187 replies to this topic

[The Uniballer]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 22 February 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Let's say I don't want to be forced to give my tax money to support Catholic hospitals because they refuse to treat certain health issues? Do I get a say? Why is it only one way?

Can't the government decide not to give money to Catholic hospitals?

[George F. Will]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 22 February 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

What paper puts its sexual moralistic strictures into its insurance coverage for its employees? Should a church-run one do so, I am against that.

Basically, this is another reason to get health insurance out of the hands of employers IMO.

There is no federal or state law that requires private employers to offer health insurance to employees.  So how can government dictate what must be offered in an employer provided plan?

[pcf]

The Uniballer, on 22 February 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Can't the government decide not to give money to Catholic hospitals?

Please pardon me for interrupting with something unusually stupid, even for me, but I would vote for Chris Christie if he would act like Henry VIII and really stick it to the bishops.

[George F. Will]

pcf, on 22 February 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

Please pardon me for interrupting with something unusually stupid, even for me, but I would vote for Chris Christie if he would act like Henry VIII and really stick it to the bishops.

By the looks of it, I think Chris Christie ate King Henry...

[pcf]

George F. Will, on 22 February 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

By the looks of it, I think Chris Christie ate King Henry...

That makes me think of Oh Henry candy bars. I wonder if they still make them? I was watching TV last night and Alec Baldwin says they no longer make Callard and Bowser butterscotchs. My uncle used to buy those for me and it made me sad that they no longer make them and he's no longer with us.

It is weird how some things can really trigger emotions and a sense of loss.

Anyway, I wish Chris Christie was jollier, but he's not.

Again, apologies.

[George F. Will]

Double Dip't

[FriskyFrog]

burford, on 22 February 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

I think I need clarification.  Are you referring to the instance of rape?

Rape is one event on a spectrum of coercion and force that occurs daily for women across this country and world.  To assume that a woman willingly chose vaginal penetration because you see that she's pregnant doesn't square with reality.

[burford]

FriskyFrog, on 22 February 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Rape is one event on a spectrum of coercion and force that occurs daily for women across this country and world.  To assume that a woman willingly chose vaginal penetration because you see that she's pregnant doesn't square with reality.

True, albeit a small majority of rapes result in an abortion mostly because a D&C is done immediately after...assuming of course that it is reported...and yes I understand there are those that are not.  

Here is another tangential point I have always wondered about:  A woman is pregnant and wants an abortion.  It is her body and the father, according to the law and the women's movement has NO, and I mean, NO say so whether or not the abortion occurs.  None. Move that baby 18 inches through the birth canal and all of a sudden "hey, the baby is half mine and half the father's and by God he needs to pay up!"  Something seem a bit amiss there?

[NewfoundlandFrog]

FriskyFrog, on 22 February 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Rape is one event on a spectrum of coercion and force that occurs daily for women across this country and world.  To assume that a woman willingly chose vaginal penetration because you see that she's pregnant doesn't square with reality.

Hell, not even force. A doc I know has seen several virgin births--i.e., births with an intact hymen in his career. Vaginal penetration simply is not a necessary condition. Semen in the area is a necessary condition. Almost any woman knows this. Men on the other hand...well apparently not.

[George F. Will]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 22 February 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Semen in the area is a necessary condition.

What does this have to do with Naval bases?

[NewfoundlandFrog]

George F. Will, on 22 February 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

What does this have to do with Navel bases?

A lot.

[Duquesne Frog]

burford, on 22 February 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

Here is another tangential point I have always wondered about:  A woman is pregnant and wants an abortion.  It is her body and the father, according to the law and the women's movement has NO, and I mean, NO say so whether or not the abortion occurs.  None. Move that baby 18 inches through the birth canal and all of a sudden "hey, the baby is half mine and half the father's and by God he needs to pay up!"  Something seem a bit amiss there?

You're a dad.  How much burden did you have during your wife's pregnancies?  You squirt a little baby juice at time zero, and everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING else, is momma.  The onus, the pain, the life change, the incapacitation ... all her.  All the dad is good for for those 9 months is the occasional foot rub and moral support.  We're worthless.  From my perspective, few experiences in life are more humbling than being a father during pregnancy.

