nerdgirl

Am I the only one to think that just looks like laundry day? Prolly not. Can't find anyone of my pics from Swayambhunath Stupua in Kathmandu on this computer ... but a lot of places in the Buddhist world make that original pic look sparse w/r/t number of prayer flags. I love them!

Other than the fact that said flaws were OUTSIDE the scope of the scenario, you mean? They aren't outside the scenario. Some of the flaws were based on starting components explicitly stated as part of the scenario. Others are ignored, one possible explanation (there are likely to be other explanations) being because they *did* show the flaws. That's the fundamental problem. If one bounds a scenario in ways that aren't meaningful, how useful is a notional scenario? If it fits the outcome one wants, I guess you can call it useful ... kind of like calling DC a State if one wants to show something regarding guns, perhaps eh? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting note to me & I suspect some others - the expected noble gas isotopes of xenon & krypton haven't been detected yet. Based on the wind patterns, monitoring stations in ROK and Japan were in direct path. There are multiple possible reasons ... among them -- but not the only explanation -- is that it wasn't a nuclear detonation. Radioactive isotopes from the Oct 2006 'fizzle' (estimated ~1/2 kT) were detected w/in 9 days, iirc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks again for all the advice and hints both posted here and via PMs. The one tool that I found that was very useful was a yoke-style paint roller framer with a mechanism to lock the roller in/pop it out (rather than pulling it over a metal cage.) Might not be an issue for men or stronger women but getting the used rollers off the frame was a messy pain for me. Next up: painting the concrete floor.

In complete earnestness, which I realize is hard to convey via ASCII test/html mark-up, if you’re interested in discussing a hypothetical scenario rather than just ‘being right,’ how about proposing a scenario that reconciles the flaws that have been pointed out by me and others? Maybe you’ll propose something we haven’t thought of, eh? A scenario that recognizes that the decision pathway starts before gestation begins, that acknowledges men can’t gestate (yet … or in the near future), that doesn’t explicitly or implicitly deny anyone’s autonomy (if the notional goal is “equality” or parity, figure out what is comparable – I’ve suggested one notional & less than perfect possibility), and one that doesn’t punish a born child (rather than notionally punishing the custodial parent; the goal of child support isn’t a “reward” – it’s neither large enough nor for the custodial parent.) So far a scenario that accomplishes that hasn’t been proposed. Until men can conceive and/or gestate, it might not be notionally (nevermind practically or legally) possible. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If she doesn’t want the child but he has custody, her options are “pay or jail” too. The same as his. The legal basis requiring parents (of either gender) to pay child support are based on the needs and interests of the child. That’s whose college bills one pays for … or not. That’s the 3rd party. If he didn’t want to be in the position to “pay or jail”, then he had the options that have been mentioned previously. His autonnomy is not limited. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That’s okay, I’m used to being told I'm wrong. Last night, I was told I was wrong because I did not accept that there was a widespread perception in the 1980s among the US populace that communists from South & Central America invading the US were a real threat. Last week a group of anthropologists told me my involvement with an Army program was very wrong. And all the ways the program was wrong. And a couple months ago a couple of snarky Army LTCs told me I was wrong (“naïve”) about (the need for) AfPakIndia strategy.

"Pay or you go to jail" - yeah, I guess he does have a choice to make for himself - pay, or go to jail. She has the same choices if he has custody. So, if those are the choices you want to discuss; yes, there is equality. He has other choices, if the woman decides to carry to term? Please enlighten me. I've actually mentioned them multiple times: vasectomy, barrior contraceptives, or other options w/r/t sex. Artificially limiting the window of possible opportunities for a man to make choices to the nine months before birth is roughly akin to telling someone that they can only deploy their main in the last 900 feet of a skydive; it makes no sense, especially if you jumped from an Otter at 14k. Recognizing the current state of biology is that only women get pregnate, the options for a man to chose to not impregnate a woman aren't part of hypothetical scenarios that have been put forth. Pretending or insisting that he doesn't have those options (or she have contraceptive options as well) and that the only option is abort/not abort makes it a less than a logically robust proposition. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

