Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Utah's evil adoption laws (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Utah's evil adoption laws
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
quote:
Pete: Joshua, the entire notion of fatherhood is co-terminous with the institution of marriage.
I don't believe this is true. The entire notion of husband-hood is co-terminous with the institution of marriage, but I don't see that "father" is. I know lots of fathers who are not married.
I mean that there's never been an enduring culture that had a father concept, that didn't also have a marriage concept. The whole NOTION of fatherhood and its strength in the culture is a product of the marriage culture.

quote:
I'm open to reading whatever you're basing this statement on, but you'll have to prove your point. When I say "John is Megan's father. He's not married to Megan's mother." it's not a contradiction in terms. It's a perfectly acceptable way to use the words (and it's my understanding that it has always made sense.)
Well until the very recent development of genetic testing, such statements were faith-based. [Big Grin] If Megan believed that John was Megan's father, and they had that relationship for all her life, and then genetic test showed, whoops, they were not genetically related, would you need to tell your kid that John is not in fact Megan's father?

[ February 17, 2014, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, I think that you are overlooking the fact that it is quite possible to love a child in utero even if you are not the owner of the uterus involved.

Not overlooking that at all. In fact, that was one of the first facts I asked: does the newborn child recognize the father's voice? If he's been there, playing pattycake through momma's skin with the kid, then **** yes he's invested.


That is a crap test. For that, he would need to have access to "momma's skin". Games of patty cake aren't required to love the kid either.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't be obtuse, Kate. I offered those as examples of manifest love, not specific requirements.

But the two cases described in the op would pass the voice and pattycake test. If you're talking some weird abstract kind of love, I have to ask .... you're not a parent, are you?

[ February 17, 2014, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, KB, when you said "owner of the uterus involved" it never oçcurred to me that you might assume that boyfriends and husbands "owned" their wife/girlfriend's uterus. [Frown] I should have groked by now that feminism doesn't preclude misogyny.Sorry.

[ February 17, 2014, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of obtuse
Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome back, djq. Do you have something to contribute, or would you rather mutter obscurely?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to say it's hilarious to see such a "consensus" between feminists who think that husbands own their wife's uterus and men's rights advocates who think that fathwrhood is encompassed by the holy act of ejaculation.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joshua, don't be so surprised. While pyr and I often dwell in different factual and moral universes, we have this much in common: we march to our own drummer. So it's not surprising that when the pharisees and the Sadducees of this world agree on something, that Pyr and I would united against the brainwashed majority [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah, I'm cool with continuing to mutter obscurely. Kate can explain for herself what an utterly ridiculous interpretation of her words that is, if she feels like it.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmm. I was seeing it more like the majority banding together against, say, the people who believe that god created the mankind 5,000 years ago and those who believe that aliens created mankind 5,000 years ago. But being part of an insane minority must have it's own appeal. Here, let me add a smily face to make that less insulting. [Smile]

[ February 17, 2014, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: DJQuag ]

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
Nah, I'm cool with continuing to mutter obscurely. Kate can explain for herself what an utterly ridiculous interpretation of her words that is, if she feels like it.

OK. If you don't want to take on Kate's burden of explaining why it aint misogynistic to describe someone with "access to mama's skin" as a "uterus owner" then I guess that burden stays with dear Kate. [Razz] . We'll call it the "straight woman's burden" [Razz]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Sorry, KB, when you said "owner of the uterus involved" it never oçcurred to me that you might assume that boyfriends and husbands "owned" their wife/girlfriend's uterus. [Frown] I should have groked by now that feminism doesn't preclude misogyny.Sorry.

Wha? By what tortured, god-forsaken path did you arrive at that conclusion?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
Hmm. I was seeing it more like the majority banding together against, say, the people who believe that god created the mankind 5,000 years ago and those who believe that aliens created mankind 5,000 years ago. But being part of an insane minority must have it's own appeal. Here, let me add a smily face to make that less insulting. [Smile]

Poor boy. You've really had your brain twerked since our last discussion. Hope it was the as enjoyable as it was damaging.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gosh, your suggestion that I've used meth is nice and all, Pete, but don't worry about me. Unlike some people, I've never had an addiction problem. You're right on one part, though, I've heard those types of things can permanently affect cognition.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In an attempt to prevent unintentional sniping, "twerked" is Pete's attempt to ghettoize Ornery. I believe he intends it as mental gymnastics necessary to distort an opinion or line of reasoning to mean something far different than the generally agreed upon common opinion or reasoning. Totally separate from "tweeked" which could relate to "tweekers" and meth use.

