PhillyKev 0 #201 August 18, 2004 Quote and adopted her kids. Well, that there is an added bit to the equation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #202 August 18, 2004 QuoteWhen talking about birth control, what difference does the condom breaking or not make? The issue is not getting pregnant. because you cannot say the condom prevented the pregnancy when it failed its basic function by breaking. if the pill was NOT the reason a pregnancy did not occur then it did nothing to prevent it, counting that instance as a 'pregnancy prevented by use of the pill" is putting the data in the wrong field...and padding the results...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #203 August 18, 2004 Who ever said there was a column called "pregnancy prevented by use of X"? If those are the stats you want, dig them up, good luck. The stats I gave are based on the number or women who become pregnant using a specific birth control method. Sounds like you're looking for something along the lines of 100% of pregnancies were not effectively prevented. That unpadded enough for you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #204 August 18, 2004 QuoteChild support remains the same, regardless of re-marriage. My ex re-married twice and I supported both those worthless SOBs along with her. (On the positive side, at least I'm not bitter.) I have a friend who married a woman and adopted her kids. They got divorced and he continues to pay child support even though she is re-married. The worst case I've heard of was on a website dedicated to stopping "paternity fraud" (for lack of a better description). I'd say it might not be true, but it's on the internet so it must be, right? Anyhow, Man A is married to a woman who is cheating on him with Man B and she has a child. Man A finds out about the infididelity, divorces her, and is ordered to pay child support. The woman then marries Man B, who is later shown by paternity testing to be the father of the child. Man A goes to court to get rid of his child support obligation and loses because he was married to the woman when she conceived the child. So now, Man A, who is not the father, is paying child support to the mother and real father of the child produced by their extramarital affair. In Washington State, the worksheet for calculating the amount of child support owed is based on need and ability to pay. It figures in income and monthly expenses, including other children in the household. So a divorced woman who is receiving child support for her one child can marry a man who has 3 kids of his own and then sue her ex for more support on the basis of her greater need. And if three years down the road she pops out another kid with Husband B, she can do it again. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #205 August 18, 2004 Florida Supreme Court decision QuoteThis is another case requiring the Court to define the law regarding a child support obligation of a husband who is not the biological father of the child. QuoteIn February of 1994, Michael and Cathy Anderson were married when Cathy was already pregnant. In October of 1995, Cathy petitioned for dissolution, about a year and a half after the child was born. An amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered in December 1996, wherein Michael was ordered to pay child support. Without court order, Michael subsequently submitted himself and the child for DNA testing. The results of the DNA test excluded Michael as the biological father. In May of 1997, Michael filed a motion, for relief from the dissolution judgment and his duty to pay child support. Michael argued in his motion that Cathy had misrepresented that the child was his. The case proceeded to an evidentiary hearing before a general master. The following facts were revealed during the evidentiary hearing. At some point during the divorce proceeding, Michael received a call from Cathy’s sister, who pointed out to Michael that Cathy, unbeknownst to Michael, was involved in a previous marriage. Michael confronted Cathy regarding this information, but Cathy denied having been married before. Michael, however, had already secured a copy of the marriage certificate, so he knew Cathy was lying. Michael proceeded to ask Cathy whether he was the father of the child, and she answered “yes.” He testified that the first time he had any doubt was when he received the results of the DNA test. Cathy testified that she did not have a sexual relationship with anyone other than Michael during the time that the child was conceived. Although Michael filed his challenge within the one-year window provided by rule, the general master determined that Michael had failed to establish that he was defrauded by Cathy. To me, fraud is: She was married previously. She denied it. She said that she had sex with no one else, but the DNA confirms that it happened while she was dating him. She said that the child was his. He is still paying child support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #206 August 18, 2004 Well that right there is F'd up. I knew from my own experience that the legal pendulum had swung to far for women at the expens of men's rights. But that's beyond ridiculous. I blame James Brown for pointing out that "It's a Man's World". That just pissed them off and now they're screwing us royally, and not in the good way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #207 August 18, 2004 Quotemen's rights Those two words no longer have a logical definition together. I blame the pantywaists who gave them the right to vote. They had to know that no good could come from that. The inevitable decline of civilization is at hand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #208 August 18, 2004 STOP WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE!!!! "This is a court of law young man, not a court of justice." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #209 August 18, 2004 QuoteI blame James Brown for pointing out that "It's a Man's World". lol.. do you know what the next line of that song is??