User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7275 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If I take a woman out to a restaurant, I'm surely not responsible to keep her provided with toilet paper. And if I take her out to a restaurant too many times, I'm surely not responsible for any costs invoked from either being overweight or attempting to lose the weight. Unless I dragged her to the restaurant and forced her to eat the fettucine alfredo at gunpoint, which seems like an impractical use of a hostage.
Your argument is only consistent if you believe abortion is fundamental wrong.
If he did not want to have a child, he shouldn't have had penis-in-vagina sex with the woman, since children result from penis-in-vagina sex. He consented to the sex, knowing the potential consequences thereof, while a rape victim is obviously not consenting to anything. That's the whole idea behind rape - the lack of consent.
No, society is the one that gets to decide whether the man has to support the child. It decided, and he does. Suck it up, buttercup.
You can start showing stupidity any time you want. Though if you could, I think you would've done it by now.
You can repeat this as often as you want, but it is still the same argument as to why woman shouldn't be allowed to have abortions. And it is compelling in neither case.
Those analogies are jaw-droppingly stupid. Seriously, Dan, you can do better.
What makes you say that?
No, it isn't. Women are allowed to have abortions if they want them because individuals are entitled to have control over what happens to their own bodies. When a woman and a man have penis-in-vagina sex, then after the sex is done, there are no further consequences for the man's body. There are significant further consequences for the woman's body, since the fetus is a part of her body until it has developed enough to become autonomous. For that reason, the woman is entitled to make the decision about the disposition of the fetus, while the man is not.
In the event that she decides to keep the fetus and have a baby, the moral responsibility for the creation of that new life is shared equally between the two parents, and for this reason the man has a moral responsibility to support the child. He also has a legal responsibility to do so, since the current law reflects that moral responsibility.
Yep. I've said it numerous times now but all this boils down to men must be punished for having sex while women have been liberated to have sex.
With you on that one.
In the event that she decides to keep the fetus and have a baby, the moral responsibility for the creation of that new life is shared equally between the two parents, and for this reason the man has a moral responsibility to support the child. He also has a legal responsibility to do so, since the current law reflects that moral responsibility.
Lost me. Just because a woman has decided to undergo the hardship of pregnancy doesn't mean a man should then be responisble for the caring of a child for the next 21 years.
What about a man whose only way to make a living is through blue-collar, manual labor. Isn't 18 years of "toil" an infringment of bodily autonomy too?
How is being forced to work 100s of hours a year purely in support of the child not a similar loss of control of a man's body.
E: coke to zop.
Men are allowed to have as much sex as they want. Oral sex, anal sex, solo or mutual masturbation... they can even have consequence-free vaginal sex if they exercise a certain amount of discretion in selecting their partners. But if they create a new life, they have an obligation to support that child until it is able to support itself.
It's interesting to see your world view, in which a woman being forced to raise a child on her own, with only financial support from the father in lieu of actual parenting, is a sign of women's sexual liberation.
I certainly could be wrong, but I'd be pretty comfortable saying that anyone's who's been raped is probably going to find this comparison pretty ridiculous, if not actually horrifying.
No one is being forced to raise a child. She chose to raise a child. She could have opted to not have the child.
Traumatic physical experience often impedes rational thinking about similar trauma in others, yes. The comparison is simply there to point out that in both cases physical demands are being made against an unwilling participant.
The fact that a woman kept a pregnancy does not necessarily imply that she made a decision to keep the pregnancy. A birth is the default end of a pregnancy, even if a woman makes no decision at all. If a woman hit her head and fell into a year-long coma the day after she became pregnant, she'd still have a baby in nine months. That's why the moral responsibility for the birth remains whether or not the biological father intended for the pregnancy to happen - once conception occurs, the birth is the inevitable result absent any direct action to oppose it, even in the absence of any specific moral decisions about the birth by either party.
Nobody is requiring the man to earn a living specifically through blue-collar manual labor. That's a choice on his part. There are jobs requiring minimal physical skill from their workers that include no manual labor at all.
Similarly, he isn't required to "work" at all. This isn't a chain gang. If he can provide adequate support for his child without working, that's fine. Similarly, if he's unable to find work, and thus lacking the resources to provide support, he can obtain a modification of his support agreement from the court.
This thoughtfulness will certainly bring them around to your side.
She is choosing to raise the child, but is forced to raise it alone, if the father elects not to participate in the child's life.
The father isn't an "unwilling participant". Unless he's improbably ignorant or mentally incapable on a fundamental level, he knew that pregnancy might result from intercourse when he stuck his dick in his partner. He accepted that risk at the time of intercourse, and the potential consequences of his actions that go along with it.
