Male financial abortion - "Legal Paternal Surrender&quo

Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

09 Jan 2012, 5:44 pm

RikersBeard wrote:
Women have all the choice when it comes to childbirth, literally everything. They choose, when, where, how, and with who they become pregnant. Once they are pregnant, they have all the choice too. They can choose to abort the pregnancy (in a variety of ways, not just the legal options, they can "accidentally" fall down stairs, drink too much, "accidentally" sit on a coat hangar, they can sometimes even dump their newborns in garbage without fear of prosecution.)

From a secular point of view I have no problem with this, I don't think women should be forced into birthing or caring or supporting children they do not want - even if at the time of conception they were all for it. Now as a woman, I'm _sure_ you agree with this. But turn things around. What if the man does not want to care for or support the child, suddenly all these "choices" and their vocal supporters disappear.
Mostly because it is not their body...

Quote:
Men have no choices post-conception, and a few less than desirable ones pre-conception. The mother can choose to literally enslave him for the next two decades on her whim because she either forgot or lied about being on birth control.
Man can choose to use a condom. Can choose to get a vasectomy. Can choose not to have sex with a woman that would be willing to go on with pregnancy. A choice not to put their penis in a woman that does not want him to use condoms.


_________________
.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Jan 2012, 1:38 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
LKL wrote:
Jono wrote:
LKL wrote:
RikersBeard wrote:
Quote:
Wrt paying for their moral values: YES! Go get a f***ing vasectomy, and stop whining!


I don't think that is quite in the same "moral league" if there were such a thing.

How so? It solves all kinds of problems through prevention, which is the best way to solve problems, and makes every individual responsible for his or herself and his or her reproduction. If you don't want kids, get snipped.


Except that a vasectomy is permanent. What if you couldn't afford to have children right now but might want children in the future. That's like asking you to have hysterectomy so that you don't have to go through the bother of taking birth control pills or using condoms.


I repeat, with emphasis:
"If you're so effing scared of getting someone pregnant, make a donation to a sperm bank and then get your tubes snipped. It's cheaper and less invasive than an abortion."


I'm going to cross the line, because in this case it is warranted. LKL, you're a moron. Please stop posting to this topic, your "contributions" are ignorant and insulting, one sided, and lack any semblance of logic or reason. Please stop.

Translation: 'I got nuthin'.'



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

10 Jan 2012, 1:41 am

RikersBeard wrote:
Quote:
Birth control is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the woman. If a woman gets pregnant, even on birth control, even using said birth control correctley and with a consenting man who knows what kind of birth control she's on, it's HER fault.


Yes! Oh woe is woman, I am the 1% for whom this contraceptive did not work, ah well that's my life over, forced to care for a child I did not wa-.... oh wait I can just get it aborted.


Contraceptive fails more than 1% of the time. Most women I personally know of who have had abortions had them because the father skipped out and they didn't have the financial or life resources to raise a child on their own.

Had the father taken his share of responsibility they would have very likely not have had an abortion.

When she gets an abortion she is demonized by pro-life groups who call her a murderer and often has to live with the guilt of what she has done. Women who do keep the child even when it entails being a single mother and raising the child with the help of state assistance also face a lot of negative sentiments from society. They are painted as irresponsible and lazy people who don't want to work while people conveniently overlook the fact that daycare is expensive and raising a child is a full time job.

Being pregnant and single is a no win situation for a woman, and no man has ever had to face such a situation. On top of that, if she were to abstain from sexual relations until she were married, she would likely never find any man who would stick around long enough to marry her, because we live in a society where even most religious christians don't wait until marriage to become sexually active.

And you complain men shouldn't have to chip in their fair share of responsibility for their child.

I'm going to be blunt. Your views have demonstrated that you have a complete lack of empathy, and understanding for the struggles women sometimes face in our society, as well as a complete lack of appreciation for all of the effort it takes to raise a child. If you think the work entailed in bringing in a few hundred dollars a month is anywhere near the work that looking after a child entails, you should better educate yourself on the subject of child rearing.

On another note, do you use Commander Riker as your avatar because you look up to him or you relate to him, because I do not believe such an honorable man would harbor such sentiments on this subject as you.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Jan 2012, 1:43 am

Jono wrote:
LKL wrote:
Jono wrote:
LKL wrote:
RikersBeard wrote:
Quote:
Wrt paying for their moral values: YES! Go get a f***ing vasectomy, and stop whining!


I don't think that is quite in the same "moral league" if there were such a thing.

How so? It solves all kinds of problems through prevention, which is the best way to solve problems, and makes every individual responsible for his or herself and his or her reproduction. If you don't want kids, get snipped.