I've really got no problem with the man being legally obligated to financially support his child.  And while I'd certainly expect the woman to consult with me before making a decision, and I might be really unhappy with her decision, I'm okay with it being her legal decision.

[The Uniballer]

Duquesne Frog, on 22 February 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

You're a dad.  How much burden did you have during your wife's pregnancies?  You squirt a little baby juice at time zero, and everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING else, is momma.  The onus, the pain, the life change, the incapacitation ... all her.  All the dad is good for for those 9 months is the occasional foot rub and moral support.  We're worthless.  From my perspective, few experiences in life are more humbling than being a father during pregnancy.

I've really got no problem with the man being legally obligated to financially support his child.  And while I'd certainly expect the woman to consult with me before making a decision, and I might be really unhappy with her decision, I'm okay with it being her legal decision.

Although I wish the choice didn't exist, it does, so I agree with you.  And it may not be fair, but the burden of pregnancy isn't shared fairly either.  Take it up with The Creator

[George F. Will]

Duquesne Frog, on 22 February 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I've really got no problem with the man being legally obligated to financially support his child.

Or her...

[burford]

Duquesne Frog, on 22 February 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

You're a dad.  How much burden did you have during your wife's pregnancies?  You squirt a little baby juice at time zero, and everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING else, is momma.  The onus, the pain, the life change, the incapacitation ... all her.  All the dad is good for for those 9 months is the occasional foot rub and moral support.  We're worthless.  From my perspective, few experiences in life are more humbling than being a father during pregnancy.
And while I'd certainly expect the woman to consult with me before making a decision, and I might be really unhappy with her decision, I'm okay with it being her legal decision.

Did you ever think that might add to why so many dad's are missing in a kids life these days, sentencing them to almost a certain life of poverty, crime, incarceration, and broken homes?  Society has told young men EXACTLY what you just said, that all you are good for is to squirt a little baby juice...then step back and let the woman run the show.    
Just for arguement's sake:
Let's suppose Mrs. Newf informed you, early in your marriage, and after she found out she was pregnant, that she wanted to abort Little Newf because "I don't want to be pregnant during the hot summer", or "this is going to get in the way of our planned vacation this summer".  Would you really have said "sure honey, whatever you want"?

[burford]

The Uniballer, on 22 February 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Although I wish the choice didn't exist, it does, so I agree with you.  And it may not be fair, but the burden of pregnancy isn't shared fairly either.  Take it up with The Creator

Well dang, Uni, I think that position actually makes my point rather than Newf's.  Good to-the-point comment, though.

[FriskyFrog]

Did Duq knock up Newf's wife?

[NewfoundlandFrog]

burford, on 22 February 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

Did you ever think that might add to why so many dad's are missing in a kids life these days, sentencing them to almost a certain life of poverty, crime, incarceration, and broken homes?  Society has told young men EXACTLY what you just said, that all you are good for is to squirt a little baby juice...then step back and let the woman run the show.    
Just for arguement's sake:
Let's suppose Mrs. Newf informed you, early in your marriage, and after she found out she was pregnant, that she wanted to abort Little Newf because "I don't want to be pregnant during the hot summer", or "this is going to get in the way of our planned vacation this summer".  Would you really have said "sure honey, whatever you want"?

As I'd be legally responsible for the baby under common law, I would be more than a little miffed that Duq was messing round with my wife and getting her pregnant.

I guess I'd say, sure honey, but I want a quick divorce finalized before the birth so I am not legally liable. Let's head to Reno right now.

[burford]

FriskyFrog, on 22 February 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Did Duq knock up Newf's wife?

Whoops, good  catch Frisky.  Sorry about that Duq.  Newf and I were bantering about on another thread and I forgot to whom I was responding.

[burford]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 22 February 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

As I'd be legally responsible for the baby under common law, I would be more than a little miffed that Duq was messing round with my wife and getting her pregnant.

I guess I'd say, sure honey, but I want a quick divorce finalized before the birth so I am not legally liable. Let's head to Reno right now.

Yea, you gotta watch that Duq.

You did mean, before the abortion, though.  I guess the point is, if the father wants the baby to raise as his own, why should the mother have full say so before the birth as to what happens?  My belief is that it should be shared...and I do think society has brought many of it's ills on itself by taking the father out of the equation.  We are getting what we asked for and it is a sad thing.