Carry on with the intentional ribbing at your discression.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
Gosh, your suggestion that I've used meth is nice and all, Pete, but don't worry about me. Unlike some people, I've never had an addiction problem. You're right on one part, though, I've heard those types of things can permanently affect cognition.

DJQuag, I never believed or meant to imply that you have use meth. I had no idea that twerked referred to meth use. Are you sure you aren't confused with the word tweak?

I thought twerking involved a gyration of the hips which can besexy when done by someone other than miley Cyrus.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By twerking I referred to the gooey load of misinformation that djq evidently swallowed to come to the conclusion that Mormons believe that God is an "alien."

[ February 17, 2014, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aliens don't need to be god to create mankind Pete. They have super-science! Or something...

He likened new earth religious to new-humanity, umm... alienists? [Razz]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I mean that there's never been an enduring culture that had a father concept, that didn't also have a marriage concept.
That's purely correlative due to the fact that there are few if any enduring cultures that lack a marriage concept and none that lack a father concept, though some assign the role to brothers of the mother instead of her mates or some such.

quote:
The whole NOTION of fatherhood and its strength in the culture is a product of the marriage culture.
I'd say just the opposite- the notion of marriage grew out of the disproportionate success of cultures where men actively used it to consolidate their roles as fathers and property controllers, and thus were more able to squeeze out those that did not as aggressively consolidate power through marriage and other assertions of institutional privilege and control.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My mistake on the word twerk, then. I saw the word and the comment that implied brain damage and made an assumption. My mistake.

I wasn't referring to the Mormon god. Merely conjuring up two groups of people who believe roughly the same thing despite having different reasons for why; like Pete and Pyrtolin.

I wasn't fond of the little brainwashed comment, or the tone of smugness, really. Some things, as Joshua mentioned, come down to core beliefs that people just have to agree to disagree on; further discussion becomes largely fruitless at that point. People disagreeing with you on one of your beliefs, Pete, does not make them brainwashed.

And really, your interpretation of Kate's post does you a lot more discredit then it does her.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

quote:
We disagree here. I believe a child has a right to be protected and cared for by his parents, and the child did not make an investment. The child simply has the rights as a result of being born. Coupled with those rights comes the responsibility to obey his parents.
Not sure if I agree that the child has rights. I'd say the mother has an obligation (and society if she cannot meet that obligation) to see that the child receives proper care - whether through providing the care herself or placing the child in the custody of individuals who will provide that care. I'd also say that the biological father has an obligation to help her meet that obligation.

I don't think the biological father should have the right to override the means in which the mother chooses to meet that obligation - except in narrow circumstances such as he can demonstrate a superior ability to meet that obligation and she is meeting it in a substandard manner or where they have jointly agreed to meet that obligation together (ie marriage).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Aliens don't need to be god to create mankind Pete. They have super-science! Or something...

He likened new earth religious to new-humanity, umm... alienists? [Razz]

Dude, he confused Mormons with ****ing RAELIANS, and then confused twerking with tweeking.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmboots,

quote:
Pete, I think that you are overlooking the fact that it is quite possible to love a child in utero even if you are not the owner of the uterus involved.
Yes but why would that grant any form of rights or responsibilities?

If a person decides they love you does that therefore grant them rights and responsibilites in relation to you? Obviously not. (Think stalker or secret admirer)

Pyr - I don't think biology confers zero weight, but the weight it carries to my mind only as some sort of tie breaker with all else being equal.

JoshuaD,

A biological parent is distinct from the roles of father/dad, even in antiquity. If you wish to use 'father' to refer to biological male parent. That is fine, but it is morally and logically equivalent to a sperm donor. If you want to use father for that role, then we can use the word 'dad' to refer to what we are talking about.

If ones role is literally limited to providing sperm, then I don't see how that should convey any sort of legal rights.

A dad is someone who has explicitly (ie contractual obligation such as marriage, or simple verbal agreement) or implicitly (actively engaged in the role) accepted the roles and responsibilities of caring for the offspring.

Note that someone can fulfil many roles of being a dad without being a dad.

Merely biological relatedness should not confer any special status.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Aliens don't need to be god to create mankind Pete. They have super-science! Or something...