Except that a vasectomy is permanent. What if you couldn't afford to have children right now but might want children in the future. That's like asking you to have hysterectomy so that you don't have to go through the bother of taking birth control pills or using condoms.


I repeat, with emphasis:
"If you're so effing scared of getting someone pregnant, make a donation to a sperm bank and then get your tubes snipped. It's cheaper and less invasive than an abortion."


If you could have your eggs frozen, would you still have a hysterectomy as opposed to going on the the pill? That is still not an option I would personally choose.

A hysterectomy is an invasive procedure and requires one to go on hormones in perpetuity (especially if the ovaries are removed) afterward. If, on the other hand, a tubal ligation were a less invasive surgery than a vasectomy (it's not), and it was easy for a woman to harvest and freeze eggs (it's not), then that would be a good option for birth control for women. The point is moot, though, because this entire thread is about how teh pooor menz don't have aaannyyyyy control!!!111!! !! over reproduction!! !! Having her tubes snipped is still something that one can't see from the outside, meaning that these 'evil gold diggers' could lie about that, too.

Oh, btw:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 092007.php



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 Jan 2012, 3:06 am

LKL, there is an important point here: the law is unfair to men. Men have no choices after sex; if there is a zef formed and the woman wishes to carry it to term, the man is legally obligated to support that decision. If she chooses to abort a pregnancy then the man must allow that decision as well, even if he wants the child and would be willing to assume full legal/financial responsibility for it. As mentioned in the first clip, women also have somewhat more control in birth control. If a couple agrees on a woman taking the pill as their method of birth control, the man has to cede control in trusting the woman on that. (For the moment I am disregarding why a man would have sex with a woman he couldn't trust on that level). The woman does know for certain if she has been using birth control properly- at no point does she have to take the man's word for anything, unless he is falsely claiming to have had a vasectomy.

Having recognized that the law is unfair and unbalanced here, I am still going to come out and say that current law should stand. There really is no conceivable way that the law could establish a fair and equitable balance between the rights of both men and women, especially when considering the question of continuing or terminating a pregnancy. But the woman is the one who gestates the fetus and assumes the much greater share of physical risk, so in case of disagreement her rights trump the man's.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

10 Jan 2012, 4:59 am

You said this last, but I'm putting it first to make your stance clear, and to make it known we are not in disagreement, and then I will bring up some points in response to some of the comments you made before coming to this conclusion to bring to light some points for other readers.

Orwell said this last wrote:
Having recognized that the law is unfair and unbalanced here, I am still going to come out and say that current law should stand. There really is no conceivable way that the law could establish a fair and equitable balance between the rights of both men and women, especially when considering the question of continuing or terminating a pregnancy. But the woman is the one who gestates the fetus and assumes the much greater share of physical risk, so in case of disagreement her rights trump the man's.



Orwell wrote:
LKL, there is an important point here: the law is unfair to men.


On sexual reproduction and dimorphism, there is inherent asymmetry of the sexes which cannot be equalized by laws. You might think it's unfair that you have to take financial responsibility for a child you didn't want, but I think it's unfair that men generally get to be stronger than women, thus affording them more employment opportunities and better ability to defend themselves against attackers, which also gives them the privilege of having more freedom of movement in this world. I also think it's unfair that you can easily urinate standing up, don't have periods, and don't have to worry nearly as much about breast cancer.

But what should we do about it? Laws can only do so much. The best we can do in some circumstances is strive for fairness with respect to those inequalities.

Orwell wrote:
Men have no choices after sex; if there is a zef formed and the woman wishes to carry it to term, the man is legally obligated to support that decision. If she chooses to abort a pregnancy then the man must allow that decision as well, even if he wants the child and would be willing to assume full legal/financial responsibility for it.


If so many men wished to raise the child and assume full legal and financial responsibility for it, I think we would see a decline in abortions. In fact I think we would see a decline in abortions if more men were just willing to accept partial financial responsibility for it.

Orwell wrote:
As mentioned in the first clip, women also have somewhat more control in birth control. If a couple agrees on a woman taking the pill as their method of birth control, the man has to cede control in trusting the woman on that. (For the moment I am disregarding why a man would have sex with a woman he couldn't trust on that level). The woman does know for certain if she has been using birth control properly


The pill is not an option for all women and she might know she is using it but she doesn't know if it's working effectively.

Orwell wrote:
- at no point does she have to take the man's word for anything, unless he is falsely claiming to have had a vasectomy.


