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 0.5872 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.
- denied by biology
- tough titty
- poor, poor men [or class of people we don't favor]
- abortion is not a true choice
- sexual freedom is not important
- 'welfare of the child' can be used to favor one sex over the other
- "force" means anything i want it to mean
- proximate cause or intervening decisions are not relevant
- nyah, nyah
- etc
Then you should cut the middle man ######## and agitate for a Ministry of Love.
I am not sure if the edited "possible" matters (I added it before I saw your post. Anyway in no way does it invalidate abortion rights. Why would it? Abortion rights are not built on the idea that sex does not sometimes result in babies.
In the real world a vast majority of fathers (potential fathers) are given a say in the decision. The woman has the final say for many reasons, none of which have anythign to do with the right of a child to be supported by its parents.
Of course he was. He can argue his side all he wants. Try to influence the decision. He just wasn't given final say. Sorry.
What? Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said "denied by biology". The fact that women can get pregnant and men can't mean that women have an additional decision to make. If men could get pregnant, then they could also make that decision.
You asserted that one only can make decisions that your biology enables one to do so.
By your reasoning, women, when not having the biology necessary to physically resist a man, have no such ability to make a decision to not have intercourse.
Yes, that's the assumption. The other assumption is that the man doesn't want parental rights or obligations. If the woman doesn't, she can accomplish her goal. If the man doesn't, he can't.
Thus your demand for special privileges. Of course, you're also demanding them in the case where the woman doesn't want the child but the man does. The man's out of luck there, too.
Certainly not my intention. My argument is that because women can become pregnant, they have an additional choice to make.
Except it is clearly possible to raise a child withonly your oen 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.
The fact that many women are forced to raise children without adequate financial resources has nothing to do with my point. Of course many women do this, thanks to runaway fathers and pennypinching government child support policies**, but that's hardly what I'd call an ideal situation, and it's certainly no reflection on them to point this out.
**Policies largely supported by those who preach the "poor, poor men" and "Obamacare = socialism" lines on these threads.
So custody to the highest earner then. I am sure that will go over well.
Distinction without a difference.
Everyone else is talking about the time before the time that "consideration for the child" even matters which, I guess, explains why you're having so much trouble following along.
Yes, if the parents jointly decide to take the pregnancy to term, the man has a child support obligation that can justly be based on ability to pay. Unfortunately, that's not the issue at hand.
My option is based on the assumption that the woman wants the child---
And I want the Cubs to win the world series. We don't always get what we want.
The fact that a 250-pound linebacker has the biological ability to have sex with a 100-pound woman against her will and a 100-pound woman does not have the biological ability to have sex with a 250-pound linebacker against his will means, in your deranged worldview, that the 250-pound linebacker has an additional decision to make.
And they can make it. They just can't justly demand that their unwilling partner subsidize it.
His liability, just like hers, comes from the decision to act and have coitus.
Yeah, and slavery was a mutual decision because a black man in the 1840s Alabama was free to influence the decision of the slaveowner all he wanted. He just wasn't given the final say. Too bad, so sad.
It has absolutely everything to do with your point. Namely that choice b is still a valid option. It might be a hard choice, but it is still a possible choice. That's the part about having the rights and the responsibilities. There is no right that it has to be fucking easy.
The child's right to support doesn't vest at that point.
His liability is for the result of coitus, a zygote. A zygote only becomes a baby from an intervening decision that he plays no part in, so how would he have liability for that?
When you are interested in having sex with a woman, do you go "I want to have sex with you, you have a say in the decision, if you don't want to have sex with me try to influence me to change my mind" -- and then after she says no but fails to change your mind you force yourself on her anyway and then call the decision to have sex mutual?
Yes, that's the assumption. The other assumption is that the man doesn't want parental rights or obligations. If the woman doesn't, she can accomplish her goal. If the man doesn't, he can't.
Only if he's more equipped financially to provide the child with adequate support, a point you've now ignored for about the tenth straight time. My other assumption is that this right of the child is paramount, and that leaving the child's fate to the bankroll of the lowest common financial denominator is not a humanistic option.
Thus your demand for special privileges. Of course, you're also demanding them in the case where the woman doesn't want the child but the man does. The man's out of luck there, too.
Yes, it's definitely a "special privilege" for a woman to control her own body. Got it. Whereas the right of a man to impregnate a woman and then opt out from the financial consequences is clearly enshrined somewhere in the Constitution.
I don't think I ever said that the decision was mutual. It's the woman's choice to make. I guess I don't understand how rape and slavery enter the equation.
Which invalidates abortion rights.
Hey, somebody's learning something.