He likened new earth religious to new-humanity, umm... alienists? [Razz]

Dude, he confused Mormons with ****ing RAELIANS, and then confused twerking with tweeking.
No, I didn't, but don't let that stop you repeating yourself.

Twerk/tweak and enjoying yourself/brain damage sure does sound like a Pete brand play on words,but okay,you've denied that, and I'll take your word on it. The other, has been explained.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dude, if you think accusing me of being an alien worshipper is less injurious than me comparing your misinterpretation to the sexy thrusting hips of an overenthusiastic woman ... I am baffled.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, twerking and tweaking does have the sort of sound play that I enjoy, but tio me a tweaker is an EXHUMAN, an you don't even have the capacity to piss me off to the point I'd compare you to a tweeker.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
as for your cheap shot on my alcoholism, I forgive you. your assumption that I was calling you a tweaker is an issue of cultural literacy on your part and that's forgivable
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you miss a post of mine, Pete?

I wasn't accusing you of being an alien worshipper.

It was an analogy. And even if it weren't an analogy, there was nothing in that post to suggest that it had to be you who believed in Creationalist alien origins for humanity and not Pyrtolin.

Remember, I'm the guy who thinks Mormonism is no more stupid then vanilla brand Christianity; a virgin birth, to me, is no less ridiculous then Kolob, Muhammad's buraq, or Xenu.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I apologize. Thought you were making a familiar slur.

Honest even with a perceived religious slur I had absolutely no intent to allege.method at you. Way too much respect to throw that sort of insult at you. Twerking is a *lot* more lighthearted.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:

I wasn't fond of the little brainwashed comment, or the tone of smugness, really. Some things, as Joshua mentioned, come down to core beliefs that people just have to agree to disagree on; further discussion becomes largely fruitless at that point. People disagreeing with you on one of your beliefs, Pete, does not make them brainwashed.

My suggestions of brainwashing were a direct response to what you said about an insane minority religion and aliens creating the earth 5000 years ago, which sounds like a stale familiar brainwashed mischaracterization of my religion. (Like the stupid crackers that ask my sons where his horns are). Glad to hear you were just playing, but what I said was still less out of bounds than what you said.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
JoshuaD:I am harping on this point because there is zero room for us to have a meaningful discussion for as long as you're asserting this discussion has nothing to do with good and bad. As long as you believe that, we can only be arguing about what color shoes we prefer to wear.
Pyrtolin: Just the opposite, really. Making it about good and bad would be making it about shoe color, because those are exceptionally subjective measures.
How do you define harm, then? It seems to me harm is when something bad happens. I'd be open to hear a different way of defining it that doesn't use the general concept of good and bad at all. I have trouble imagining one, but that may be just a failing of my own.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, djq: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twerking
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, this thread totally blew up. Interesting stuff.

I only skimmed the last few pages, but did anyone ever pick up on Adam's discussion of the child as a separate being who does not belong to any other person?

There are few things more repellant to me in the sphere of discussions about childrearing than adults talking about children as though they are objects that we can fight over the possession of.

I submit that it might be more productive to think of children as people we might be privileged to become closely acquainted with, and to whom we might be lucky enough to impart our most dearly-held ideas about the world.

Then the question is, how can we earn that privilege if we want it?

Some women are lucky and can earn that privilege by the exercise of their own biology. Everyone else - every single person who is not a fertile woman of childbearing age - needs to convince a fertile woman of childbearing age (or some sort of surrogate legal body, e.g. a court) that the individual in question is worthy of that privilege.

Is it fair? No, probably not, if by "fair" we mean "equal between all people". But the only way to make this equal between all people is to figure out a way for everyone to have the same gestation capability.

(It's worth noting that I take issue with the assertion that there is a magical possessive relationship between a person and his or her genetic offspring. We have almost exactly the same relatedness with siblings as with parents or offspring. Genes aren't magic, and ought not to be the basis for decision-making about child custody.)

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems to me that unless a woman goes to great lengths to avoid getting an in-person sperm donor, then by having sex she is acknowledging her inability to create the child by herself.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ops: I touched on my beliefs about that a page or two back. I think that, as a result of the child coming into being, certain rights and responsibilities arise for each of the three parties.

Among others, the children have a right to be protected by their parents, and have a responsibility to obey their parents.