She has to take his word that he'll stick around if she does get pregnant. She has to take his word if he claims to be sterile. She has to take his word that he'll wear a condom...believe it or not many men will refuse to wear a condom because they find them turn offs for various reasons and she can't always tell if he slips it off.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,343
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

10 Jan 2012, 5:33 am

The-Raven wrote:
Jono wrote:
The-Raven wrote:
Jono wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Jono wrote:
snapcap wrote:
Maybe, if the guy doesn't want to support his child, he should have a licence plate that shows that he does as a warning to other potential baby's mommas.


Maybe gold-diggers who try to trap men by getting pregnant should have warnings too.
Yeah cause it is exactly the same.. *facepalm*


I never said it was the same and you've completely missed the point that I was making. Look, consent to sex is not the same as consent to reproduction. The point I was making was that a man can be forced into paying for child support for a child they never wanted in the first place and all because the woman lied about about being on birth control, and yes, there are indeed some women who do that just to get into his bank account. Women on the other hand do have options to terminate responsibility for a child, if not abortion, giving it up for adoption is another option.

how much money do you think women get for their children from the childs father??? It is certainly not enough to cover a tenth of what children cost, in the UK its a max 15% through the CSA, so if the guy is on jobseekers thats like a £5, couldnt even get nappies for that.


It depends on how much the man earns in the first place. Women who do that sort of thing would usually do it to someone with a high income, certainly not someone who's looking for a job. I personally know a woman who has tried this with someone, so please do not tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

ok I shall defer to your superior knowledge on single mothers and child maintenance.


Where in my post have I ever said anything about that? As single mother, you probably know more than I do. However, I've highlighted the relevant part in your post. Look, your example was that you could only get £5 a month from a guy who was looking for a job. However, if the max is 15% as you said, then doesn't that mean that you can get £1500 a month from someone who earns a £10000 salary? It's a question of maths. Also, it's not necessarily just to get the support grant off of them, some hope that the pregnancy will get the him to marry her, so that she can get some of his income.

P.S. I'm sorry if you found my post offensive but please understand that contrary to what you may think, I'm not trying to condemn all women and single mothers here. I was just pointing out the differences between the options of what men have verses what women have with regards to BC.



Last edited by Jono on 10 Jan 2012, 7:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,343
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

10 Jan 2012, 5:41 am

LKL wrote:
Jono wrote:
LKL wrote:
Jono wrote:
LKL wrote:
RikersBeard wrote:
Quote:
Wrt paying for their moral values: YES! Go get a f***ing vasectomy, and stop whining!


I don't think that is quite in the same "moral league" if there were such a thing.

How so? It solves all kinds of problems through prevention, which is the best way to solve problems, and makes every individual responsible for his or herself and his or her reproduction. If you don't want kids, get snipped.


Except that a vasectomy is permanent. What if you couldn't afford to have children right now but might want children in the future. That's like asking you to have hysterectomy so that you don't have to go through the bother of taking birth control pills or using condoms.


I repeat, with emphasis:
"If you're so effing scared of getting someone pregnant, make a donation to a sperm bank and then get your tubes snipped. It's cheaper and less invasive than an abortion."


If you could have your eggs frozen, would you still have a hysterectomy as opposed to going on the the pill? That is still not an option I would personally choose.

A hysterectomy is an invasive procedure and requires one to go on hormones in perpetuity (especially if the ovaries are removed) afterward. If, on the other hand, a tubal ligation were a less invasive surgery than a vasectomy (it's not), and it was easy for a woman to harvest and freeze eggs (it's not), then that would be a good option for birth control for women. The point is moot, though, because this entire thread is about how teh pooor menz don't have aaannyyyyy control!!!111!! !! over reproduction!! !! Having her tubes snipped is still something that one can't see from the outside, meaning that these 'evil gold diggers' could lie about that, too.


Ah, so a vasectomy is not invasive is it? I would think that it is. Personally, I think that this is relevant to the topic since it compares men's BC options with women's.

LKL wrote:


What?? My argument that women can do this does not negate that men can do it too. I don't understand the relevance.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,343
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

10 Jan 2012, 5:44 am

Orwell wrote:
Having recognized that the law is unfair and unbalanced here, I am still going to come out and say that current law should stand. There really is no conceivable way that the law could establish a fair and equitable balance between the rights of both men and women, especially when considering the question of continuing or terminating a pregnancy. But the woman is the one who gestates the fetus and assumes the much greater share of physical risk, so in case of disagreement her rights trump the man's.


Agreed on the women's right to bodily autonomy part. Bear in mind though that this is not about a man asking a woman to have an abortion. Although I'm not sure if what they're suggesting is practical either.



