal consequences of that disposal once it comes to light. At the same time, you are not granting me an easement to subsequently venture onto your property and remove the waste-contaminated soil if I have a change of heart about the illegal dumping and become worried about the financial consequences that would result from being caught.
   462. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4362417)
There are a ton of laws regarding children. There is also the societal belief that parents raising children is what is generally best for the children. Put another way parents are better at deciding what is best for children than the state is, and so there are very specific places the state inteferes with that, but it is because of the assumption that parents know what is better for the child than the state does, not because the parents have rights and the children don't. And so naturally when parents decides what is best for the child is adoption the state goes along with it.

The common thread is not parental rights, but the well being of children - even if the system is flawed.


If a child's rights are primary then there should be no assumptions that parents know what is best by there being an assumption it quite clearly shows that the parents' rights are primary.
   463. Biscuit_pants Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4362419)
But by that same token, if the fetus is just a part of the woman's body at that point, both literally and morally, then how would a man be responsible for things that emanate purely from that woman's body? If it's purely her body and purely her choice, how is it not purely her responsibility?
that one has bothered me in the past. I had a college friend that got his girlfriend pregnant and paid his child support but had literally no say in the raising of the child. He had visitation rights but no say on any activity that didn't occur during those visiting periods, and even then it was limited ( if he wanted to take his kid to Disney he needed her approval, yet she did not need his to do the same)
   464. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4362421)
But only because at this point in time we have decided that is how it should be. At points in time earlier than this that wasn't how it would be and in the future there is no guarantee that that is how it will be.


That is true, but within the context of the discussion, it is also meaningless.

Correct again. It's much worse.


On a basic biological level, you lack the ability to know whether or not that is true.
   465. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4362427)
that one has bothered me in the past. I had a college friend that got his girlfriend pregnant and paid his child support but had literally no say in the raising of the child. He had visitation rights but no say on any activity that didn't occur during those visiting periods, and even then it was limited ( if he wanted to take his kid to Disney he needed her approval, yet she did not need his to do the same)


A man must be punished for taking advantage of a woman like that.
   466. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4362431)

On a basic biological level, you lack the ability to know whether or not that is true.


Same goes for you.


That is true, but within the context of the discussion, it is also meaningless.


It's the entire point of the discussion! Nobody in this thread arguing on the side of equal rights is saying this is how the law is right now. We're all arguing about how we think the law should be.
   467. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4362432)
A man must be punished for taking advantage of a woman like that.


No. And I am not saying every specific instance is fair and just (still reality folks, no matter what laws are out there), but the child's welfare is what matters. It is not about punishment, any more than taxes are about punishing the rich.
   468. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4362434)
If a child's rights are primary then there should be no assumptions that parents know what is best by there being an assumption it quite clearly shows that the parents' rights are primary.


What? The assumption is parents generally know what is best for their children. You can suggest this is a wrong assumption, but it is clearly the assumption society operates under. This in no way abrogates the child's rights and I can't imagine how you think it does, can you explain?

EDIT: Put another way - if it is true that parents know best then it is best for the children to allow parents to raise children as they will (within boundaries). This follows from children's rights are primary, it does not abrogate those rights.
   469. Biscuit_pants Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4362439)
No. And I am not saying every specific instance is fair and just (still reality folks, no matter what laws are out there), but the child's welfare is what matters.


this is pretty much every instance in which the man was not married to the woman before the child is born, legally speaking.
   470. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4362441)
No. And I am not saying every specific instance is fair and just (still reality folks, no matter what laws are out there), but the child's welfare is what matters. It is not about punishment, any more than taxes are about punishing the rich.


If the potential child's welfare is the primary motivator, then the cost should be universally shared by the society, not hoisted off on the DNA donor.
   471. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4362442)
What? The assumption is parents generally know what is best for their children. You can suggest this is a wrong assumption, but it is clearly the assumption society operates under. This in no way abrogates the child's rights and I can't imagine how you think it does, can you explain?

I'm not disputing under what assumptions society operates under but what those assumptions and actions mean to rights of the various actors.

