![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumNot that this is a surprise to most of those I know who've read him, but John Tierney is an ass.
Since this passes for a family blog I'll leave my thoughts on his actual personage at that.
His most recent (to me) utterance, confirming his miserable status as a human being is this,
If men are expected to be parents with equal responsibilities, shouldn't they at least be allowed to discuss whether to have a child?
This is an easy question for those on the pro-life side of the abortion debate. They'd like men to be not only notified of pregnancies, but also given veto power over abortions.
Being pro-choice, I don't agree with that position, but I admire the logic. It's a gender-neutral policy: if either parent thinks it's wrong to end the pregnancy, then the pregnancy must proceed.
If the pro-choice side adopted a gender-neutral policy, then either the man or the woman would have the right to say no to parenthood. I don't know of anyone advocating that a woman be required to have an abortion, but there's another right that could be given to a man who impregnates a woman who isn't his wife. If the woman decided to go ahead and have the child, she would have to notify him and give him the option early in the pregnancy of absolving himself of any financial responsibility for the child.
But there's no reason that it couldn't be a little fairer. As Alito ruled, it's not an undue burden for a wife to notify her husband before an abortion. And it's not unfair, as Goldscheider proposes, for a single woman expecting child support to be required to tell the father as soon as she decides to keep the baby. If men are going to pay to play, they should at least know the score.
First up is his idea of, "gender neutrality." That's not neutral, as it gives one part of the pair the right to impose hardship and risk on the other, at no, personal risk (I'll grant that the pain of the possible side effects of pregnancy can cause grief, and sorrow, to someone who loves his partner, and sees her suffer, or die, as a result of complications of pregnancy, but it ain't the same)
So here are some of the risks he might feel sorrow or grief over.
One in 300 pregnancies, in the U.S. ends in the mother's death.
Twenty percent of the women who are admitted to a hospital for pregnancy are there, not to deliver, but because of a pregnacy related complication. That's one in five. Seven percent of pregnancies are lost in such cases., the rest were just, "complications".
The leading diagnoses for antenatal hospitalizations were preterm labor (31%), genitourinary infection (10%), early pregnancy hemorrhage (9%), excessive vomiting (9%), pregnancy-induced hypertension (7%), and diabetes mellitus (6%). Mean length of stay was longest for women hospitalized with diabetes mellitus (4.4 days for whites and 5.5 days for blacks) and shortest for those diagnosed with preterm labor (1.8 days for whites and 2.4 days for blacks).
We can also ponder thisABRUPTIO PLACENTAE AND PLACENTA PREVIA
Abruptio placentae and placenta previa are two leading causes of third-trimester bleeding. Both conditions can result in serious pregnancy morbidity and an increased risk of pregnancy-related and perinatal mortality. Data from the NHDS indicate that the rate of abruptio placentae increased significantly between 1979 and 1987 for women of all racial groups: the rate increased from 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries in 1979–1980 to 11.5 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 1987
Data taken from Pregnancy Morbidity: Audrey F. Saftlas, Ph.D., M.P.H., Herschel W. Lawson, M.D., and Hani K. Atrash, M.D., M.P.H.: CDC’S PUBLIC HEALTH SURVEILLANCE FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN .pdf
A few little things for Mr. Tierney to ponder when he's pontificating on the "neutral" aspects of his policy,
Men can't get pregnant.
Anti-Choicers don't think anyone should be allowed to get/cause an abortion (which is, for some values of neutral, neutral).
Pregnancy is a real risk to the woman's health.
Pregnancy is no risk to the man's health.
The money paid in child support (when it's paid) isn't giving the woman a life of caviar and champagne; it's to cover part of the costs of the child's needs If you don't want to pay child support see to it that no one gets pregnant.
Condoms and spermicidal suppositories are pretty damned effective; esp. when used in concert. One can carry them, male or not. If a guy's so worried about accidents he doesn't trust that sort of prevention, he can get snipped. Otherwise; he chose to play, he can pay (this is the flip side of the common pro-choice argument that sex has the risk of pregnancy, and a woman who has sex has to accept the consequences, that knife cuts both ways).
People are autonomous beings. Nothing, and I mean nothing gives one of them an absolute power over the life of another (leaving aside issues of criminal conduct and the social contract). If this were about anything other than pregnancy, and someone suggested one person had the right to veto the choice of another (lets say Tierney got a job offer, and his wife didn't like it, should she be allowed to veto his acceptance? I didn't think so. He might be wise to consult her, but nothing could be seen as reason for him to do so, much less make her opinions binding on him).
If this is his idea of admirable logic... could he please turn his coat, in fact, and publicly argue for the other side, instead of playing the stalking horse?
Since this passes for a family blog I'll leave my thoughts on his actual personage at that.
His most recent (to me) utterance, confirming his miserable status as a human being is this,
If men are expected to be parents with equal responsibilities, shouldn't they at least be allowed to discuss whether to have a child?
This is an easy question for those on the pro-life side of the abortion debate. They'd like men to be not only notified of pregnancies, but also given veto power over abortions.
