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 0.7598 seconds
51 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.
But you haven't answered why.
Because sex has consequences, and you don't get the right to force a woman to choose between aborting her child and raising it in poverty---IF (and note the "IF") she's financially unable to do so without your help. Your abstract pleas of victimhood that ignore the consequences for the child's future leave me about as sympathetic as Grover Norquist's whinings about the progressive income tax.
Yes, but you don't want women to face the consequences to the degree that men face them. That's the problem.
(Nor is the correct terminology "her child." The child is a joint production.)
No one saying anyone should be deprived of the legal right to have sex with anyone. All we're saying is that if your sexual choice leads to fathering a baby, you support it.
You don't want freedom, you want license without any responsibility. Freedom means you bear the consequences of your choices/actions.
But the results of the intercourse *isn't* a baby. It's a handful of cells in a tissue mass.
The result of some coitus is a baby, unless there is a violent intervention.
Well, you're free to feel that way. Maybe Jay can save you a seat on the bus to Topeka.
And given the fact that they are mostly pool-room hustlers, they are probably considerably more "low-life", than you apparently realize.
Not at all. Sorry to disappoint your stereotypes, but the great majority of them are considerably less low-life in their actions and outlooks on life than many of the people I've encountered here, as exhibited by some of the attitudes I've seen exhibited.
And that has precisely nothing to do with whether they're "low status" -- the term you adopted enthusiastically until called to account, whereupon it morphed into "low-life," an entirely different term.
Yeah, the way it works is, the Duchess of Westrogothia and I make a mutual decision to have sex. In so doing she consents to having sex with me. I don't go up to her and say "Now I hereby decree that you will have sex with me, it is so ordered" and she then proceeds to expose her vagina to my penis without being allowed to think about whether she wants to.
Honestly, the low opinion the PIVSers have of women is really interesting to witness.
Yes, but you don't want women to face the consequences to the degree that men face them. That's the problem.
Wait, if the woman is raising the child and sharing in the cost of support how is she "facing the consequences" less than the man who sends a check, and plays with his kid one or two days a week? In terms of impact on lifestyle, she is substantially more impacted.
My sister's husband (separated) is one of these deadbeats. The children have far more impact on the grandparents than on him. He sees his sons when he pleases, pays sometimes, and is already on to impregnating other girlfriends (2 so far).
Meanwhile, my sister has 2 little kids to take care of, and my 68 y.o. parents have a 3 and 5 y.o. back under their roof. My mom and each each spend 10 times as much time with my nephews as their father does, and contribute more to their support financially.
No, the man can only choose to help create a zygote. To allow that zygote to become a baby is a distinct choice - unless the man has a say in that choice, he's only responsible for the zygote. Having the sole choice breaks that thread of responsibility, just as if I give someone a job and he later uses one of his paychecks to buy a gun and shoot up a school, I'm not responsible for that either.
Bu, bu, bu, bu, but all they want is for women to have money to support their children, so really they think very highly of women. You're the one who has a low opinion of women.
Yes, but you don't want women to face the consequences to the degree that men face them. That's the problem.
How many times do I have to reiterate that the determinant point should be about financial ability to pay, not gender?
(Nor is the correct terminology "her child." The child is a joint production.)
It certainly is, although you seem to be saying that your joint alone gets to have a financial opt-out.
Only for men, and not for woman apparently.
Yes. Agreed completely. And since the woman is the one to make the choice whether to terminate or not, she should face the responsibility of those choices. That IS the crux of the argument you realize.
Because she's bearing the consequence *of her choice*. If I choose to eat too many fatty foods, I don't see why it's fair for McDonald's to share equal responsibility for the doctor's bills (or any - it was my intervening choice).
Repeating something stupid doesn't make it less stupid.
Bill Gates had more financial ability to pay for my upbringing than my parents did. Why not bill him? He gets just as much say in the decision to carry a zygote to term as the male who actually impregnated the female, after all.
She is bearing the consequences, she's raising a child for 18+ years. Asking the father to send a check is a very minor imposition in comparison.