If a child's rights were primary we would not assume that a parent knows best or is the best caretaker for the child.
   472. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4362455)
If the potential child's welfare is the primary motivator, then the cost should be universally shared by the society, not hoisted off on the DNA donor.


Society disagrees and wants biological parents as the first line of support. Which is pretty much how it has been in every society throughout all of history, but good luck in changing that going forward.

I'm not disputing under what assumptions society operates under but what those assumptions and actions mean to rights of the various actors.

If a child's rights were primary we would not assume that a parent knows best or is the best caretaker for the child.


Like I said, society could be wrong. For a while Native American children were taken away from their parents and raised away from them, "for their own good."

Every society places special importance on its children. Men are forced to pay child support - even when they had fewer options regarding the birth of said child than the mother - not to punish the male or favor the mother, but because children are special.

And I keep expecting the snark, and it has not arrived, so "won't someone think of the children?"
   473. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:39 PM (#4362459)
Society disagrees and wants biological parents as the first line of support.


Again, "because that's the way it's always been" is not a particularly compelling argument. If we stuck with that every time, women would still not have the vote, much less the sexual freedom to have sex and then decide if they want to make a baby out of the deal.
   474. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4362463)
Same goes for you.


That's true, but I'm not the one making the claim. You are.

It's the entire point of the discussion! Nobody in this thread arguing on the side of equal rights is saying this is how the law is right now. We're all arguing about how we think the law should be.


Yes, and hypothesizing that a future civilization might have a totally different conception of morality does not in any way advance the claim that things
should be
different than they are now. "Could" and "should" are separate concepts.
   475. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4362482)
Again, "because that's the way it's always been" is not a particularly compelling argument. If we stuck with that every time, women would still not have the vote, much less the sexual freedom to have sex and then decide if they want to make a baby out of the deal.


I agree with Vlad above. My whole premise in this subtread has been your argument is ignoring the child. I will concede your proposal is more fair to the male and perhaps brings the male and female into something closer to equivilence, but for me (and as it turns out society) the needs of the child trumps those of the male.

You want to change the status quo, so explain to me how your changes are better (or at least not worse) than the status quo. The burden of proof should be on the one wanting to change things. I am not saying change is bad (hello, I am a progressive), but random - "because it helps me" and "old fashioned ideas are BAD" changes are not very compelling as change goes.
   476. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4362483)
Yes, and hypothesizing that a future civilization might have a totally different conception of morality does not in any way advance the claim that things


Is today's America a totally different conception of morality from 1950s America? Are we a "future civilization" than couldn't have been imagined by 1920s suffragettes?
   477. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4362488)
You want to change the status quo, so explain to me how your changes are better (or at least not worse) than the status quo.


It removes an imbalance in the current scaling of human rights. In today's legal and moral framework, a man can be made to support a child he does not want, by forcing him to labor and expend the winnings of his labor on a child he did not wish to have. That's morally wrong. It should be changed because it is morally wrong.

If we need to expand and reconfigure our conception of child care in America to more of an "it takes a village" notion in order to create the supporting conditions to correct the injustice of having a man required to care for a woman's child he did not wish to have, then we should have that conversation.

It's morally wrong to require a woman to have a child she does not want, simply because she was impregnated in the act of having sex.

It's morally wrong to require a man to support a child he does not want, simply because she was impregnated in the act of having sex.

If the woman decides to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term outside of the sex partner's preferences, she is responsible morally for the well being of that child, using whatever social or community support mechanisms exist at her disposal. At no point should a just society present to her the possibility of dragooning the DNA donor into material support if he explicitly stated he wanted no part in "parenthood."
   478. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4362492)
Is today's America a totally different conception of morality from 1950s America? Are we a "future civilization" than couldn't have been imagined by 1920s suffragettes?


Sam,

Every society I know of places extreme value and importance on children and their well being. A vast majority (not all I realize) of mammals place importance on their children. Huge numbers of non-mammals engage in child rearing and self sacrificing behaviors regarding children (not always even their own children).