"Pay or you go to jail" - yeah, I guess he does have a choice to make for himself - pay, or go to jail. She has the same choices if he has custody. So, if those are the choices you want to discuss; yes, there is equality. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

again, absolutely wrong. the woman has sole choice to abort or not the man's choice is whether he wants to abort the responsibilities AFTER the child would be born - just like the mother could have done you keep arguing about the choice to abort - that's not the drift we're in.... For a "drift" not about the choice to abort, why did you mention it twice in this post? You're still not acknowledging the man's choice w/r/t contraception or other options, which still means the scenario and its implications don't make sense. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Because that was not part of the scenario - you're usually very good about staying within the guidelines when a scenario is given - obviously there's much more of an emotional attachment in this case. Actually it was part of the scenario, from the very start: "pay for the college bills" ... "pay for the medical bills." Those are responsibilities for birthed, living children. I've adjusted to the varying shifts that the scenario has taken. So, yes, I remain "very good about sticking to a guidelines" even when they're on shaky ground. I'm not dismissing your responses or anyone's as an "emotional attachment." Objecting to arguments and those who would like to deny/abridge/limit one's autonomy -- whether it's Taliban, al Qa'eda, Wahabists, or those who would limit a women's right to chose -- seems like a pretty reasonable practice. It's no more of an emotional attachment than any one's is to wanting to have a choice to defend oneself via a gun. Regardless of the reason for the pregnancy, the woman still has the ability to opt out - the man does not. So, we actually have the MAN'S autonomy being limited and not the woman's, since the current climate of the law says "he's gonna pay" whether he wants to or not. No, that's not limting his autonomy by definition of autonomy (make choices for oneself, including about one's own body). Limiting his autonomy would be giving his partner the right to demand or prohibit a man from getting a vasectomy. He has autonomy is in the choices he makes. Men and women do surrender their autonomy, e.g., uniformed services being required to get vaccinations. That is an voluntary surrendering of autonomy. Well, as the thread started about the assassination of a medical doctor performing a legal procedure by someone opposed to women getting abortions, one doesn't need to overturn anything to recognize that as an underlying facet. And perhaps, you did. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

But it's my philosphical "fantasy land" to spar w/Mike and the rest. Thanks for a good reminder.

This is a hypothetical exercise about equality of options during the pregnancy - Then why not stop combining the different portions because a good portion of the scenario is about choices and responsibilities w/r/t a living, birthed child (& not about choices/responsibilities before)? Why selectively ignore the man’s autonomous opportunities to “opt out” w/r/t sex, e.g., vasectomy, barrier contraception, or other options? There are options for both sexes; until men can gestate, they will not be identical. And then why not put forward as much effort w/r/t options a man might pursue? We all know, as well, that underlying this is the opinion of some that would prefer women be denied the option to chose to abort. That's limiting the autonomy of one half. And at least one person in this thread has written about experience of being what you might call 'opted-out' ... it's not an ideal world ... and we can also put forward hypothetical scenarios in which a woman is opted out (man choses to have a vasectomy & lies) so there are multiple possible scenarios. We also know of scenarios where women were denied the option to "opt out" by their partner. And we know of instances in which women died because their access to medical abortions was limited, e.g., killed by back-alleys butchers. So there are more scenarios to consider than just one. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