____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #210 August 18, 2004 QuoteWho ever said there was a column called "pregnancy prevented by use of X"? If those are the stats you want, dig them up, good luck. The stats I gave are based on the number or women who become pregnant using a specific birth control method. Sounds like you're looking for something along the lines of 100% of pregnancies were not effectively prevented. That unpadded enough for you? not at all, but it is incorrect to say the pill prevented a pregnancy that could not have occurred (woman not ovulating) or that a condom prevented pregnancy when it broke during sex, as you cant connect cause and effect, so if those two incidents were counted (any number of times they occurred) the statistics are flawed for what they are attempting to describe (effectiveness of each birth control method) it would be equally wrong to include an instance where woman wasn’t consistently taking her pills and got pregnant, or an instance where the condom was put on after genital contact that also resulted in pregnancy. including any of those instances in a statistic on 'effectiveness of various birth control methods' is padding the results...statistics can say anything you want them to, but if your looking for useful data you have to exclude cases in which cause and effect cannot be verified.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #211 August 18, 2004 Actually, there's a lot of lyrics after that line depending on where in the song. Were you referring to "sit down you girl niggas"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #212 August 18, 2004 Like I said, don't like my stats, find your own. Not your anecdotal condom breaking stories. Edited because we can't joke in speakers corner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #213 August 18, 2004 QuoteActually, there's a lot of lyrics after that line depending on where in the song. Were you referring to "sit down you girl niggas"? " but it dont mean a thing...."____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #214 August 18, 2004 maybe you have issues differentiating between discussion and personal attacks? obviously i'm not the only one that believes a 2% 'failure rate' is ridiculously low....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #215 August 18, 2004 I know, I was quoting the Beanie Sigel version Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #216 August 18, 2004 Quotemaybe you have issues differentiating between discussion and personal attacks? It was a joke, lighten up. Quoteobviously i'm not the only one that believes a 2% 'failure rate' is ridiculously low.... Like I said, get your own statistics then. 1. Condoms are 98% effective when used correctly. http://www.condoms-buy.com/learn/stats.htm The main reason that condoms sometimes fail to prevent HIV/STD infection or pregnancy is incorrect or inconsistent use, not the failure of the condom itself. http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm In the United States every latex condom manufactured is tested electronically for holes before packaging. Condom breakage rates are low in the U.S., no higher than 2 per 100 used http://www.coolnurse.com/sex_faqs20.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #217 August 18, 2004 Vasectomy: The best investment I ever made."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HeatherB 0 #218 August 19, 2004 Jeez. I didn't know they could force a guy to pay child support when it isn't his kid. (proven by DNA) That's insane. Maybe guys don't have it as easy as I thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #219 August 19, 2004 QuoteMy stance is that it's an extremely complex issue. If we accept that the value of human life is the foundation of morality (i.e. that without humans, there can be no morality), we get into the question of when something becomes human life. I agree that it is an extremely complex issue. I respect your opinion on this but I don’t agree with your premise. I don’t believe humans are the source for morality. Therefore, I can’t go any further with that. I know many here disagree with that and would say that it just developed through evolutionary processes. I don’t really want to argue the religious thing in this thread when it’s not necessary. I agree with you that, in the earlier stages, the developing human doesn’t appear to be anything like one in some later developmental stages and that is where the whole “potential human” idea comes from. I think that’s just another convenient way to make destroying it easier. If you just change the name, it’s not quite like us and, therefore, not as wrong to kill. Anyway, my thoughts are that from conception, it contains the genetic “source code” for the developing human. At its source, it is in fact human just like you and me. Everything else just continually builds from that. Just because it is more or less developed at different stages in the process doesn’t make it any less human or any more justifiable to kill. In my opinion and not speaking of the extreme justifiable exceptions, abortion is the taking of another innocent human life for the convenience of others. I don’t believe that it’s prudent to assume, in the absence of knowing for sure, that it’s ok to kill another “innocent” human being. QuoteI don't personally believe that such a thing as a soul exists, and I think it's interesting that you believe it exists prior to conception. I guess I'll just drop it though. That’s cool. My belief that the soul exists prior to conception is religious in nature and is derived from verses such as the one below: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5 I don’t expect for you to believe any of that and I won’t argue it in this thread. I was just explaining where I’m coming from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #220 August 19, 2004 QuoteI blame James Brown for pointing out that "It's a Man's World". That just pissed them off and now they're screwing us royally, and not in the good way. Free James Brown! Free James Brown! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #221 August 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteMy stance is that it's an extremely complex issue. If we accept that the value of human life is the foundation of morality (i.e. that without humans, there can be no morality), we get into the question of when something becomes human life. I agree that it is an extremely complex issue. I respect your opinion on this but I don’t agree with your premise. I don’t believe humans are the source for morality. Therefore, I can’t go any further with that. I know many here disagree with that and would say that it just developed through evolutionary processes. I don’t really want to argue the religious thing in this thread when it’s not necessary. I must have misstated that. I wasn't trying to finger humans as the *source* for morality, as I understand religious people might disagree. However would you agree that, in the universe as we currently know it, humans are the only *manifestation* of morality? Rocks, energy waves, plants, and (arguably) animals are essentially amoral. That is, they can neither be considered moral nor immoral, because they haven't the skills to differentiate between the two. So if humans are the only manifestations of morality, then without humans, there would be no morality. It may or may not exist in some god type entity that would survive after humans, but morality is somewhat meaningless until it is put into action, and that (as far as we know) requires humans. For these reasons, consideration of the value of human life (and the value of goodness) is the "foundation" of morality. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #222 August 19, 2004 QuoteI must have misstated that. I wasn't trying to finger humans as the *source* for morality, as I understand religious people might disagree. However would you agree that, in the universe as we currently know it, humans are the only *manifestation* of morality? Rocks, energy waves, plants, and (arguably) animals are essentially amoral. That is, they can neither be considered moral nor immoral, because they haven't the skills to differentiate between the two. So if humans are the only manifestations of morality, then without humans, there would be no morality. It may or may not exist in some god type entity that would survive after humans, but morality is somewhat meaningless until it is put into action, and that (as far as we know) requires humans. For these reasons, consideration of the value of human life (and the value of goodness) is the "foundation" of morality. I believe God has also physically manifested himself (put into action) morally throughout history as recorded in the Bible. He has performed moral actions in our universe just like people have. You said in one sentence “So if humans are the only manifestations of morality, then without humans, there would be no morality.” In the next sentence, you said, “It may or may not exist in some god type entity that would survive after humans.” Those contradict. I believe that it does exist in God and he is the “source” or “foundation” for it. However, assuming that humans are the only source and (I think) your assertion that one isn’t human until he/she can put morality into action that would mean that a 6 month old baby wouldn’t really be human yet because it is still amoral at that stage. I’m sorry if I’m way off base. I’m trying to follow this but I think it’s a bad criterion for determining humanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #223 August 19, 2004 QuoteMaybe guys don't have it as easy as I thought. You just remember that and be nicer to them."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #224 August 19, 2004 QuoteI believe God has also physically manifested himself (put into action) morally throughout history as recorded in the Bible. He has performed moral actions in our universe just like people have. You said in one sentence “So if humans are the only manifestations of morality, then without humans, there would be no morality.” In the next sentence, you said, “It may or may not exist in some god type entity that would survive after humans.” Those contradict. I believe that it does exist in God and he is the “source” or “foundation” for it. However, assuming that humans are the only source and (I think) your assertion that one isn’t human until he/she can put morality into action that would mean that a 6 month old baby wouldn’t really be human yet because it is still amoral at that stage. I’m sorry if I’m way off base. I’m trying to follow this but I think it’s a bad criterion for determining humanity. First off, you're correct that I said morality might be considered a defining criteria for humans, and therefore a fetus wouldn't be considered human because it is amoral. However I also said that would be a shallow view that doesn't properly reflect the complexity of this issue. Second, you're correct that I contradicted myself. Let me correct that. In every religious moral system I've heard of, there is an underlying deference to a God. Everything that God does, says, or requires is, by definition, right, good, or moral. However morality hinges on the choices we make, our ability to choose right actions over wrong actions. God can do no wrong because allowing for such occurrences would undermine the entire religious basis of the moral system. Therefore, if God is incapable of immorality, than he is (again by definition) amoral, which brings us back to the point that morality does not exist without humans. Nice hijack, eh? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #225 August 19, 2004 QuoteFirst off, you're correct that I said morality might be considered a defining criteria for humans, and therefore a fetus wouldn't be considered human because it is amoral. However I also said that would be a shallow view that doesn't properly reflect the complexity of this issue. Ok…I agree that it is too shallow a view to reflect the complexity of this issue. QuoteSecond, you're correct that I contradicted myself. Let me correct that. In every religious moral system I've heard of, there is an underlying deference to a God. Everything that God does, says, or requires is, by definition, right, good, or moral. However morality hinges on the choices we make, our ability to choose right actions over wrong actions. God can do no wrong because allowing for such occurrences would undermine the entire religious basis of the moral system. Therefore, if God is incapable of immorality, than he is (again by definition) amoral, which brings us back to the point that morality does not exist without humans. This gets into the whole free-will/predestination thing (religious hijack). I’m going to do the rest here a favor and not get sidetracked when it’s not needed. However, if someone is incapable of immorality, why does that mean that he/she must be amoral? If he’s incapable of “not adhering to ethical and moral principles” then he would, by definition, be the opposite which is “Adhering to ethical and moral principles (i.e. Moral).” Amoral – Without moral standards or principles. Moral – Adhering to ethical and moral principles. Immoral – Not adhering to ethical and moral principles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