You can reiterate it a thousand times and that still won't mean that you actually believe it. If you truly believed this, you wouldn't mind giving the sole decisionmaking authority of whether to have the child or abort to the man instead of the woman.
It's not about gender, right, Andy?
The woman gets the financial opt-out of having an abortion, or putting the child up for adoption.
So we come to an either/or. Either the person you're responding to doesn't believe in sexual freedom or the person you're responding to feels that women are lesser people that aren't qualified -- as men are -- to make decisions for themselves.
No, the woman has a financial opt-out, too. In fact, she has one under existing practice. She's entirely free to terminate the pregnancy or abjure her parental rights entirely through adoption.
But, since we have abortion, the proximate cause of the baby was not the sex; the proximate cause of the baby was the choice... by the mother... to carry it to term.
The bystander might choose to catch the rock out of the air (get an abortion), but the guy (and the woman) threw the rock. Her catching the rock helps both rock throwers in that now both of them are clear of the responsibility, absent that they are both respionsible. Just because only one party can "catch the rock" doesn't mean both are not responsible if the rock lands.
It is both of their child, and the child deserves to be supported by both even if one of them had the opportunity to "catch the rock". If you don't want to be responsible don't throw rocks or be really careful with having a net to catch the rock before it hits anything and breaks it (sticking the rock throwers with the cost of dealing with it).
Just because we have enabled rock catching does not mean rock throwing is suddenly without consequence.
And if it's 100% her choice, how can it not be 100% her responsibility?
An interesting point, if you believe that consensual sex is rape. Do you believe that consensual sex is rape?
If one believed abortion should be allowed (I don't) I see no reason why it wouldn't be a joint decision. The child is equally the father and mother's. Both should have to agree on the abortion. If the vote's a tie, the baby gets to live; can't change the status quo through a tie vote.
As an aside, I'm truly apalled at how cavalier people are towards abortion. It's one thing to view it as a regrettable necessity, but to favor it as a default option just so guys can screw who they want w/o worrying about paying a few bucks is monsterous.
Again, a wonderful argument, assuming the person believes that abortion should be illegal. For someone that doesn't, an incoherent one.
And the discomforts of pregnancy and (if applicable) childbirth.
It's a procedure that removes a mass of tissue. It's like being appalled at how cavalier people are about having wounds bandaged, infections treated, or tumors excised.
Well, yes, you, anti-abortion that you are, would think this way. But that is you attempting to remove the current choice options from the table. That is not the question at hand. Under current law, the woman has a choice to carry a pregnancy to term or abort (up until the second trimester, more or less.) That makes the decision for taking the zygote to "baby in the world" which needs "child support" completely hers.
Inaction can not be a proximate cause. She has no "duty to abort".
And if it's 100% her choice, how can it not be 100% her responsibility?
Because the child has a right to support from both parents, 100% from either if the other can't pay. If the father can't pay, it's 100% the mother's responsibility, if the mother can't pay it's 100% the father's. If they both can pay, it's somewhere in between.
Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial mother or father.
Sunk cost at the time of the critical decision.
Also preventable (with fraud in birth control exception).
If you believe an unborn baby is equal to a tumor, I stand by what I said, your beliefs are monsterous.
What?
Let me explain the analogy.
They throw the rock together (That is them having consenual sex).
One party can catch the rock (That is the abortion).
The rock hits something (The baby is born, because the "rock was not caught").
Now both parties are responsible for the aftermath of throwing the rock, because both threw it (again consenual sex).
Nobody said the man shouldn't pay for his cost of the abortion.
The legality of abortion is irrelevent. The women is not required to abort an out-of-wedlock child. There is no "duty to abort".
Her inaction is not the cause of anything. Inaction with no duty to act can not confer liability. Her liability for the child's support stems from participating in coitus, just like the father's.
Another analogy for the slow: Sam is choking to death on a piece of food. I am the only other person in the room, and I know the heimlich maneuver, but I decide to finish my lunch rather than save him. I incur no legal fault for his death. I have no duty to act. The pregnant mother has no duty to act and terminate the pregnancy.