His "opting out" means he simply does nothing - practically no consequences for his (their) mistake. Her "opting out" would mean either carrying the pregnancy to term and putting the baby up for adoption (if she is against abortion, which many women are) or having an abortion, which is quite a bit different than doing nothing. An abortion is not a pleasant, painless, risk-free procedure. Definitely not an "equal" situation, by nature. From a practical point of view -- what she said. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Still the same problems with that. It ignores the choices that the man has. The part that's labeled "he aborts" for the scenario to have parity would involve *him* doing something, since men can't gestate. I.e., it's a false proposition. The above scenario was put forth to enable the notional goal of “equality” when as I’ve pointed out you’re giving one party selective autonomy. And the notional scenario still aggregates the interest of a child (not an egg, not 50 million sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) with the autonomous decisions of one individual and the abridged autonomy of the other. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It doesn't obviate that some have put forth scenarios denying one autonomy as acceptable in some scenarios. That's the issue - autonomy. If you want to deny a women autonomy over her body and call it "equality" then in order for one to fulfill a goal of "equality" the closest approach to parity to enabling a woman to deny a man autonomy, in this case the closest approach (parity) is illustrated by prohibiting or demanding a vasectomy. It's the autonomy. /Marg [Edit to add: if you want to argue disparate surgical procedures, consider the higher invasiveness, cost, and complications associated with tubal ligation or hysterectomy versus vasectomy. But that's not the argument really -- it's about autonomy.) Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Actually, your comments here are in line with my conclusion -- that selectively denying autonomy to one party does not make something "equal." Ok, so which party was getting denied again, I've lost track. Does it matter? If the goal of a notional scenario is supposed to be "equality" then denying either party autonomy is problematic, yes? If one's goal is something other than enabling/ensuring/supporting autonomy then the parity argument doesn't matter. (In that case one may argue for denying autonomy ... not something that I support, but some may.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Actually, your comments here are in line with my conclusion -- that selectively denying autonomy to one party does not make something "equal." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's parity w/r/t denying autonomy over one's body. It's in the context of a notional scenario that asserted "equality" was the goal. It is NOT parity, nor equality. Abortion has no effect on the fertility of the woman (barring complications). Vasectomy DOES have an effect on the fertility of the man. And since men can't gestate (yet), one can't deny autonomy over their bodies w/r/t chosing or not to carry a fetus to term. And since the notional scenario (not of my creation) sought "equality" as a goal, denying autonomy to one gender is fundamentally non-equal. Therefore the components (proximal assumptions and implications) of the scenario could not be reached as it was originally posed. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's parity w/r/t denying autonomy over one's body. It's in the context of a notional scenario that asserted "equality" was the goal. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Can't he? He can have a vasectomy ... and she can't do anything about it. (Again, I think should remain his choice.) In the world of hypotheticals, he could lie while she was under the impression he was freely giving viable sperm. One can imagine a Law & Order episode or some other legal show in which the male character intentionally deceives the monogamous (have the writers make 'em faithfully married) female character until she is menopausal. Maybe ...or maybe not ... I agree that that does pose huge issues and is fundamentally unfair. Particularly if his rights were intentionally denied and the benefits to the child of his involvement were denied. There are potentially two victims. I'd be very curious to the details of the actual case. Denying future child support would punish the child (not the mother.) It would be interesting to me to see the argument for or against denying retroactive child support. It would also be an impetus to revisit or consider changing custody, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How did abortion become equated with sterilization? Because a notional scenario was proposed based on seeking equality. That was the stated intent. If one is arguing based on a pursuit of "equality" (altho since men don't yet gestate, parity is more accurate) and if one wants to argue for parity in denying autonomy then both parties have to be able to deny autonomy to the other. Not just denying a woman's autonomy. If one wants to argue for "equality" in denying autonomy, if you're denying a woman autonomy w/r/t chosing to have an abortion or not, his ceding autonomy w/r/t demanding or prohibiting a vasectomy approaches parity. (In pursuit of "equality," her autonomy on sterilization would also come under scrutiny.) Now if one isn't interested in parity or trying to get closer to equality, then it doesn't matter. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'd bet on DB Cooper. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Largely concur. Which is one of the reasons I go to the basic concept of automony rather than biology or technology. W/r/t enabling autonomy, one can get closer to a point of equality. Technology has, and in the future, is likely to make it even more problematic. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No, because you're still selectively denying autonomy to one half of the parties. It's implicit in your notional scenario. One would need to include something in the scenario that denied autonomy to the man in order for the scenario to have a sense of parity (if that's what you're arguing for ... if that's not what you're arguing for, then it doesn't matter.) Again, in an ideal world all of these notional decisions would be made together. And the notional scenario still aggregates the interest of a child (not an egg, not 50 million sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) with the autonomous decisions of one individual and the abridged autonomy of the other. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying