chemvictim wrote: Good info, but rest assured not all of us keep up with this stuff

I agree that women don't have perfect information.

But between the two parties -- and especially in a casual sex scenario -- a woman knows FAR better than the man both (a) where she is in her cycle; (b) whether she's on birth control; and (c) what she's likely to do in the case of an accidental pregnancy.

I realize that a lot of the debate around here has been about contraception, but I am certainly not the only guy who dated a girl who didn't have a problem with premarital sex or contraception but would never have had an abortion.

PetiteSirah wrote:I have zero problem with the woman having all of the say over the existence and termination of the pregnancy.

What I object to his a woman's ability to essentially make a man a financial hostage.

I do remember that some of you are all about not imposing your own religious beliefs on others, especially if there's any sort of financial burden involved.

What if the woman has a one night stand, doesn't tell the man that she's very pro-life, and accidentally gets pregnant? Her "religious beliefs" -- which she may not have even disclosed -- impose a MASSIVE financial burden on the man, something that far dwarfs having to pay $9/month out of pocket for birth control.

Yes, the man "chooses to play". But so does the woman -- and she's the one who knows her body and her mind far better than he does. And unfortunately, as with drunken hookups on campus, one party can be held completely responsible for the events and their outcome, all at the option of the other party.

Maybe the male birth control pill or whatever else that was could alleviate some of this. I agree, that hypothetical situation sucks, but I don't know what we can do about it. If we were going to have some sort of opt-out system, how would we go about it?

To be perfectly clear, in your hypo, BOTH parties are held responsible. For example, if I was the pro-life drunk chick in your example (what a laugh) and had the baby, I'd be just as financially responsible as my frat boy lover. The medical bills would also be mine. Chances are damn good I'd be stuck with most of the care, as well. There is no good solution, as far as I can tell. Ladies, the IUD is your friend. Men, go get that testicle injection. Or whatever it was. lol

chemvictim wrote:I get that. It makes me a little queasy though, that some people (teachers?) are held to such a standard that they are ALWAYS in uniform, ALWAYS "representing the brand," ALWAYS subject to judgment. You probably wouldn't want that for yourself, would you?

funny, this is a recent example

rpm wrote:I presume, then, you would be fine with the father not having any financial responsibility if the mother lied about birth control....

which does happen. A story not for the boards, but I assure you it happens.

Absolutely NOT. If you play the game you take all risks on board. This includes failed contraception and also deceit. Unless the man and the woman sign a contract (possibly notarized) stipulating that he has no say or responsibility, I expect the man to an up. It is in part His decision.

bhodilee wrote:I wouldn't. Again, the guy knew that even with BC it was possible, or that however remote, she may have been lying, or not lying but missed a day or had taken antibiotics and didn't know they rendered the BC useless (I almost got caught up in that one once). If you have sex, you know, you absolutely know, unless you're an pollster, that a baby is possible. You weigh that risk and you decide to go forward or not based on how agreeable to that risk you are. Personally, my mantra was, I wouldn't sleep with someone I couldn't see as being part of my life for at least 18 years.

Wow... Bowtie said it more eloquently than I did. WHAT HE SAID!

cmaldoon wrote:Wow... Bowtie said it more eloquently than I did. WHAT HE SAID!

Bowtie is on a roll today.

PetiteSirah wrote:The woman knows FAR more about her realistic likelihood of getting pregnant than does the man. The parties do not have symmetrical information.

When you gamble, you should take into account what you know and don't know as well as the likelihood of truth in those things. The man knows less and some of what he "knows" may not be true. It's a gamble and you have to pay up if you lose. (Or win if you were hoping for that outcome)

I will not excuse my half of the gene pool from their responsibility just because we don't know as much ;-)

PetiteSirah wrote:
...
Yes, the man "chooses to play". But so does the woman -- and she's the one who knows her body and her mind far better than he does. And unfortunately, as with drunken hookups on campus, one party can be held completely responsible for the events and their outcome, all at the option of the other party.

You say that the man is held "completely responsible" I would say that that is untrue. The man is half responsible. It takes two. He should bear half of the burden of raising that child. This includes food, shelter, and childcare.

As for knowing the outcomes... When was the last time you saw a slot machine that told you your odds of winning and/or the %of money you put in you should expect to get back on average? We live in a world of incomplete information.

Sometimes we can legislate in more information, sometimes it is simply to difficult or onerous to do so. You don't KNOW but should be willing to take responsibility for a child you created. If you are unwilling, you should abstain.

(I don't mean to target YOU specifically, it is simply easier to type directly to you in second person than to transpose the entire argument into generalities)

Early voting results

More D's than R's, for whatever that's worth.

chemvictim wrote:Early voting results

More D's than R's, for whatever that's worth.

Not sure I like states releasing that information. It opens up the argument that the various states clerks (or whatever the appropriate function is)offices are trying to discourage voting by showing significant margins one way or the other.

Not sure that I would actually buy that argument, but I can certainly see it being made.

chemvictim wrote:I get that. It makes me a little queasy though, that some people (teachers?) are held to such a standard that they are ALWAYS in uniform, ALWAYS "representing the brand," ALWAYS subject to judgment. You probably wouldn't want that for yourself, would you?

Which is precisely why I'm not a teacher. Some professions are judged round the clock, fairly or otherwise, cop, fireman, teacher. All held to a higher standard. You pretty much know that going in. You accept that as part of the job.

PetiteSirah wrote:The woman knows FAR more about her realistic likelihood of getting pregnant than does the man. The parties do not have symmetrical information.

yawn. If she trapped you, she trapped you in a pit, in a well lit room, with a guard rail, and a flashing sign over the pit that says CAUTION, TRAP, I WOULD HIGHLY ADVISE AGAINST CLIMBING THE GUARD RAIL AND FALLING INTO THE PIT.

If you still choose fall into the pit, then you deserve anything that happens.

PetiteSirah wrote:I have zero problem with the woman having all of the say over the existence and termination of the pregnancy.

What I object to his a woman's ability to essentially make a man a financial hostage.

I do remember that some of you are all about not imposing your own religious beliefs on others, especially if there's any sort of financial burden involved.

What if the woman has a one night stand, doesn't tell the man that she's very pro-life, and accidentally gets pregnant? Her "religious beliefs" -- which she may not have even disclosed -- impose a MASSIVE financial burden on the man, something that far dwarfs having to pay $9/month out of pocket for birth control.

Yes, the man "chooses to play". But so does the woman -- and she's the one who knows her body and her mind far better than he does. And unfortunately, as with drunken hookups on campus, one party can be held completely responsible for the events and their outcome, all at the option of the other party.

Dont' buy the impaired judgment argument either. You can choose to get drunk or not, if bad promises happens because you purposefully impaired yourself, you need to live with those consequences.

chemvictim wrote:Early voting results

More D's than R's, for whatever that's worth.

The Ohio results are VERY bad news for Obama. His margin of victory in '08 was 262K votes, which was substantially less than his early voting margin.

The news about Ohio seems to comport with this, which shows that just from the early voting numbers, Obama's 2008 margin in Ohio is GONE.

Oh, and Romney's up by 19 among independents?

Yup, color it red.

PetiteSirah wrote:The Ohio results are VERY bad news for Obama. His margin of victory in '08 was 262K votes, which was substantially less than his early voting margin.

The news about Ohio seems to comport with this, which shows that just from the early voting numbers, Obama's 2008 margin in Ohio is GONE.

Oh, and Romney's up by 19 among independents?

Yup, color it red.

I'm giddy for tomorrow night. I always stay up and watch until a winner is declared. I've been obsessed with it since 1984(83 I guess) when I was a little kid and listened to the radio all night and tried to visualize the map. I even had a puzzle of US states and I'd put the state in it's place as it was called. It was the most exciting thing ever! I was 7 in 1983.

Stupid question. What happens to the money if a campaign has any left after tomorrow? Can the candidate donate it? Does it go back to the donors? Do they get to keep it? I'd run for president, get a bunch of donations and then run on the cheap and keep it all!

bhodilee wrote:Stupid question. What happens to the money if a campaign has any left after tomorrow? Can the candidate donate it? Does it go back to the donors? Do they get to keep it? I'd run for president, get a bunch of donations and then run on the cheap and keep it all!

They typically give it to the xNC or pay off the debts of other campaigns of their friends, etc.

PetiteSirah wrote:They typically give it to the xNC or pay off the debts of other campaigns of their friends, etc.

seems like BS to me. It should go to charity. This year, it probably will, or at least it better.

PetiteSirah wrote:The Ohio results are VERY bad news for Obama. His margin of victory in '08 was 262K votes, which was substantially less than his early voting margin.

The news about Ohio seems to comport with this, which shows that just from the early voting numbers, Obama's 2008 margin in Ohio is GONE.

Oh, and Romney's up by 19 among independents?

Yup, color it red.

It will be an exciting finish, no matter what. I don't really feel that strongly about it either way.

I read that they're having insanely long lines for early voting in Ohio and Florida. Hopefully that will not be the case tomorrow. Surely nobody thinks it's good to force voters to stand in line for 8 hours, no matter which party they're for. Not everyone is as fortunate as we are and can take a whole day off.

For my part, I had a perfectly easy first-time voting experience here. I stood in line probably 45 minutes or so, but it was inside and comfortable. I almost froze my tail off in '08 in Indiana, outside. And my guy didn't win. lol

bhodilee wrote:I'm giddy for tomorrow night. I always stay up and watch until a winner is declared. I've been obsessed with it since 1984(83 I guess) when I was a little kid and listened to the radio all night and tried to visualize the map. I even had a puzzle of US states and I'd put the state in it's place as it was called. It was the most exciting thing ever! I was 7 in 1983.

You make me feel like a fossil. I still vividly remember "I-like-Ike" buttons and staying up well past my bedtime listening to results come in...

bhodilee wrote:I'm giddy for tomorrow night. I always stay up and watch until a winner is declared. I've been obsessed with it since 1984(83 I guess) when I was a little kid and listened to the radio all night and tried to visualize the map. I even had a puzzle of US states and I'd put the state in it's place as it was called. It was the most exciting thing ever! I was 7 in 1983.

I was......not..... In '83

I remember the elementary school joke: Why don't they let dogs in the White House? because they'd pee on the Bushes and chase the Quayles.

rjquillin wrote:You make me feel like a fossil. I still vividly remember "I-like-Ike" buttons and staying up well past my bedtime listening to results come in...

I still have an IKE button from the '56 campaign.

rpm wrote:I still have an IKE button from the '56 campaign.

That would be the one. I think I lost mine in the move from IN to CA.

rjquillin wrote:That would be the one. I think I lost mine in the move from IN to CA.

(: My mother had a pair of IKE earrings, but they seem to have disappeared.

rpm wrote:(: My mother had a pair of IKE earrings, but they seem to have disappeared.

I have a McCarthy button from '68 and my favorite, a button that says "Nixon Eats Lettuce" from the United Farm Workers/Cesar Chavez lettuce boycott time. Ahh, those sere the days!

I'm so happy it's today. Now we can vote, some politician is gonna get elected and life will not change substantially for about 92% of the country. I can't wait

I like that the filter for politician is currently politician. It allows me to be snarky and topical all at once.

cmaldoon wrote:Absolutely NOT. If you play the game you take all risks on board. This includes failed contraception and also deceit. Unless the man and the woman sign a contract (possibly notarized) stipulating that he has no say or responsibility, I expect the man to an up. It is in part His decision.

I have read, but cannot confirm that NBA players actually have a contract exactly like that. I doubt it's notarized, but they get the groupies to sign it. Probably wouldn't hold up in a family court, but I've heard this exact thing exists. Kobe Bryants contract uses radically different language

edlada wrote:I have a McCarthy button from '68 and my favorite, a button that says "Nixon Eats Lettuce" from the United Farm Workers/Cesar Chavez lettuce boycott time. Ahh, those sere the days!

I still have a McGovern-Eagleton button, and an Ike lapel pin (which was from before my time).

edlada wrote:I have a McCarthy button from '68 and my favorite, a button that says "Nixon Eats Lettuce" from the United Farm Workers/Cesar Chavez lettuce boycott time. Ahh, those sere the days!

I still have some Goldwater buttons. I had a can of "AuH2O" ginger ale, but my wife tossed it in a cleaning binge some years ago.

Can't say I'm at all a fan of Chavez and the UFW - our family has some rather unpleasant history with them. My cousins had to ride to school in an armored limousine because the UFW were busy throwing rocks at them. I remember seeing all of the dents and the nicks in the glass. Worse, contrary to the Chavez claims, we actually provided all of the workers at the winery and the permanent field staff with the same health insurance policy that covered the whole family, from my great uncle as chairman on down. Chavez wanted us to give that up for all the employees, and pay the money over the UFW. My great uncle (whose Spanish was better than Chavez', as he used to point out) told him he'd faced down Pancho Villa and he'd be damned if he would give his workers to Chavez....

Our cars all had the sticker "Eat Grapes: the Forbidden Fruit"

Did my civic duty with SWMBO and a neighbor a little after 6:00 am this morning. For the past dozen years or so, we've all walked down to the polls (~1 mile) bright and early.

rpm wrote:Did my civic duty with SWMBO and a neighbor a little after 6:00 am this morning. For the past dozen years or so, we've all walked down to the polls (~1 mile) bright and early.

6am! Our polls open at 7, which is when I go (as I did this morning), before catching a slightly later train into work than I ordinarily do.

Did my duty ... however, some pollster thought it would be a good idea to redo the lot for the Community Center this week. The whole lot is dirt and coned off. Plus, today is street sweeping day.

Do I hear Voter Suppression anyone?


By the way, there are like 5 precincts inside there.

Are any supreme court justices realistically going to retire in the next 4 years?

kylemittskus wrote:Are any supreme court justices realistically going to retire in the next 4 years?

Ginsburg is 79, so I would say the chances of her stepping down (especially given an Obama re-election) are pretty high. Then there's Kennedy and Scalia who are also up their in age (I believe both are 76), though I don't know that either will be retiring in the next 4 years.

kylemittskus wrote:Are any supreme court justices realistically going to retire in the next 4 years?

Scalia and Kennedy are both 76, Ginsburg is 79, Breyer is 74. It's certainly not out of the question, and there's always the possibility of a Justice dying in the next four years as well.

I am currently listening to literally, the stupidest person I know, opine about politics. It is singlehandedly making me want to vote for Obama.

bhodilee wrote:I am currently listening to literally, the stupidest person I know, opine about politics. It is singlehandedly making me want to vote for Obama.

Arguments that go along the line of 'such-and-such is an pollster, and supports XYZ, and therefore I'm against XYZ' really bother me when they're made sincerely (as they often are).

*If* you are going to judge a candidate or a policy by its supporters, then you should probably look to see first if there are intelligent and respected people who sincerely support that candidate or policy. In all likelihood there are intelligent people on both sides, and we should be considering that instead of just looking at the lowest common denominator of any single side's support group. There are pollsters and crazies out there that will attach themselves any idea out there, through no fault of the idea itself.

edit - yay woot filter. It substituted "Pollsters" for another word that I used that meant people of limited intelligence.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Did my duty ... however, some pollster thought it would be a good idea to redo the lot for the Community Center this week. The whole lot is dirt and coned off. Plus, today is street sweeping day.

Do I hear Voter Suppression anyone?


By the way, there are like 5 precincts inside there.

Oh, it's definitely voter suppression. I can't figure out which party would seek to suppress the street sweeper-fearing voters.

jawlz wrote:Arguments that go along the line of 'such-and-such is an pollster, and supports XYZ, and therefore I'm against XYZ' really bother me when they're made sincerely (as they often are).

*If* you are going to judge a candidate or a policy by its supporters, then you should probably look to see first if there are intelligent and respected people who sincerely support that candidate or policy. In all likelihood there are intelligent people on both sides, and we should be considering that instead of just looking at the lowest common denominator of any single side's support group. There are pollsters and crazies out there that will attach themselves any idea out there, through no fault of the idea itself.

edit - yay woot filter. It substituted "Pollsters" for another word that I used that meant people of limited intelligence.

You don't understand the level of dislike at play here. While I don't actively wish this person harm, I wouldn't be sad if they came to harm. Plus, I hate listening to stupid people talk about anything, much less something they can't possibly comprehend.

chemvictim wrote:Oh, it's definitely voter suppression. I can't figure out which party would seek to suppress the street sweeper-fearing voters.

The Green party.