QFT. However mysteriously certain parties refuse to talk about the right of the child, it all disapears in the grievance of the poor put upon male.
And I'm truly apalled at how cavalier people are towards denying the man any say in the decision to have a child while roping his wallet in to the decision made by the woman.
I'm also apalled at the low opinion the PIVSers have of women generally, and at their stifling of sexual freedom.
The aftermath of sex isn't a baby, it's a tiny mass of tissue. Nobody's disputing that the male is 50% responsible up to the point at which there's an intervening decision made that he has no say in.
And that has precisely nothing to do with whether they're "low status" -- the term you adopted enthusiastically until called to account, whereupon it morphed into "low-life," an entirely different term.
You're referring in entireity to this little exchange between YR and me to support this proposition:
That pretty much nails it in some of these cases.
The "low-status males" I'm talking about "in some of these cases" are the BTF types whose "bitch set me up" attitudes reflect the low-life behavior of the world's Marion Barrys. This has nothing to do with any sort of demographic "low status". The people I know at the pool room may have (in most cases, though not all) demographic and occupational "low status", but "low life" would hardly describe the great majority of them once you got past the surface and actually engaged with them. The fact that some people don't seem to realize this is not in the least bit surprising.
"Oh, those poor women that don't get to vote! They just get to wear fancy jewelry and dresses and not nave to go to war. Poor put upon females."
- Bitter Mouse, 1892
If this is true, than a lot of single-parents who don't have a partner are currently having their rights violated. Somebody should do something about that.
It can't be a right for parent and child A to receive X, and while parent and child B do not have the right to receive X. That fundamental undermines any current concept of rights.
I was just pointing out that it's not pure upside for either party.
This seems to be a recurring problem with the "no, the guy has to pay for the sex!" contingent. Apparently abortion is only morally okay if it's being argued for the sexual liberation of women, but it's terrible and icky if you're talking about the responsibilities of sexual freedom for women.
He has 1005 say. Don't have coitus with any woman you don't want to risk having a child with. 100% effective.
No one has a right to consequence free sex.
I have repeatedly addressed this. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. The child should have the same rights as any other child of a single parent, where the other parent was unable to provide support.
It can't be a right for parent and child A to receive X, and while parent and child B do not have the right to receive X. That fundamental undermines any current concept of rights.
Pardon? I don't understand.
There is no class of children that are not entitled to support from both parents. In the case of a widow or widower, Social Security actually provides a pension for the child.
Snapper's a RTLer, and I'm pro-choice up through the first trimester, but he's absolutely right about this, whether the would-be enforcer is the government or the father. As both he and Bitter Mouse have properly reiterated, the primary focus should be on the interests (or rights) of the child.
So you propose an affirmative duty to rescue? I'll listen but it runs counter to pretty much everything upon which our legal system is founded...
The argument has not been that fathers are unable to provide support, it's been that they shouldn't have to b/c "the woman wouldn't get an abortion".
It flows from the condescension and paternalism that defines modern liberalism. They don't believe blacks, other minorities, and women are truly equal, but instead require the good graces of the modern liberal and modern liberal policies to shepherd them through life. Thus, the modern liberal is unwilling to extend them true equality.
We see it here in the comically paternalistic attitude toward female sexuality and women generally -- wherein sex is an imposition upon women and a means of calculated advantage to men. They basically sound like Teapers.
No. I say the mother incurs no additional responsibility for the child b/c she chooses not to act. The mother and the father both have responsibility steeming from the coitus that conceived the child. He decision not to act, where she had no duty to act, can confer no additional responsibility. It remains equal.
This does not follow at all (see several pages back, I guess you and McCoy are having the same problem).
The rights of the child are paramount. Things are structured to the best of our ability (in the real world it can certainly get better though, clearly) to help the children. Sometimes a child being raised by a single parent is best for the child. Sometimes adoption is best for the child. The point is the child's needs outweigh the father having to pay (even after having no say in the mother having an optional medical procedure).