There's your error, Vlad. You're still operating in a sex-equals-procreation mindset. The world has moved on. There is a 4 month window of pure, human choice making between ejaculation/conception and "we're going to have a baby." A decision is *always* made to either continue on the biological glide path, or to exit the biological glide path. That decision is always made by the woman involved (barring illegal and immoral compulsion, naturally.) The responsibility for that decision belongs to her.
I'm have a conversation with you, BitMou and Vlad, not some nebulous, hurt-feelings-from-my-insensitivity "them."
She had access to this information when she made the choice to have and raise the child. It's her own fault that she's alone in the matter.
You continue to erroneously conflate sex/intercourse with the decision to have a child. Sex is necessary, but not controlling. The decision to have a child occurs well after the sex is over, and our current legal and moral systems give the woman complete control of making that decision. A man with no control or input in the decision to have a child can not be morally responsible for the child.
EDIT: clearly, with in vitro and artificial insemination, sex is not "necessary." But for the parameters of this debate, it is assumed.
I most definitely am not. I already suggested that if a man wants to exercise absolute control over his reproduction, he elect to engage only in the vast panoply of sex acts that can not result in pregnancy, or select one of the numerous partners with whom penis-in-vagina sex can not result in pregnancy. You can have a hell of a lot of hot, kinky sex without sticking it in a fertile lady's hoo-ha.
Not really, no. See the hypothetical example of a woman paralyzed by indecision until it is too late to legally procure an abortion, or a woman who is unaware of the pregnancy until that point, or of a minor who lacks the standing to make her own moral determinations of that nature but who has not informed her parents or guardians of the pregnancy, either. None of those women have made a decision to have a child, but all will have one nonetheless.
Maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. You can't axiomatically assume it.
No, I don't. If anything, you're the one erroneously conflating two non-overlapping concepts: A woman having a child, and a woman deciding to have a child.
The man in a sexual pair is intellectually aware of the potential consequences of sex, whether or not he intends for those consequences to happen, just like a drunk driver is intellectually aware that he could accidentally run a light and plow into a bus full of Girl Scouts. He has a moral responsibility to accept the consequences of those actions, whether he explicitly pursued those consequences or merely stumbled upon them.
Fair enough. But if you're talking about specifically similar victims, they aren't particularly nebulous. Pick any non-nebulous rape victim you like and make the comparison.
There's your error, Vlad. You're still operating in a sex-equals-procreation mindset. The world has moved on.
Yeah, we ain't in the Culture yet. The state of Mississippi has one abortion clinic, and similar limited access is common.
Her fault, not his. In a liberated world, she has to, well, you know, man-up and make a call. Well come to freedom, lady.
Seriously? Unaware she was pregnant 4 months into it? She's and idiot, and that too is not his fault (though it does suggest he should raise his standards.)
Argument to cases involving minors is categorically outside of the bounds of debate about what grown women and men do with their bodies.
If she goes 4 months without ascertaining who the father is and whether he wants a kid, again, not his fault or problem. Why are you so reticent to give the responsibility for her own decision to the woman? Is she not a fully enabled, empowered actor with human agency in the world? Stop treating women like they're children.
Then change Mississippi to provide health services to women. Don't backload the state's backwardsness onto men just because it's easier.
EDIT: you'll never get a Culture if you don't fight for it.
I find the comparison between rape victims and unwilling child-support payers both beneath you and incredibly insulting to a lot of people. Not insensitive - insulting.
That's a different point entirely and has nothing at all to do with what I said. Don't claim we're all in this new world where the result of procreation is mutable at the snap of a finger. That's false.
That is wrong.
Is Roe not the law of the land? That some throwback regions flaunt and refuse to follow the law of the land doesn't change the fact that the law is the law.
I'm sure women everywhere will be receptive to your call for them to "man up".
Your position does not, of course, change in any way the fact that you are assigning moral responsibility to the woman for a decision that she did not make.
Or she didn't think she could become pregnant because she was on the Pill, and for similar reasons saw nothing unusual about not having a period. Or she's nearing menopause, and her periods are extremely irregular, with the same result. Or she naive about such matters because she was home-schooled by religious nuts, and has no understanding at all of how pregnancy works from a biological standpoint.
Even if she were just an idiot, though, so what? The law still applies to idiots, and they have the same moral standing as anyone else.
It depends on the area, but minors are legally permitted to have sex in many jurisdictions. Surely as a native of Georgia you know that...
Fringe cases are useful in arguments of this nature, in that they demonstrate the failure points of the participants' positions. A comprehensive moral system on this issue needs to account for the many possible situations in which neither the mother nor the father made a decision to have the child, but a child was born nonetheless. My position does, and yours does not.