It is a huge evalutionary advantage for a species to care for its children and human society has picked this up and baked it ito pretty much all of its ethical systems.

What exactly are you arguing? That a father's rights should be superior to a child's rights? I really don't know where you are going with this.
   479. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:11 PM (#4362497)
It removes an imbalance in the current scaling of human rights. In today's legal and moral framework, a man can be made to support a child he does not want, by forcing him to labor and expend the winnings of his labor on a child he did not wish to have. That's morally wrong. It should be changed because it is morally wrong.


I don't think it is morally wrong. Biological parenting throughout history comes with attached responsibility. Shirking that responsibility is wrong. If you don't want the chance (even after using birth control) of having that responsibility then keep it in your pants.

I admit I would be less against your position if the safety net (your "village") was more fully formed - it doesn't change my opinion morally, but pragmatically my objections have less force - but it is not. I am not willing to impose the cost of what you want on the children. It would be immoral to do so, much more immoral than forcing some money out of biological parents.
   480. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:11 PM (#4362498)
Every society I know of places extreme value and importance on children and their well being

Which doesn't mean the answer is that a man must support a child he does not want. We as a society have created organizations and safety nets to take care of our valuable and important children.
   481. McCoy Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4362503)
How are child support payments figured? There is no base sum, correct? There is no agency saying our valuable and important asset requires $500,000 over the next 21 years to grow into a productive citizen therefore you need to give us $250,000 for the raising of that child. Instead if you make $20,000 a year the government will take a portion of that to give to the raising of the child and if you make $100,000 your portion will come to a larger amount. So quite clearly the raising of a child depends heavily on the ability of the parents to generate revenue which again shows that a child's rights are not primary.
   482. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4362507)
How are child support payments figured? ... So quite clearly the raising of a child depends heavily on the ability of the parents to generate revenue which again shows that a child's rights are not primary.


Covered in #423.

In MN they have a mandated chart, with both parents income and the percentage of custody one has. 50% custody of my boys, making more than the ex I pay ~$8000 a year to the ex to help with the ex raising the kids the 50% they are not in my custody. Very simple and fair system.
   483. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4362509)
Are we a "future civilization" than couldn't have been imagined by 1920s suffragettes?


People imagined a lot of things in the 1920s. Could they have foreseen the society of today? Sure. Would they? Not with any degree of accuracy, no. Among other things, people of the 1920s expected the world of today to include robotic soldiers, flying cars with biplane wings, life spans of 200+ years, and all manner of other stuff that never ended up happening.
   484. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:25 PM (#4362510)
Which doesn't mean the answer is that a man must support a child he does not want.


If he didn't want children, he shouldn't have had penis-in-vagina sex.
   485. PreservedFish Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:28 PM (#4362512)
The January 2, 1926 Charleston Gazette (Charleston, WV) ran this short blurb about the year 2000 and the fear that longer life spans might mean thousands of descendants:

A serious scientist has glad news for all those that want to stick to this world, in spite of its troubles and worries. In the year 2000, says he, the average life will be 100 years, and many will live to be 200 years old.


That is some lazy mathematics.
   486. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4362517)
What exactly are you arguing? That a father's rights should be superior to a child's rights? I really don't know where you are going with this.


Where I'm "going with this" is to the natural end of the socially normative construction of liberal sexual ethics in America today. I am not addressing a make-believe world where we've opted out of the mammalian animal procreative model. I'm addressing the actual world, where we have already opted out of the mammalian animal procreative model. Here's the facts of the world for America, 2013:

1. Sex is not procreation. More often than not, sex is recreation.
2. Recreational sex is aided and abetted by any number of trans-mammalian/trans-human technologies.
2. Recreational sex is not end oriented toward having children.
3. Sometimes recreational sex results in unplanned pregnancies, nonetheless.
4. Since Roe vs Wade, a woman who becomes pregnant outside of planning has up until "viability" to terminate that condition.

We have engineered humanity to be capable of, and fond of, sex outside of procreative purpose.