The father not paying in no way helps, and in large part hurts the child and so in unacceptible. The plus to the child outweighs the minus to the father, because the father knowingly had sex and the child is vulnerable and gave no such consent.
No one is claiming a right to be equal, to be the same, to have the same money, genetics or any other fanciful thing you think of. Neither the first nor second amendment such every gets a printing press or a gun. However the right of the child is to be supported by its parents, or in case that is not best for them then adoption or other options are available.
Of course not. There is a choice, taken exclusively by the woman, to abort or not to abort. If she chooses to abort, so be it. Her body, her decision. If she chooses not to abort, so be it. Her body, her decision. In no way is it morally reasonable to require a man who has clearly stated his desire to not father a child be held responsible for her decision to not abort.
Why, exactly?
There's no such thing. Never has been and never will be.
But the whole "pregnancy/childbirth and/or STDs are God's punishment for dirty, flithy coitus" mindset makes one nostalgic for the paganism of antiquity.
Again, your logic fails. If a person has no duty to act, they can not incur liability by failure to act.
The father had his say in the matter when they decided to knock boots. Just like the mother had her say at that moment.
Those are the only positive actions that incur the liability for the support of the child.
Arguing for the child (no matter its race, gender or anythign else), saying in all cases, across all genders, races, and income levels that biological parents are equally responsibil for their choice to have sex and the result of that sex is "comically paternalistic attitude toward female sexuality and women generally"?
Those words do not mean what you seem to think they do.
I certainly never said that. Having a child is certainly no punishment in my eyes. More an undeserved blessing in the cases we're discussing.
A zygote is not a child.
I have seen almost zero evidence of that attitude on this thread. Please cite the posts that have that attitude, because I certainly have no said anything such thing and I don't believe any such thing any more than I accept Sam's earlier (and quickly dropped when he realized how silly it was) contention that my thinking was somehow "puritanical" and that most atheists and/or secular humanists were puritcanical.
2) It's been implied that the only costs wrt termination of pregnancy are financial. I suspect that this isn't the case - here again, the words of those who've experienced it might be instructive.
In short, I'd like to avoid a comically paternalistic attitude toward female sexuality and women generally.
And a zygote does not receive child support.
The argument has not been that fathers are unable to provide support, it's been that they shouldn't have to b/c "the woman wouldn't get an abortion".
Exactly. I've expressed sympathy for fathers who actually can't afford child support, and if they can't and the mother can afford it, then the burden should fall on her. But AFAICT the question of ability to pay doesn't seem to be given any weight at all by the "poor, poor men" faction here. Their sole interest seems to be ducking out on any financial responsibility for the child, beyond (perhaps) the cost of aborting it. And that's not "low status", that's just low-life.
They aren't equally responsible. They're unequally responsible. The woman is preferred. That preference, as noted, is paternalistic and based on antiquated notion of sexuality.
Correct, the zygote can only receive child support if it becomes a baby. Becoming a baby is a result of a choice at the sole discretion of the woman, an intervening choice. If you have 100% of the choice, you bear 100% of the responsibility.
I think almost all discussions benefit from a diversity of viewpoints. For example as one of the few (I suspect) here that is making child support payments I think I have a different perspective than a non-parent and a parent not making such payments would have.
However, I think everyone's perspective is valid and valuable as part of the discussion, and I certainly don't think anyone should have to participate or disclose gender, parental status, medical history or anything else to discuss or to "gain status" in the discussion.
They are equally responsbile in having sex (absent complications I don't think we need to discuss in this subthread).
Just because you want the option of having a medical procedure to remove the child of its right to be supported by both parents, the fact is it does not. Nothing the parents can do can change the child's right. If both parents surrender their responsbility to the child then an adoption can happen, but that action is something both parents should have to do, and in any event it does not alter at all the child's right, merely who is thefirst line of support in meeting that right.
And also, free. You can't just say that the man should pay for it, because that'd flip the script and discriminate against the man in the poor man/rich woman scenario.