Maybe he was unavailable for some reason: in solitary confinement in prison, or at sea and in the Merchant Marine, or something of that kind. Or she erroneously believed that one man was the father, when in fact it was a different one, and by the time she discovered the error it was too late for him to have any input.
He had a say when he decided to have penis-in-vagina sex with the mother and run the risk of pregnancy. Nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to #### her (at least, I hope not...).
Sin has nothing to do with it. He has a responsibility to support the child in whose creation he was an equal participant. That responsibility would not be any greater or lesser if he had missionary-position sex in the marital bed with his wife of twelve years than it would if he were nailing a hooker doggy-style on the altar of a church.
As I said, I have no problem with a male wishing an abortion having to cover costs involved with such. If that involves travel and expenses to the nearest clinic, then so be it.
Whoa, whoa. Wy isn't it fair to make her bear the burden for her error? Isn't she the most culpable party if she can't figure out paternity? You want to know for sure who the poppa is and thereby insure that you get child support, don't sleep around.
If he was an equal participant, he would have either the right to unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, or to force the pregnancy to be brought to term. He doesn't, therefore he is not an equal participant.
No, no, no. You can only punish the men for their mistakes.
Men have lots of rights. They have the right to choose to have the sexual act that results in conception, or not to have it. They also have the same rights as any other parent once the child is born. But once a man leans over the edge of the building and drops the rock, he isn't allowed to just say, "Oh, well, gravity's not my problem. If it hits anybody, it's not my fault."
No, it isn't. There are a few things that are always right, and a few things that are always wrong. There are lots of moral gray areas as well, of course, but this isn't one of them.
Actually, unless you're giving a man the option of changing the diapers et al in lieu of writing the check, the check is almost inherently a greater infringement on bodily autonomy. Where do you think the money comes from, the money fairy? He has to earn that money, with his body. And you're not giving him the option of using his body to care for the child in a different way.
No. The mother and the real father have equal responsibility.
Granted. There are far worse things that could be done to somebody than cutting off one of their fingers. Doesn't make cutting their finger off okay.
He is an equal participant because the sexual act was the result of mutual consent and he is the source of half of the genetic material in the offspring resulting from that sexual act.
He does not have equal moral standing in the disposition of the fetus, but that's not the same issue at all.
Wait what? Guys are now responsible for sexual activity that didn't even involve them?!?
This isn't about "punishing" anyone. It's about ensuring that the child is provided for by both parties involved in its creation.
Why not? Blindly asserting they aren't the same issue doesn't make it so.
Where did you get that from what I wrote?
Woman has sex with Man A and Man B. Woman becomes pregnant by Man B. Woman believes incorrectly that Man A is the father until it is too late to ask Man B about his input into the decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy.
Woman and Man B have equal responsibility for the child, once it is born, even if Man B did not find out about the child until its birth was a fait accompli.
No, what I am saying is that the man doesn't get the option to have dominant custody of the child because of the strong, almost insurmountable bias in favor of awarding custody to the mother, absent extraordinary facts (i.e. mother's drug abuse or psychiatric problems).
Lets say, instead, that it was an equal playing field. The child is born; the child has to be cared for. It could be society as a whole taking responsibility; but society has decided the biological parents get the first bite at the apple.
This is already unfair to the man, who had no ability to decide whether or not to bring the baby to term. But forget that for now.
Someone has to make money to take care of a kid, and someone needs to change the diapers. If both parties could express a preference, and then a judge apportioned the burden among both parties taking into account their preferences, but without any predisposition towards assigning certain duties to one party over the other because of their sex, then that would be the most minimally infringing approach. And in contemporary society, clearly the rational one; there is no reason a man should be compelled to work and a woman to change the diapers (or pay someone else to change the diapers for her, as the case may be).
And yet, the way our system is set up, the man is compelled to work. That is wrong.
No, they don't. They start from the act of conception, which includes two equal participants, and proceed inexorably from there.
Because from conception until birth, the fetus is a part of the woman's body, rather than the man's, and control over one's own body is one of the most fundamental human rights that there is.
I already said this, if you read upthread.
From the part of my quoting that you conveniently left out.
I left that part out because it has no apparent connection whatsoever to what you said. The mother and biological father have an equal degree of responsibility for conception, whether the biological father is aware that the mother has become pregnant or not.
Sure the guy can seek custody, seek to have her write him checks too, the vast majority of men in such a situation prefer writing the check to her (well they'd prefer not to have custody and write no checks, but really that really isn't an option at present).
