|
|
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) No one here is saying that the man, having established his role as caring father, can just turn away when he pleases. The issue is that in cases involving deception, the decieved man should not be required to support the child of another man (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) In cases involving a minor's well-being, not just the letter but the spirit of the law must be weighed. Fraud or no, if the functioning father has demonstrated a commitment of care, love, involvement, etc. to his non-biological child, then he (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) I can't speak for Chris, but I will point out that as a human invention (and in the form we're discussing, a Modern Western Invention at that), marriage does not determine the moral correctness of anything. That is, of course, unless morality (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Why not? Bill gave reasons for why it is morally wrong - as a debate reader and sometime participant, I prefer well-reasoned rebuttals to "that's just the way it is" statements. Granted, something may fundamentally just Be, but tell me why. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) And what's much worse in this case is that one poor fellow is being forced to shoulder the responsibility for a child that is not his- and that the same courts give him no rights to see or have a hand in raising. That makes absolutely no sense (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) It isn't. (...) It needn't. (...) Well, I think that your main point here is that they should be prepared for the results. And I agree. But that doesn't mean that people have to get hurt. (...) Disagree. Most people, most of the time, are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Agreed, but in the case above he's required to tend both his own garden and the garden of some other, deadbeat gardener. That's where I have the problem. (...) I wasn't very precise in my statement. Of course fatherhood isn't simply a matter (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) But isn't this precisely the crux of the matter. This is why sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels (as illustrated in the article). It is not considered wrong because (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Well let me see. Woman gets pregnant. Lies (or isn't forthcoming with the truth) about who the father is. Damn right he shouldn't have to pay child support. It's called Fraud. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) little (...) Maybe he shouldn't plant the seed if he can't tend the garden. No really, the same could be said for the biological father of the child in question. He may not even know he is the father to this child and may have a family of his (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