We have empowered and enabled women to choose whether or not to procreate, even if they become pregnant outside of planning.

There is no situation where a woman should be forced to carry to term a child she does not want.

There is a window of time between fertilization of an embryo and "viability" of a pregnancy lasting some 4.5 months (rounding.)

4.5 months is far and away plenty of time to ascertain if the male sex partner is interested in having a child.

If the male partner is not interested in having a child, he should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood in equal measure as to the woman's right to opt out of motherhood. At no point should he be required to support a child he does not wish to have.

Is this post-mammalian? Sure. But we are already here. We live in a transhuman society. We celebrate the ways in which our transhumanity has emancipated women from traditional roles of subservience and lives of being unwilling "baby factories." It is high time our legal and political systems catch up with this emancipation for men.

If a woman decides to have a child that the male sex partner has made clear he has no interest in, then the consequences of that decision, the consequences of raising a child in the world, rests solely on the person who chose to have the child as a single parent.
   487. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:35 PM (#4362523)
If he didn't want children, he shouldn't have had penis-in-vagina sex.


If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have been in that neighborhood dressed like that.
   488. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4362525)
If he didn't want children, he shouldn't have had penis-in-vagina sex.

If she didn't want children, she shouldn't have had penis-in-vagina sex.

(Of course, I didn't believe in banning abortion, but I'm just following the Google Map you've just printed)
   489. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4362529)
that one has bothered me in the past. I had a college friend that got his girlfriend pregnant and paid his child support but had literally no say in the raising of the child. He had visitation rights but no say on any activity that didn't occur during those visiting periods, and even then it was limited ( if he wanted to take his kid to Disney he needed her approval, yet she did not need his to do the same)

Yup. Choice and responsibility for choices should be fundamentally inseparable.
   490. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:44 PM (#4362532)
(And to head off the criticism at the pass just in case it comes up, if men aren't allowed to have an opinion about a woman's specific choices in this situation, a woman also can't have an opinion about a man's specific choices in this situation)
   491. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4362534)
It is a huge evalutionary advantage for a species to care for its children and human society has picked this up and baked it ito pretty much all of its ethical systems.


This is not quite right. My understanding is that for much of history in many societies, men were not, practically, obligated to support their bastard children; that being said, many did out of a sense of moral obligation. Our current state of affairs is a recent development, born of the invention of conclusive paternity testing.

Also, what's particularly pernicious about your insistence on the "child's rights" is that it it particularly targets the rights/autonomy of poor men. Because our safety net for children is reasonably well developed (thought not, I guess, to your standards), it's fairly common for unemployed single women to choose to have children that they could not independently support. You and I both are familiar with the litany of recent studies explaining why elective single-motherhood is increasingly common among lower-class women, so setting that aside for another discussion.

But the endgame of this is that in many cases, women CHOOSE to have a kid and the father is FORCED to support the kid. Granted, not always - sometimes a mistake is a mistake, on both sides, but increasingly, this is not so.

What's the endgame here? Your position is - the men should go elsewhere - but to who? Someone outside their social class? Unlikely. Prostitutes? Even more attractive. Instead, the men - whose labor is already devalued, whose role in society is already diminished - are dehumanaized even further, treated as income-generators to support a child with whom they have minimal contact, minimal parental decision-making authority. Unsurprisingly, they rebel against the system that leads to this inequitable outcome, and can you blame them?

Meanwhile, middle and upper class men don't face this problem. Their sex partners are much more likely to be professionals themselves, meaning the incentives for them to have abortions are much, much stronger. By the time the women in their class cohort stop frantically aborting anything that may or may not have been implanted in them during last night's blackout, the men are older, and biologically more equipped with impulse control, one of the last attributes to develop as a man's brain matures, and the outcomes for men who can afford to defend their rights with an excellent attorney are immeasurably better than those for poor men who can't.