The rampant refusal in this country to accept responsibility/accountability for one's actions is really endemic at this point - no one wants the responsibility for anything anymore it seems, be it personal or business matters
Still? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
It is odd to watch this issue turn so many men into mutant libertarians.
But then you proceed to treat the "equal" participants unequally by giving one all the choices and making the other be a slave to them.
Here's your problem; you put this huge disconnect into the equation between sex/conception and birth. Your process goes:
Act of sex - shared responsibility
Gestation - boys have no say in this at all!
IFF birth - boys must live by the decision of girls
Once you disconnect the men from the moral process, you can't just randomly plug them in again after someone else has made a life decision in their stead. Either the men/fathers are involved in the decision process all the way through, or they're out when they're disconnected during gestation. Sorry if that's inconvenient for the liberated classes. Life is hard in the free world, sometimes.
Yep. Clearly women don't want to accept responsibility or be accountable for having casual sex with men and then have to support the child for 21 years because they decided to keep the child instead of giving it up for adoption or aborting it.
Seriously. The argument on my side isn't about avoiding responsibility. It's about assigning responsibility to the proper parties. The party who makes a decision is responsible for that decision's results.
The man isn't a "slave" to the woman. He's simply required to "man up", as Sam put it, and live with the consequences of his actions.
The woman makes the choices during gestation because it's her body that the fetus is fused with, not his.
Is a woman required to "live with the consequences" of getting pregnant by mistake?
Is a woman required to "live with the consequences" of getting pregnant by mistake?
Nope. Because it is her body and she has become liberated. Apparently we're still waiting for men to become liberated.
Yep, that's all true, and I stand by every word of it.
I'm not "disconnecting" men from the moral process. They have autonomy over all the parts of the process that concern them: The decision whether or not to engage in actions that may result in conception, and the myriad decisions that come with parenthood if/when the fetus is carried to term.
A remark that would be more appropriately directed to wanna-be deadbeat fathers than to me.
Of course. Those consequences include (but are not limited to) carrying a fetus to term, a difficult and dangerous process, or undergoing an invasive medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy. If it were the man's body, he would have moral standing in the decision instead of the woman, but since it isn't, he doesn't.
Unless the decision in question involves whether or not to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman, in the full knowledge that a pregnancy may result, apparently.
Why not? If there's a window in which to decide whether to convert the conceived entity to a human birth, and he's on the hook for a human birth, why would he have no say during the window of choice?
Indeed, if the man admits paternity pre-viability, why can't he compel an abortion in lieu of 21 years of providing support? (The fetus isn't entirely a "part of the woman's body" since the DNA provided by the man is his. Why can't he compel an abortion to reclaim his DNA?)
Because once the fetus becomes a part of the woman's body, her right to autonomy over her own body supersedes any other considerations. The first and most important right any individual has is the right of control over himself or herself. It should be sacrosanct.
Because, as I already noted on numerous occasions earlier in the thread, he already provided implicit consent for the woman to determine the disposition of any fetus, should one be created, when he had penis-in-vagina sex with her. He doesn't gain some kind of easement over her uterus purely because they did it.
You've certainly repeated this often. Repeating your assumption is not compelling argumentation. You seem to have a hang up on this issue.
Well, my GF has read the thread and thinks you're all kinda pathetic. 1-1!
I'm not sure why you're so determined to present that as an assumption, when it's not.
Stabbing her in the neck and moving the knife so that the head nods back and forth does not constitute agreement.
And again, by the exact same token, she would already provided implicit consent to bear the child by having penis-in-vagina sex. Every argument against allowing male choice also precludes the justification of female choice. If you're pro-life, then simply say it.
Why do you keep repeating "penis-in-vagina sex"? Everyone here seems to know how babies are made.
Blood and fire, buddy. Blood and fire.
I imagine there would be a split amongst women who are capable of being objective and those who formulate their thoughts out of pure self interest.
Regardless, it seems equally relevant what men think, as long as we are tying up their wallets, hard work, and emotions for 21 years.
As the woman has the power to abort the baby and thus stop the man from being involved rather than involving him without his consent, it seems she should bear the sole financial responsibility of a decision to proceed. It makes no sense to any fair-minded person to fight for or support the right to abort, only to deny responsibility for not doing so.
But I'll leave you guys/girls to sort this out. I'm headed out to play tennis.
Oh brother.
Sexist.
Offer people something while someone else gets nothing and many of them will be happy to take the deal, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.
A roll of 1000 on the meta-karma millennium-sided die.
Ask Joe and Dan.
Are you insinuating that injustice in this case is warranted and acceptable because of historical injustices against women? Because that's not how moral reasoning works.