None of these three assumptions is currently the case, and it would take a #### ton to make even one of them true, so, yeah.
A mass of tissue has no rights.
But unequal in the decision to take the child to term -- thus the problem.
Nobody is forcing abortion on anybody.
Oh, sure.
Having said, that, I suspect we have a fair number of male perspectives reflected in this thread and few female ones. (Perhaps I'm wrong - I'd like to be wrong.) That's going to frame it in less than ideal ways.
I haven't claimed people have (though I think the Hobson's choice bit upthread is instructive). But, again: it's been implied that the only costs wrt termination of pregnancy are financial. I suspect that this isn't the case - here again, the words of those who've experienced it might be instructive.
He's absolutely wrong, as are you. There is no "would-be enforcer," and no "duty to abort." Nobody is forcing abortion on anyone.
And yet, that principle is not from which your arguments flow, as I already demonstrated.
Indeed. The father is simply saying, "At this point in my life, I do not want to be a father and will sacrifice my parental rights and obligations." If the mother has the option to do that, so should the father. Simple as that.
The only counter-argument is teh sex, which is absurd.
If there is no duty to abort, the mother can incur no additional obligation by her decision not to act. Inaction, in the absence of duty to act, can't cause liability.
She doesn't. The child's right to support doesn't vest until viablility, at which point the mother has had the opportunity to divest herself of the support obligation -- an opportunity denied to the man.
"Additional" implies a before and an after. You're missing the "before" here.
Then why are you attaching liability to the man, who not only didn't have a duty to act, but was explicitly denied the opportunity to act when he was given no say in the decision whether to carry the baby to term?
But that cuts both ways. There may well be emotional costs for a man, when a woman gets an abortion against his will.
But then I don't think anybody has even pretended that abortions only confer financial costs. As I said above, if you do not wish to have an abortion (due to physical or moral/mental reasons), or you don't want to risk being left without paternal support, don't engage in penis-in-vagina-sex. It can't be an invalid imposition, since it is the one the people in the 'men should pay' crowd are advocating for men. And it places the responsibility with the person who has all the rights in the situation, which is where it should be.
When the "choices" are (a) abort, or (b) raise the child without adequate financial resources, your argument is disingenuous to the point of sophistry.
As both he and Bitter Mouse have properly reiterated, the primary focus should be on the interests (or rights) of the child.
And yet, that principle is not from which your arguments flow, as I already demonstrated.
Right, Ray. Except that my principles concerning child support are 100% focused on the child's interest (i.e. who is best financially able to provide the child's support), whereas your "options" (as stated in #765) consist of either criminalizing abortion or giving the father "the sole discretion whether the mother should have an abortion or carry the baby to term." That tells us all we need to know about where your primary concern lies.
One there is a child (as oppossed to a mass of tissue or whatever that others keep bringing up) then neither the mother nor the father has the unilateral right to declare they are not parents. Together they can surrender the child through adoption, seprately neither can.
Time line:
* Two parties have sex (Hopefully they have fun doing it).
* Abortion possible (No child here, no child support), female decides abortion yes or no.
* Child present (too late for abortion), now the child (who exists now) and its rights are paramount. It is now not possible for either parent to simply opt out.
* Having been born, the child having its own rights (which can't be altered by anything either parent does, they are the child's rights) gets to be supported by both of its parents (because they choose in step one an affirmative action which resulted in the child).
You will note nowhere am I punishing either parent, suggesting sex is icky, arguing against adoption, suggesting abortion shold be illegal or forced, or any of the other silly red herrings thrown out there.
I can't stand how this is going to come out sounding, but if you have ever talked to more than a few women who've had an abortion, I'd be stunned if you find more than a tiny percentage who are affected as if they'd had a wound bandaged, a broken finger set, or a mole removed. It's an invasive physical surgery of an explicitly personal nature for which there is an absolute stigma. Not everyone is going to need therapy afterwards, but NO ONE needs therapy for having a wound bandaged. The lack of perspective in your comparison is kind of a shock.