The parents have a right to be mother and father to the child, and have a responsibility to care for the child.

I don't think that people "own" children. But I believe that they are entitled to certain rights regarding raising that child, which come paired with responsibilities towards that child.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
LetterRip:
A biological parent is distinct from the roles of father/dad, even in antiquity.

If you're saying that one can be a father without being a biological father, sure. We all agree about that.

quote:
LetterRip:If you wish to use 'father' to refer to biological male parent. That is fine, but it is morally and logically equivalent to a sperm donor.
I really do understand that this is the position that you, Pete, Pyr and others believe. Simply restating it like it's a fact doesn't convince me that it's true, though.

quote:
LetterRip:If ones role is literally limited to providing sperm, then I don't see how that should convey any sort of legal rights.
The kid is the biological child of the father. That, to me, seems to be enough of a reason.

I think many people (not all) are much more inclined to care for their own offspring than that of a strangers. I think it is probably be the case that a biological parent is generally in a slightly better position to raise the child, but that's not central to my argument.

I think that the relationship between biological parents and their children is special, simply because the child arose from the parent's actions and from their DNA. The child is, in a rough way of speaking, half made from its father.

I don't believe that's something that should be set aside as the default. There may be reasons to set it aside on a case-by-case basis. But I don't think it makes any sense, either from a moral standpoint or from a consequences-to-society standpoint, to ignore this factor automatically.

quote:
LetterRip:Merely biological relatedness should not confer any special status.
Again, I do understand this is the position some people have. Repeating it to me as if it's a fact (it's not) doesn't help convince me. I have demonstrated numerous times in this thread that I understood this point. In fact, I think I was the first to highlight that this is the crux of the disagreement between the two sides.

Please stop repeating it without supporting it. Why do you believe this?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I have to say it's hilarious to see such a "consensus" between feminists who think that husbands own their wife's uterus and men's rights advocates who think that fathwrhood is encompassed by the holy act of ejaculation.

You don't believe your own misrepresentations of people's points to this degree, do you?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
[qp]How do you define harm, then? It seems to me harm is when something bad happens. I'd be open to hear a different way of defining it that doesn't use the general concept of good and bad at all. I have trouble imagining one, but that may be just a failing of my own. [/QB]
Harm is that causes damage of dysfunction. Again, that tends to lead to a common agreement that it's bad, but the subjective evaluation of bad or good is applied as a result of the perception of net harm after the fact sometimes even if there was no evidence of actual harm or benefit (a whole host of superstitions fall into that category)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD
quote:
LetterRip:Merely biological relatedness should not confer any special status.
Again, I do understand this is the position some people have. Repeating it to me as if it's a fact (it's not) doesn't help convince me. I have demonstrated numerous times in this thread that I understood this point. In fact, I think I was the first to highlight that this is the crux of the disagreement between the two sides.

Please stop repeating it without supporting it. Why do you believe this?

Because there is no evidence to support the positive assertion that it should be given special consideration, except in a few barrow cases such as breaking a tie between otherwise roughly equal relationship based claims or to support a specific lack of jurisdiction or perceived need for cultural preservation, such as the caee of children of native tribes. But there is a considerable amount of evidence to support the notion that continuity of existing relationships matters much more than biological association right up to the point that cultural programming that biology matters takes root and becomes a personal focus by which to express what are otherwise generally universal uncertainties.

We do also have clear evidence of other cultures where, for example, uncle are considered the default for male parents to children, showing even more that prioritising direct genetic inheritance over ongoing relationships is a cultural bias, a leftover of when children were explicitly considered chattel of their fathers, and not based on any empirical evidence that it should be granted special status.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I have to say it's hilarious to see such a "consensus" between feminists who think that husbands own their wife's uterus and men's rights advocates who think that fathwrhood is encompassed by the holy act of ejaculation.

You don't believe your own misrepresentations of people's points to this degree, do you?
I don't know what their points were;I'm just horrified at what they have said.

Kate reduced monogamy to a man"owning" the woman's uterus, and says fatherhood should have nothing to do with interacting with the baby in utero.

Others here say genetics contribution is the sins qua non of fatherhood and reject any parameters OTHER than ejaculation to determine what makes a father ... but then wax offended when pyr and I "reduce" what they describe to sperm donor.

So if you think I am "mispepresenting," then please show me the substantive difference between what they said, and my representation. Because the only difference I see is tone.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1