RikersBeard
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 35
Location: Japan

10 Jan 2012, 5:47 am

Quote:
Man can choose to use a condom. Can choose to get a vasectomy. Can choose not to have sex with a woman that would be willing to go on with pregnancy. A choice not to put their penis in a woman that does not want him to use condoms.


I said they were less desirable for good reason. Abstinence is not a favoured option, don't think I need to explain that one. A vasectomy far from guaranteed reversable, there is a good chance you are giving up the chance to conceive naturally, which is a big deal. In practice that leaves condoms, as mens only worthwhile option, a barrier device that makes sex less pleasurable, woopdedoo. Not to mention unscrupulous women can do this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ption.html

@Chronos, all men want is the same options women have. The ability to absolve oneself of all responsibility to the child post conception. It's only fair.

Quote:
Contraceptive fails more than 1% of the time

Mostly due to incorrect (deliberate or otherwise) usage I'm willing to bet.

Quote:
On top of that, if she were to abstain from sexual relations until she were married, she would likely never find any man who would stick around long enough to marry her, because we live in a society where even most religious christians don't wait until marriage to become sexually active.


Yeah it's a shitty situation, but that does not justify enslavement of men.
Quote:
I'm going to be blunt. Your views have demonstrated that you have a complete lack of empathy, and understanding for the struggles women sometimes face in our society, as well as a complete lack of appreciation for all of the effort it takes to raise a child. If you think the work entailed in bringing in a few hundred dollars a month is anywhere near the work that looking after a child entails, you should better educate yourself on the subject of child rearing.


Likewise you have no empathy for men, modern women will never understand what it feels like to have to support or raise a child they did not want. I'm not saying the decision to keep it isn't hard, but it is a choice in the end. Oh and raising a child is not the hardest thing in the world.


_________________
One cannot be wise without understanding reality. If you do not understand human nature, everything in your philosophy is flawed.


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,343
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

10 Jan 2012, 8:09 am

Jono wrote:
Where in my post have I ever said anything about that? As single mother, you probably know more than I do. However, I've highlighted the relevant part in your post. Look, your example was that you could only get £5 a month from a guy who was looking for a job. However, if the max is 15% as you said, then doesn't that mean that you can get £1500 a month from someone who earns a £10000 salary? It's a question of maths. Also, it's not necessarily just to get the support grant off of them, some hope that the pregnancy will get the him to marry her, so that she can get some of his income.


Jono wrote:
LKL wrote:


What?? My argument that women can do this does not negate that men can do it too. I don't understand the relevance.


RikersBeard wrote:


Thanks for that link. There's another reason why what I was talking about could happen.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 Jan 2012, 8:32 am

Chronos wrote:
On sexual reproduction and dimorphism, there is inherent asymmetry of the sexes which cannot be equalized by laws. You might think it's unfair that you have to take financial responsibility for a child you didn't want, but I think it's unfair that men generally get to be stronger than women, thus affording them more employment opportunities and better ability to defend themselves against attackers, which also gives them the privilege of having more freedom of movement in this world. I also think it's unfair that you can easily urinate standing up, don't have periods, and don't have to worry nearly as much about breast cancer.

But what should we do about it? Laws can only do so much. The best we can do in some circumstances is strive for fairness with respect to those inequalities.

Right. Life is unfair in many respects. To some extent we can write laws to mitigate this, and to some extent we all just have to deal with the luck we've had. The reason the unfairness argument doesn't work here is because any law that strove to minimize the unfairness towards men in the system would introduce new unfairness to women, and so a choice has to be made in whose interests to prioritize.

Quote:
If so many men wished to raise the child and assume full legal and financial responsibility for it, I think we would see a decline in abortions. In fact I think we would see a decline in abortions if more men were just willing to accept partial financial responsibility for it.

Perhaps true, perhaps not, but on the legal standing it doesn't make a difference. The choice of whether to continue a pregnancy still lies entirely with the mother and the father has zero legal say. Similarly, the mother can choose to surrender legal responsibility for an infant at birth- a man cannot do the same.

Quote:
The pill is not an option for all women and she might know she is using it but she doesn't know if it's working effectively.

Among the women for whom it is an option, she knows if she is using it and, assuming she has spoken with her physician and is informed about her decision, she knows she is assuming some level of risk that she might deem acceptable. Her partner has to trust that she is using the pill.

Quote:
She has to take his word that he'll stick around if she does get pregnant.