Point two. If women are 100% responsible for this intervening choice, how can men have any responsibility for subsequent choices that reflect the decision of the choice that the woman was 100% responsible for?
And you can't say "men shouldn't have had sex" because that argument also invalidates abortion rights.
In my case it was more like 50 years ago, only with the tired arguments about "you're demanding special privileges for blacks" now replaced by whining about "you're demanding special privileges for women", with a few misogynists coming in off the bench to replace some of the reformed racists.
Not at all. These are very valid choices.
But I'm amused now at how you employ scare quotes to refer to (a). How many times have we heard from pro-choicers the phrase "the woman's right to choose." Now you're claiming that said choice is not really a choice?
My options flow from the principle you set forth: welfare of the child.
Those are hardly the only injuries, just examples. Brain tumors and pancreatic cancer, I daresay, affect the average person far *more* than an abortion. How many men have *you* talked to that have had their right to choose unrecognized by the law?
And if a woman wants to consider a small mass of tissue to have the same status as a baby, that's her prerogative. Nobody else has to agree with that. Nobody's saying she should be forced to have an abortion, just that both men and women have equality in sexual freedom. You can dance around the issue all you want, but that's what the issue is - men being denied a sexual freedom.
You are demanding special privileges for women.
Because the child's rights are primary. Once it comes into existence, then its welfare is paramount. As is the historical societal norm (and it extends across many species and not just mammals) those who contribute the genetic material are primary in caring for the child (it is largely a selective evolutionary sort of thing humanity may never outgrow, certaily not any time soon - despite what Sam might hope).
If there was no child, then then the father and mother's rights and responsiblities with regard to each other and the decision tree as explaned would be changed. But the child is present, both the father and mother together are responsible for it, and so it goes.
He was denied by biology. When men can become pregnant, then they will be given the opportunity to act.
Hey I am in favor of men having sex. Many things in life are fun, but decisions have risks and consequences. Ending up responsbile for a child is an obvious and well understood possible consequence of having sex.
EDIT: Added a "possible"
Which is a stupid argument. Men are also physically stronger than women, by biology. Do you think women have the right to say no to sexual intercourse only at such times they physically have the means to resist?
Which invalidates abortion rights.
That's silly. The child is no more the woman's and the woman's alone because it happens to be in her body than a stolen watch she'd swallowed would be. Or an engagement ring she'd appended to her finger.
There's no practical obstacle to giving the man a say in the outcome of the pregnancy and the arguments against are all trite and reductive.
Your first option does so at the expense of the mother, by denying her the choice to bear the child.
Your second option does so by giving the father "the sole discretion whether the mother should have an abortion or carry the baby to term." I'm not sure how that works out for the welfare of the child.
My option is based on the assumption that the woman wants the child---which is the scenario under which this discussion began---and that the child's interest is simple: That the mother bearing the child has the financial wherewithal to support the child. Your only "option" to this comes down to repealing Roe v Wade, and your only interest in this is keeping as much money as possible in the father's pocket.
Nonsense. He could have been given a say in the decision. He wasn't.
Or let's go with the "denied by biology" argument: people who want a sex change shouldn't be allowed to have one, because they were denied by biology from being born the other sex.
Except it is clearly possible to raise a child with only your own earnings and/or available government support. Is it easy? No. But there a plenty of single mothers (and some single fathers) who are doing just that. I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for those parents that do. And I think pretending it's impossible, does them a disservice.
Edit: Typos
Why is it a stupid argument? I don't follow how the fact that women get pregnant, and therefore have an additional choice to make, can be equated to allowing rape.
You are demanding special privileges for women.
No, I'm demanding special consideration for the child. You still haven't addressed the point that I've repeated many times about which person I think should be primarily responsible for child support. Hint: It's not based on gender.
Because any conversation had by young men in their youth is, by definition, silly and to be ignored as irrelevant. Because frat boys are stupid and dumb, like, right brah? I mean, frat boys are SO DUMB, amirite, brah?!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main