Is this what we 'raise' now in this country? Two Marines held in Redding attack on pregnant woman

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:05 PM GMT
    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/21/4646568/two-marines-held-in-redding-attack.html
    "Redding police said Lance Swann apparently was so desperate to escape the responsibilities of fatherhood that he coordinated the attack on his ex-girlfriend."

    This angers me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:09 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/21/4646568/two-marines-held-in-redding-attack.html
    "Redding police said Lance Swann apparently was so desperate to escape the responsibilities of fatherhood that he coordinated the attack on his ex-girlfriend."

    This angers me.

    As a retired Marine yourself it should. And everyone should be angered by this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:17 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/21/4646568/two-marines-held-in-redding-attack.html
    "Redding police said Lance Swann apparently was so desperate to escape the responsibilities of fatherhood that he coordinated the attack on his ex-girlfriend."

    This angers me.

    As a retired Marine yourself it should.



    your statements demonstrate the flawed assumption thatbeing accepted (or just wanting to join) marines somehow means someone is inherently more noble than a civilian.

    Marines are trained to kill; what would be remarkable would be if it were a priest and a rabbi.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:21 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    Art_Deco said
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/21/4646568/two-marines-held-in-redding-attack.html
    "Redding police said Lance Swann apparently was so desperate to escape the responsibilities of fatherhood that he coordinated the attack on his ex-girlfriend."

    This angers me.

    As a retired Marine yourself it should.

    your statements demonstrate the flawed assumption thatbeing accepted (or just wanting to join) marines somehow means someone is inherently more noble than a civilian.

    Marines are trained to kill; what would be remarkable would be if it were a priest and a rabbi.

    Those in the military are trained to kill the enemy, not everyone in sight. Likewise civilian police are trained to use deadly force when needed, not inflict it on the innocent.

    Discrimination in the use of force is taught along with the capability of employing it. It is the misuse of that training that offends, not the knowledge of it. With the ability of using force comes the responsibility of restraint, and the greater personal burden than others have, that these Marines appear to have dishonored. Along with the basic ethical training they ignored.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 21, 2012 6:26 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    Marines are trained to kill


    Point of clarification (not attack): Marines are trained to be faithful to their mission. The missions of our armed forces include a terrible lot more than killing and most certainly does NOT include killing civilians.

    I do think people who choose to join the armed forces are generally more noble than the rest of us, but I'm a sucker for army guys anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:29 PM GMT
    We're talking about marines. No offense to the marines, but y'alls branch has more than just an ego problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:35 PM GMT
    I'm speaking about the "morals" of our youth and the irresponsibility/hypocrisy that accompanies it.icon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:35 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidWe're talking about marines. No offense to the marines, but y'alls branch has more than just an ego problem.
    What are ya'll talkin bout?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:45 PM GMT
    That the USMC has more than just an ego problem.

    TropicalMark said
    ConfederateGhost saidWe're talking about marines. No offense to the marines, but y'alls branch has more than just an ego problem.
    What are ya'll talkin bout?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:46 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidThat the USMC has more than just an ego problem.

    TropicalMark said
    ConfederateGhost saidWe're talking about marines. No offense to the marines, but y'alls branch has more than just an ego problem.
    What are ya'll talkin bout?
    And that is? C'mon.. spit it out!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:52 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidThat the USMC has more than just an ego problem.

    TropicalMark said
    ConfederateGhost saidWe're talking about marines. No offense to the marines, but y'alls branch has more than just an ego problem.
    What are ya'll talkin bout?

    First of all, TropicalMark said nothing about his honorable Marine past. *I* did that, so please direct your comments to me.

    My Army career included frequent contact with Marines. In fact, Marines attended the Army MP school for their police training, where I was on staff. Interservice rivalries aside, Army officers of my acquaintance admired & respected Marines. Maybe a bit hung-ho at times for our tastes, but we still envied what they did. Being proud of an honored reputation & tradition is not necessarily being egotistical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 6:57 PM GMT
    Go back to square one and try again.

    I wasn't demeaning anyones service to country. I was stating an obvious truth.


    Art_Deco said
    ConfederateGhost saidThat the USMC has more than just an ego problem.

    TropicalMark said
    ConfederateGhost saidWe're talking about marines. No offense to the marines, but y'alls branch has more than just an ego problem.
    What are ya'll talkin bout?

    First of all, TropicalMark said nothing about his honorable Marine past. *I* did that, so please direct your comments to me.

    My Army career included frequent contact with Marines. In fact, Marines attended the Army MP school for their police training, where I was on staff. Interservice rivalries aside, Army officers of my acquaintance admired & respected Marines. Maybe a bit hung-ho at times for our tastes, but we still envied what they did. Being proud of an honored reputation is not necessarily being egotistical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:01 PM GMT
    Outside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:06 PM GMT
    Caslon20000 saidOutside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?

