Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:21:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
245 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Of course fatherhood isn't simply a
> matter of chromosome donation (in fact, that's the least of it). But I'm
> saying that a person forced into the role of fatherhood against his will and
> through no fault of his own (that is to say, because he didn't donate the
> chromosomes) should not be legally bound to support those children against his
> will. If he chooses to do so, as in the case of adoption, that's admirable,
> but forcing it upon him--and, conversely, on the children--is more harmful
> than
> helpful.
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 whatsoever. Just because at some point he had
sex with the child's mother, he is legally responsible to raise her child?
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