If you think past the dogmatic stuff that's been beaten into you since you were 13, you realize how destructive our current family law conception is. Maybe its not politically expedient to fix it today - but that has no bearing on the equities of the situation. None. And people said the same #### about gay rights 30 years ago. So if people think about this and call attention to it and work towards reforming it, maybe the cultual blindness to the problem will one day fall away.
   492. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:03 PM (#4362554)
I have to go be a parent (drive the elder boy to an apointment), so I will respond to Sam and zop later this evening. Unless Vlad or someone wants to for me.
   493. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:14 PM (#4362558)
If she didn't want children, she shouldn't have had penis-in-vagina sex.


So the libertarian comes down against the side of the individual having control over her body? Good to know.

(Of course, I didn't believe in banning abortion, but I'm just following the Google Map you've just printed)


You drove off the road a while back, and you're currently plowing through the tables at a corner bistro. The fetus is never a part of the man's body. That's why, once he's done creating it, he doesn't get a say in whether or not it continues to exist.
   494. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4362559)
If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have been in that neighborhood dressed like that.


Because when a man decides to nail a random chick from a bar without bothering to put on a jimmy hat, that's the same thing as a woman being raped. Obviously.
   495. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4362560)
Unless Vlad or someone wants to for me.


If I agree, do I get to go back in time and nail your wife?
   496. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4362562)
The fetus is never a part of the man's body. That's why, once he's done creating it, he doesn't get a say in whether or not it continues to exist.

When was the last time a man was forced to subsidize a woman's scabs, urine, feces, or breast milk?

Again, if it's her body and completely her choice, it's also her responsibility. If I buy a woman a car, my responsibility ends there, if I'm not on the lease, then I get no share in the money earned from a resale and no responsibility if she decided to run over pedestrians with it a few years down the road.
   497. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4362563)
(And to head off the criticism at the pass just in case it comes up, if men aren't allowed to have an opinion about a woman's specific choices in this situation, a woman also can't have an opinion about a man's specific choices in this situation)


You're using "specific choices in this situation" to mean two totally different things. A woman is entitled to have an opinion about a man's willingness to support his children (or lack thereof), just like a man is entitled to have an option about a woman's willingness to do (or not do) the same. But a man isn't allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body once a fetus has taken root. She controls her body, just as he controls his. If you're upset about the inherent inequity resulting from the fact that women become pregnant and men don't, go shout at the ghost of Charles Darwin.
   498. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4362564)
Because when a man decides to nail a random chick from a bar without bothering to put on a jimmy hat, that's the same thing as a woman being raped. Obviously.


No, jackass, but a man being forced to support a woman's child he *did not want to have* isn't so far removed from a woman being forced to have sex she *did not want to have* to make the response invalid. You're the one making the "it's their fault for being in the wrong place" argument.
   499. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4362567)
She controls her body, just as he controls his. If you're upset about the inherent inequity resulting from the fact that women become pregnant and men don't, go shout at the ghost of Charles Darwin


So, because a woman is evolved to own the baby factory, she gets to decide if the man has to support a child. Do you extend other such benefits of natural selection to the species at large? Do you agree that, since most men are evolved to be physically stronger than women, they get to decide when to have the sex? (Yes, it's still valid to show you the stupidity of your position by this analogy.)
   500. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4362568)
When was the last time a man was forced to subsidize a woman's scabs, urines, feces, or breast milk?


How, exactly, would you go about "subsidizing" those things?
Page 5 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(50 - 6:02pm, Oct 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3108 - 6:02pm, Oct 22)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(18 - 5:59pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(7 - 5:55pm, Oct 22)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(25 - 5:52pm, Oct 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(166 - 5:48pm, Oct 22)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(18 - 5:40pm, Oct 22)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(11 - 5:31pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(38 - 5:28pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogPace-Of-Play Initiatives Get Mixed Reviews In AFL - BaseballAmerica.com
(26 - 5:26pm, Oct 22)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(871 - 5:23pm, Oct 22)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(1 - 5:17pm, Oct 22)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(339 - 5:16pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(5 - 5:00pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-22-2014
(13 - 4:49pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.7974 seconds
52 querie(s) executed