    Not with his boot to her stomach, which is the issue here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:07 PM GMT
    Caslon20000 saidOutside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?
    Nope.. 'you splooge, you lose'™!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:08 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Caslon20000 saidOutside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?

    Not with his boot to her stomach, which is the issue here.

    I agree.

    The issue of being a marine is inane. It doesnt matter if the man is a marine or not.

    And the discussion of marine ego is just as inane, but not as morally repulsive.

    But outside of this specific instance....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:09 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidI wasn't demeaning anyones service to country. I was stating an obvious truth. That Marines have "more than just an ego problem"]

    Please present your evidence for this "obvious truth." What you are defending is an obvious stereotype.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:12 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Caslon20000 saidOutside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?
    Nope.. 'you splooge, you lose'™!

    If it's his child from "spooge," then shouldnt he have a say in the baby's birth. She was just as complicit in the act and thereby consenting to the risk of carrying the child as much as he was consenting to support a child.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:14 PM GMT
    Caslon20000 said
    TropicalMark said
    Caslon20000 saidOutside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?
    Nope.. 'you splooge, you lose'™!

    If it's his child from "spooge," then shouldnt he have a say in the baby's birth. She was just as complicit in the act and thereby consenting to the risk of carrying the child as much as he was consenting to support a child.
    They are both responsible for that child being conceived, they are both responsible for its survival to adulthood.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:18 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Caslon20000 said
    TropicalMark said
    Caslon20000 saidOutside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?
    Nope.. 'you splooge, you lose'™!

    If it's his child from "spooge," then shouldnt he have a say in the baby's birth. She was just as complicit in the act and thereby consenting to the risk of carrying the child as much as he was consenting to support a child.
    They are both responsible for that child being conceived, they are both responsible for its survival to adulthood.

    Then why does the woman get the right to abort a child, even if the man wants it? She shouldnt be able to claim it's in her body, cuz she knew that was a risk. Just like one argues the man cant abjure his responsibility since he spooged in her. Is it fair that she can let herself off the hook over his objections, if he can get off the hook over her objections? They both knew the risk equally.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:30 PM GMT
    Caslon20000 said
    Art_Deco said
    Caslon20000 saidOutside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?

    Not with his boot to her stomach, which is the issue here.

    I agree.

    The issue of being a marine is inane. It doesnt matter if the man is a marine or not.

    And the discussion of marine ego is just as inane, but not as morally repulsive.

    But outside of this specific instance....

    Your logic would also require that a man be allowed to block an abortion, as well as demand one. But in US law he can do neither.

    I'm not sure of the legal theory behind this. Perhaps because impregnation always requires the conscious choice of the man, but may not reflect the choice of the woman. (The Biblical story of the drunken Lot and his daughters notwithstanding) A man must therefore accept the consequences of his sexual actions, and loses the ability to further influence the outcome, which becomes the exclusive decision of the pregnant woman.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 7:34 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Caslon20000 said
    Art_Deco said
    Caslon20000 saidOutside of marriage, if a woman has the right to abort a baby without the man's consent, should the man have the right to abure responsibility for the baby if the woman refuses to abort?

    Not with his boot to her stomach, which is the issue here.

    I agree.

    The issue of being a marine is inane. It doesnt matter if the man is a marine or not.

    And the discussion of marine ego is just as inane, but not as morally repulsive.

    But outside of this specific instance....

    Your logic would also require that a man be allowed to block an abortion, as well as demand one.

    Precisely. If the woman can hold the man responsible, then why cant he hold her responsible in the case of a pregnancy and require her to carry the child? She can hold him responsible and require child support.

    The current system seems unfair to the father. The woman can fuck with abandon and then abort the child if she doesnt want it, but the man doesnt have any such option. But both are equally responsible for the pregnancy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2012 12:56 AM GMT


    I read the article. In it the pregnant woman had previously gone to an abortion clinic (she'd asked friends to take her there) but then decided to carry the child to term instead. This is where a change in law should be examined. In such a case the father should have been able to sign a document absolving himself of all financial responsibility as the woman had changed her mind.

    Pretty ghastly event.

    If he had worn a condom to begin with none of this would have happened.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2012 5:30 AM GMT
    Caslon20000 saidThe current system seems unfair to the father. The woman can fuck with abandon and then abort the child if she doesnt want it, but the man doesnt have any such option. But both are equally responsible for the pregnancy.

    Your last point is an assumption. The man can always be held responsible, because penetrating with a hardon and ejaculating requires a conscious decision. Maybe a drunken one, but not so drunk that he can't perform.

    A woman, on the other hand, can be totally unconscious when she's penetrated. Or forced to have sex against her will. I can't recall any cases where men were forced to have sex against their wills.