Being pro-choice, I don't agree with that position, but I admire the logic. It's a gender-neutral policy: if either parent thinks it's wrong to end the pregnancy, then the pregnancy must proceed.
If the pro-choice side adopted a gender-neutral policy, then either the man or the woman would have the right to say no to parenthood. I don't know of anyone advocating that a woman be required to have an abortion, but there's another right that could be given to a man who impregnates a woman who isn't his wife. If the woman decided to go ahead and have the child, she would have to notify him and give him the option early in the pregnancy of absolving himself of any financial responsibility for the child.
But there's no reason that it couldn't be a little fairer. As Alito ruled, it's not an undue burden for a wife to notify her husband before an abortion. And it's not unfair, as Goldscheider proposes, for a single woman expecting child support to be required to tell the father as soon as she decides to keep the baby. If men are going to pay to play, they should at least know the score.
First up is his idea of, "gender neutrality." That's not neutral, as it gives one part of the pair the right to impose hardship and risk on the other, at no, personal risk (I'll grant that the pain of the possible side effects of pregnancy can cause grief, and sorrow, to someone who loves his partner, and sees her suffer, or die, as a result of complications of pregnancy, but it ain't the same)
So here are some of the risks he might feel sorrow or grief over.
One in 300 pregnancies, in the U.S. ends in the mother's death.
Twenty percent of the women who are admitted to a hospital for pregnancy are there, not to deliver, but because of a pregnacy related complication. That's one in five. Seven percent of pregnancies are lost in such cases., the rest were just, "complications".
The leading diagnoses for antenatal hospitalizations were preterm labor (31%), genitourinary infection (10%), early pregnancy hemorrhage (9%), excessive vomiting (9%), pregnancy-induced hypertension (7%), and diabetes mellitus (6%). Mean length of stay was longest for women hospitalized with diabetes mellitus (4.4 days for whites and 5.5 days for blacks) and shortest for those diagnosed with preterm labor (1.8 days for whites and 2.4 days for blacks).
We can also ponder thisABRUPTIO PLACENTAE AND PLACENTA PREVIA
Abruptio placentae and placenta previa are two leading causes of third-trimester bleeding. Both conditions can result in serious pregnancy morbidity and an increased risk of pregnancy-related and perinatal mortality. Data from the NHDS indicate that the rate of abruptio placentae increased significantly between 1979 and 1987 for women of all racial groups: the rate increased from 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries in 1979–1980 to 11.5 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 1987
Data taken from Pregnancy Morbidity: Audrey F. Saftlas, Ph.D., M.P.H., Herschel W. Lawson, M.D., and Hani K. Atrash, M.D., M.P.H.: CDC’S PUBLIC HEALTH SURVEILLANCE FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN .pdf
A few little things for Mr. Tierney to ponder when he's pontificating on the "neutral" aspects of his policy,
Men can't get pregnant.
Anti-Choicers don't think anyone should be allowed to get/cause an abortion (which is, for some values of neutral, neutral).
Pregnancy is a real risk to the woman's health.
Pregnancy is no risk to the man's health.
The money paid in child support (when it's paid) isn't giving the woman a life of caviar and champagne; it's to cover part of the costs of the child's needs If you don't want to pay child support see to it that no one gets pregnant.
Condoms and spermicidal suppositories are pretty damned effective; esp. when used in concert. One can carry them, male or not. If a guy's so worried about accidents he doesn't trust that sort of prevention, he can get snipped. Otherwise; he chose to play, he can pay (this is the flip side of the common pro-choice argument that sex has the risk of pregnancy, and a woman who has sex has to accept the consequences, that knife cuts both ways).
People are autonomous beings. Nothing, and I mean nothing gives one of them an absolute power over the life of another (leaving aside issues of criminal conduct and the social contract). If this were about anything other than pregnancy, and someone suggested one person had the right to veto the choice of another (lets say Tierney got a job offer, and his wife didn't like it, should she be allowed to veto his acceptance? I didn't think so. He might be wise to consult her, but nothing could be seen as reason for him to do so, much less make her opinions binding on him).
If this is his idea of admirable logic... could he please turn his coat, in fact, and publicly argue for the other side, instead of playing the stalking horse?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I'll
Date: 2006-01-12 08:28 pm (UTC)We are VERY good at what we do. and you are right, carry condoms..saves you a WORLD of trouble.
Re: I'll
Date: 2006-01-12 08:51 pm (UTC)TK
Re: I'll
Date: 2006-01-12 11:55 pm (UTC)Re: I'll
Date: 2006-01-18 12:20 pm (UTC)Re: I'll
Date: 2006-01-18 01:16 pm (UTC)Re: I'll
Date: 2006-01-18 03:52 pm (UTC)Re: I'll
Date: 2006-01-18 05:46 pm (UTC)When they find them they tend to threaten them into providing support, by saying the father has a choice, start kicking in now, or get billed for all the state-supplied aid.
I seem to recall at least one case where the actual father was living with the mother, but she'd been married when the child was born. Calif. went after him for non-support and it got very ugly.
TK