I'm not going to agree or disagree with this, because that would grant your definition of injustice, which I'm not prepared to do.
Because that's not how moral reasoning works.
I will ask, however, how does it work, exactly?
Ex, and that is between you and the ex.
Hogwash. My insistence targets the child. It treats all parents equally. If a woman carries to term and rather than adopt the man takes custody, then the woman should have to pay child support. Both parents are morally responsible. And yes there is a safety net, but even though I believe children have a right to be supported I would rather parents not freeload (which you seem determined to do in this instance) of of the safety net.
The child is born and both parents need to support it. If they can't then clearly society needs to step in, but why should hardworking folks let the parasite parents freeload? It was their choice to have sex and it is their genetic offspring. They should deal with it and not sponge off of taxpayers.
Again society needs to provide for children if the parents can't, but parents should not be able to freeload off of society based on their actions. You don't want to deal with caring for children? There is an easy solution - watch out where and with who you have sex. Use birth control responsibly. Know your partner.
If you screw up (there has been talk of condom failure a huge percentage of that failure is user error. Know your tools. treat them right. Install correctly. Then they have really good success rates.
BTW - There are also guys sweet talking the woman, saying they want to be with her forever and then bailing (after it is too late to get an abortion) than there are women trapping men with their pregnancy. But who cares? Have sex, have a kid, you have responsibility.
Claiming something impacts the poor more than the wealthy is completely ordinary. The poor are impacted more by almost everything. But the poorest most vulnerable is not the dude who wants to have sex, it is the child.
"with whom"
So you're against adoption then?
But who cares? Have sex, have a kid, you have responsibility.
Unless you get an abortion or give the baby up for adoption.
1) Yes.
2) They have a say, but the woman has the decision.
3) After birth then BOTH parties have an obligation and neither gets to have opted out
And Sam I read your 486.
And I disagree. It is both parties genetic material. Both choose to have sex, knowing children were a possibility. Parents have in virtually every society for virtually all of history been the primary party responsible for caring for their children, and if they can't then society steps in.
You might want to pretend to be post-mammalian, but I assure you, you are a mammal.
With talk like that I don't think you have to worry about a pregnancy from casual sex.
2) They have a say, but the woman has the decision.
3) After birth then BOTH parties have an obligation and neither gets to have opted out
Same thing here for #589. Apparently you are dead set against adoption and if someone has a kid they have to tough it out. I'm sure the kid will appreciate having two parents that didn't want it nor want to raise it around to raise him/her.
So why do you keep asking this? Seriously are you stupid, reading impaired, or have no memory? I have stated I am OK with adoption, and in fact when the parents can not care for the child, if it is in the best interests of the child then it is OK. But the parents are the first line of defense, they should not be allowed to just freeload off of society.
Sigh. A guy not wanting to pay child support to his baby mama is not the same as both parents putting a child up for adoption, nor is it the same as society taking a child away from parents for cause.
Once more for the reading impaired. This is about what is best for the child, not the selfish freeloading male(or female). Society has come to the conclusion that the best people to raise/support children is the birth parents. Under certain circumstances, when it is best for the child, then the child is put somewhere other than with his parents. Absent those circumstances the parents are responsible.
This means if dad chooses to raise the child then mom should be obligated to pay child support. And vice versa. If society determines the parents can't take care of their responsibility and/or both parents bail on their child then society steps in for the benefit of the child.
Having a kid sort of precludes having had an abortion. And I have addressed the adoption issue (three times I think).
I would think my stupidity is obvious since I have engaged in an argument against the side that basically says "man up" over and over again for hundreds of posts.
But yes you do appear to be against adoption since you routinely qualify when adoption is permissible and your qualifiers aren't really based on what is actually happening.
Men can't have kids as I have been told repeatedly now so your equation doesn't really work unless you force men into the equation and the forcing of men into the equation is where the debate begins.
To boil it all down one side is saying "because" and the other side is saying, "nah-ah". There, I just saved us another 300 posts on the subject.
Man up is not the thrust of my argument.
What? Adoption is when the parents give up rights and responsibility for their child and someone else takes over those responsibilities. What are Earth are you talking about?
I'm talking about what you said numerous times.
Man up is not the thrust of my argument
I apologize for erroneously lumping you into that category when in fact you should have been in the "because" category. A thousand apologies.
You think men should be able to screw who they want and freeload on society running from their responsibility, because woman get to decide if the pregnancy comes to term. I think the Child's rights are paramount and you refuse to address the rights of the child.
At least Sam varies his argument a bit, and uses words like normative.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main