She has legal recourse if he does not, at least in terms of extracting child support payments.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


RikersBeard
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 35
Location: Japan

10 Jan 2012, 10:20 am

If you ladies want to put yourself in men's shoes, imagine if only the father (you have no say) of the unborn child can give consent to abort, and your only contraceptive options were abstinence, surgical sterilisation and the diaphragm. Imagine once the child is born, the father has the final say on every aspect of the child's life. Your access to the child is lies solely on his good will. Imagine that the father can use the government to extricate a sizeable chunk of your earnings from you and give it to him, with no guarantee the money will be spent on the child.

Quote:
On another note, do you use Commander Riker as your avatar because you look up to him or you relate to him, because I do not believe such an honorable man would harbor such sentiments on this subject as you.


I think he'd probably see the injustice here ... and he's masterful with the ladies.


_________________
One cannot be wise without understanding reality. If you do not understand human nature, everything in your philosophy is flawed.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Jan 2012, 11:59 am

And still this thread continues to get it completely wrong. No matter the feelings of the individual men and women involved in the dispute, child custody, access and support decisions are never about the interests of the individual man and woman litigating.

I don't care about perceptions of unfairness toward men caused by unilateral decision making by women. I care more about perceptions of unfairness toward women caused by legislating against their decision making ability--largely because men have no legitimate cause for complaint.

The only people who have cause for complaint--and no means by which to make those complaints heard--are the children who are the subjects of these disputes. Two parents can whine, moan and complain 'til the moon goes blue from cold and I will not care one whit if those complaints fail to focus solely and exclusively on the interests of the child.


_________________
--James


RikersBeard
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 35
Location: Japan

10 Jan 2012, 3:55 pm

Our law is not based on the best interests of the child, it's all about Team Woman. If we did base it on "best interests" of the child, we'd give default custody to the father, there is a study floating around somewhere that concludes children are better off with single fathers than they are with single mothers. In fact children are probably better off being gangraped in orphanages than left with single mothers. If we were serious about it, we'd do everything we could to keep families together, make divorce a lot harder to get. But no, that would upset Team Woman.

What's odd is that we treat financial support from the distant parent as some kind of fundamental right, the child is somehow entitled to this money (or rather the mother is), as if throwing money at the child (mother) will somehow make it grow up decent. What about the child sired by the unemployed loser? Is he not entitled to the same level of financial aid offered the other child, surely it would be in his/her "best interests"? Would it not be better if every man who fathered a child payed into a big fund and distributed all the money equally to poor single mothers and their brood? Best interests my arse.


_________________
One cannot be wise without understanding reality. If you do not understand human nature, everything in your philosophy is flawed.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Jan 2012, 5:30 pm

RikersBeard wrote:
Our law is not based on the best interests of the child, it's all about Team Woman. If we did base it on "best interests" of the child, we'd give default custody to the father, there is a study floating around somewhere that concludes children are better off with single fathers than they are with single mothers. In fact children are probably better off being gangraped in orphanages than left with single mothers. If we were serious about it, we'd do everything we could to keep families together, make divorce a lot harder to get. But no, that would upset Team Woman.


Any system that contemplates a "default" position on custody and access is already moving away from a best interests model, and substituting one default for another corrects nothing.

Now, don't get me wrong--I understand that the law must function in the real world, and courts are never provided with the time or the resources to deal with all cases with the attention that they each merit. And if courts have erred in defaulting to vesting custody with mothers, then that is certainly an error worth remediating. But if we remediate that error on the basis of so-called "fathers' rights" then all we have done is substituted one mistake for another.

Quote:
What's odd is that we treat financial support from the distant parent as some kind of fundamental right, the child is somehow entitled to this money (or rather the mother is), as if throwing money at the child (mother) will somehow make it grow up decent. What about the child sired by the unemployed loser? Is he not entitled to the same level of financial aid offered the other child, surely it would be in his/her "best interests"? Would it not be better if every man who fathered a child payed into a big fund and distributed all the money equally to poor single mothers and their brood? Best interests my arse.


A child born to an, "unemployed loser" still cohabiting with the other parent is not compensated for having an unemployed loser for a parent. We do not use social policy to remediate accidents of birth. Maybe we should--but I think not.

In Canada, child support obligations are calculated based upon the income of the parents--the parent with the higher income--whether male or female--pays to the other parent, adjusted to reflect the actual time spent in the custody of that parent. The financial support is entirely dependent upon the income of the parent.

Your vocabulary and tone betray a lack of objectivity which demonstrates a singular incapacity to step away from the male-female debate and look to the issue that is really important. So long as you fail at that, your arguments will always demonstrate partisanship rather than good sense.


_________________
--James