It has absolutely everything to do with your point. Namely that choice b is still a valid option. It might be a hard choice, but it is still a possible choice. That's the part about having the rights and the responsibilities. There is no right that it has to be fucking easy.
It's a choice, yes, but it's a choice that should be only a last resort. And there's certainly no compelling reason that when the father is financially able to help avoid that choice, it should be "fucking easy" for him to opt out of it, when the child's future is at stake.
Really, that comment was asking for it, with that skirt in that neighborhood.
You're the one who said you only have a say in the choices that biology grants you the ability to make. 250 pound linebackers, by your line of reasoning, are the ones granted the ability, by biology, to determine if sex happens or not.
If you don't believe in abortion rights, than it's a consistent argument. A wrong one, in my opinion, but a consistent one.
Of the people agreeing with you, however, I'm certain that all, or nearly, all proclaim to be pro-choice. It does not appear that is the case, however.
No a baby becomes a legal person (under our absurd laws) by the natural course of pregnancy, which unless interrupted, leads to a live birth.
That's what's supposed to happen. You're treating the decision to intervene violently to stop the child being born as the norm. It's just not.
And I don't.
We're talking about men's civil rights. Do you jump into a group of women talking about abortion rights for women and demand to know why there are no men present?
I think we should go with the Roman system. No abortion, but the mother can abandon a newborn at a predesignated location in every county, w/o legal reprecussions. Others are then free to adopt the baby, and if the baby survives 2 days on its own, the state will pay for its upbringing b/c it has proved strong enough to live.
I said nothing like that.
I said that by nature of pregnancy, women have an additional choice to make, one that ultimately lies with her.
Is that incorrect?
Do you deny that a 250-pound linebacker, by nature of biology, is far more able to impose his sexual will on a 100-pound woman than vice-versa?
So then how do you square that with the right to pre-viability abortions. If a man is rich and wants to take the kid and support it, but the woman doesn't want the kid, does she lose her right to abortion?
Assuming your answer of "obviously not" this again shows the complete double standard you propose as between men and women. In all situations, you are giving the woman the sole power to decide whether the pregnancy gets taken to term -- that's a textbook special privilege and double standard.
Yes, it's definitely a "special privilege" for a woman to control her own body. Got it
Yes, in this context it's clearly a "special privilege" for the woman to be the sole decision-maker as to whether to take the pregnancy to term, notwithstanding your efforts to euphemize it away with the "control her own body" business. She doesn't get to "control her own body" as to something that isn't solely hers -- on what basis would she?
I do not.
She should, even if the man is poor and wants to raise the child.
Yeah, that sounds way less barbaric than abortions.
And I am talking about the child's rights which trump the man's.
Look it sucks (from one perspective) that the man gets overruled on the abortion decision because it is "within" the woman's body and then once that is not an issue (baby is born) the man (and woman) now gets overruled by the child's paramount rights. But the male does have a choice and can very much influence what happens, but in this particular sequence of events the men get the short end of it. And because children are paramount that is how it is going to be.
The babies had a chance at least, rather than none.
And, do you really believe that in modern society every baby wouldn't be at least placed in an orphanage?
If not, all the bleeding heart liberals really don't "think about the children".
Your stated examples, which which you are trying to prove your point by comparing them to abortion, are terrible.
You can dance around the issue all you want, but that's what the issue is - men being denied a sexual freedom.
By now you're aware I find this an oversell, but it's irrelevant. My sole point to you here was that comparing an abortion to a wound being bandaged borders on hallucinatory. And I bring it up as important because when this kind of reasoning informs your position (plural), it highlights a weird kind of out-of-touch petulance regarding the whole issue.
So, by your reasoning, by biology, if the 100-pound woman was "meant" to have a say in the decision of whether or not to have sex with the 250-pound linebacker, she would have been equipped with the physical tools to resist having sex with the 250-pound linebacker. So, the decision whether or not to have sex is ultimately his.
We could go that way. Or we could go the opposite direction, the one in which men and women have equality in sexual freedom. I vote B, the non-insane option.
Wow, I'm in 100% agreement with both Lassus and Bitter Mouse on the same day. There needs to be some sort of comemoration.
Because before viability there is no child and its rights do not enter into it. For snapper* the Child's rights are present from conception, the same logic holds I think for both snapper and I, it is just we define the line where the rights kick in at different points. Once the child's rights kick in then they supercede the right's of the parents to a large extent.
There is no double standard and there is no real disagreement other than where the line is drawn between snapper and I - who are about as far apart on abortion rights as possible.
* snapper can feel free to disagree with me, obviously I accept his word for what he believes over mine, I am guessing and apologize to snapper if I am wrong.
EDIT: Written before I saw snapper in 947. It is a red letter day, but I think that we (snapper and I) have been pretty civil towards each other over the years, and I respect him even when I disagree.
Pre-viablity abortion is safer than childbirth. Once the woman's pregnant she's going to have a medical procedure of some kind -- abortion or childbirth. The fact that abortion can have medical effects should be of no moment to men's rights -- childbirth will, too.
Being in league with Sam is no picnic either. The teams are all mixed up!
Ah, the "it sucks, too bad" option. How intellectually vigorous. Is that what you tell everyone denied a civil right?
"Sorry you can't vote, babe. Men are stronger. Now go make me some dinner and I'll be in for my penis-in-vagina sex later."
I guess I'm confused.
Are you saying that the 250-pound linebacker could NOT rape the woman if he wanted to, because of 'equality of sexual freedom'?
I agree consent is the key. The child has not given consent and so gains special priviledge.
Have you heard of mental trauma? Why don't you read up on some of the post-abortion support groups and educate yourself. Many women are deeply traumatized when they realize the magnitude of what they've done, especially if they were pressured into abortion by their boyfriends or parents.
There's no child involved here until the intervening decision of the woman.
There is no child at the time of the decision point that is at issue.
I am not saying "too bad" I am acknowledging the unfairness of the situation and stating clearly that despite the unfairness the Child's rights are paramount. I am feeling sympathy for the male perspective, but my values lead me to a place where the no matter the seeming unfairness a greater unfairness would be depriving the child of its rights.
No, I'm saying that the 250-pound linebacker and 100-pound woman have the exact same sexual freedom, the exact same right to choose to enter into sexual intercourse, even if one of them is equipped by biology to have his choice take precedent over her choice.
Of course there is. Regardless of your feelings about abortion, there is clearly a human entity with unique DNA, that will likely develop into a full-term baby if events take their normal course.
You can believe the mother has a right to terminate that being's life. But you can't logically say there is no unique life there.
Do we high five now? Or Tebow or something? What's the *thing* on this side?
Of course. Women who go through childbirth have mental trauma, too. Ever hear of post-partum depression? Many women get it and never really recover. Empirical question, but I'd venture that it's far more prevalent and debilitating than post-abortion mental issues.
What child? There is no child involved here.
Which is irrelevant to the enshrinement of the child's rights.
Which is why it could not give consent. And yet it was born anyway. And now someone has to take care of it. Hey I know let's go with common sense and have the folks who "built it" take care of it (with a backstop of the rest of society, because kids are that important).
And nobody is comparing childbirth to having a cut bandaged.
The child whose support (I know let's call it Child Support, catchy title that) you are trying to weasal out from under. If there is no child then no support. If there is a child, then there are rights and thus there needs to be Child Support (I do like that name, I bet it catches on).
See how the child, its rights, and the child support all link together?
That's sort of ultra vires here, though. One way to eradicate the special privileges granted women under current practice would be to eliminate abortion -- as Ray's noted.
Let's say I rub one out 3 times a week for 10 years. Have I murdered 1500 babies?
There is no child. A zygote is not a child.
We all know you believe as much. In fact, a good summary of the Ray/Dan/Sam/etc side of things is "all of you liberals have the same view of sexual freedom as Snapper!" I mean, no offense or anything. At least you own it. The grand debate here is between pro-choice, women's rights supporting social liberals. It's an intra-party dispute. Side A thinks "well of course it's her body, it's her decision. That also means she is solely responsible for her decision (i.e. the live birth of a child rather than a terminated pregnancy.) Side B wants to say "of course it's her body, it's her decision, bu this other person who had sex with her a month prior to her decision has bear responsibility for her decision by contributing to the mortal support of her live-birth child for 2+ decades."
You, of course, want to say "it's not her body, it's a baby; there is no decision." That's outside of the bounds of the debate.
I'm glad to see your ignorance extends to the natural sciences and not just the humanities.
Did you do it in a tub? Were the babies in a tub? Did you drown babies in your man juice?
*EW*
So, "too bad, I acknowledge the unfairness of this and feel sympathy for you" is ay-ok as justification for denying that person a right?
But there is no child until the woman makes the decision to carry it to term.
And when there is no child no one is paying child support. Child support (really it is there in the title man, pay attention) only kicks in once there is a child. Before the child there is no reason to complain that the man is being forced to pay for something, he isn't as there is no something to pay for regarding the child (There may be some female medical cost sharing invovling the pregnancy, no idea and it is appart from what I am talking about).
We Te'o.
You, of course, want to say "it's not her body, it's a baby; there is no decision." That's outside of the bounds of the debate.
It's actually not outside the debate.
Everyone on "my side" is saying the child has the right to support. We differ on when that child gets the rights as an independent person (I say always, Andy says after the 1st trimester, some other may say only after birth). But we all agree that, once born, the child has the right to support from both parents, regardless of the decisions that led to his or her birth.
The rights of the child can not be vitiated by the actions or inaction of either parent, unless they mutually agree to an adoption, in which case, the support rights/obligations are tranfered to other parents.
No, no, no! Every sperm is sacred! You have murdered about
600,000,000,000 babies.
Also you should masturbate more than 3 times a week. It's healthy.
No the justification is the child and its rights. There is no unfairness (well I call it child support, you call it unfair) until the child is there.
My sympathy is not justification. It is acknowledgement that the world is often unfair and that unfairness, even when it cannot be resolved completely should be treated as being there. The child like supposition that so many (including most Libertarians) that the world is or even can be perfectly fair is, well, child like. The world is unfair, we do the best with it we can. In this instance the primacy of the child results in possible unfairness for its parents. My sympathy for this is just that, sympathy, but they still have to support the child.
True, but your way doesn't discriminate against men or provide special privileges to women. Theirs' does.
My way explicitly states that the child's rights are more critical than either parents rights. I guess you could call that discrimination, but I think there is a long history and plenty of justification for extending special rights to those who are incapable of caring for themselves and who feel the consequences of one or more actions without having consented to them.
That's fine.
But your proposal discriminates against children. And if the choice is between discriminating against innocent children, or wanna be deadbeats, I say eff the deadbeats.
A man who refuses to support his child to the best of his ability has sunk below moral consideration in my book. I literally don't care at all about his happiness.
If there was an efficient system to confiscate all his earnings above a subsistance level and direct them to his children (subject to a reasonable maximum of support), I'd be fine with it.
The problem isn't that those on the opposite side have the same position on sexual freedom as Snapper, the problem is that those on the opposite side have the same position on sexual freedom as Fred Phelps.
Sure, as long as it's recognized that women can be deadbeats.
I also have never once expressed a desire for any legal limit on sexual freedom. I've expressed moral disapproval for plenty of sexual behavior, but never said anyone shouldn't have a right to do what they want with a consenting partner.
What I express is that people need to bear the responsibilities of their actions, and can't violate others rights in order to remain consequence free.
You all are treating sexual freedom as a goddess to which all other good ends are to be sacrificed. If the choice is leave 10 million kids in poverty, or limit the ability of men to escape the consequences of their sex lives, your answer is eff the kids.
Done and done. What do I win?
I don't hear the phrase "deadbeat mom" a lot. Or ever.
Absolutely. It's less common, but it certainly happens.
No more so than in vitro or artificial insem for single mothers "discriminates against children."
And of course, the so-con "get" from our side of things is that it truly does disincent single motherhood for women who are not prepared to raise a child as single mothers.
The fact that you see fewer children in the world as a feature not a bug is telling. You're going to miss those kids when they halve your social security and Medicare in 25 years.
You know you can't use that against me, Sam. You can't guess my position on those things?
This is precisely our argument. Where we disagree with you is the notion that a zygote has "rights."
A woman bears the responsibility for her actions (choosing to carry a pregnancy to term) and can't violate the rights of others (the man who did not want to have a child) to reduce the consequences of her decision on herself.
I know *your* position, yes. I have already declared you out of bounds in the intrasquad scrimmage, have I not?
The fact that you see children in the world as a means to your support structure in old age is telling.
It's a fact, if you have a welfare state, and most of you support a far bigger welfare state than I do.
My money is being taken today in exchange for the promise of money from those future wage earners. If they're not going to exist in sufficient numbers, we're all getting robbed, and Social Security and Medicare are just ponzi schemes.
Then quote someone else in your volleys.
I do, but the ex is a volunteer Guardian ad litem (Sp?) and regularly has to advocate for children's rights in court and such.
I hear shitty mom, terrible mom, disaster, joke, and pathetic mom plenty, because I've said all of them.
The fact that you see fewer children in the world as a feature not a bug is telling. You're going to miss those kids when they halve your social security and Medicare in 25 years.
Having children in order to have someone to siphon cash from is not compelling. Hendricks to Sam.
Ah, so it's not really about the children's rights. It's about protecting your own ka-ching. All these freeloading aborted zygotes are skipping away without paying their fair share.
Really Sam, what about the child and its right's once born?
Does it have rights to being supported? Why should those rights be altered in the slightest by actions taken by one of its parents? If it does have a right, why should society have to be the first line support when the two parents who created the child can do it and have throughout all of history been expected to it it?
We're not talking about how you feel about Dinah Lohan.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main