Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:04:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
308 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
>
> > I agree that the man is taking the hit in this case, and he definitely has my
> > sympathy, but the greatest consideration should be given to the child.
>
> Why?
More specifically, why should the child be given greater consideration than a
more-or-less arbitrarily chosen man?
Remember--in this thought experiment we're not discussing a man who has
agreed knowingly to act as the father-figure for the child of another man, and
who thereafter abandons the child; we're talking about a man who has been
deceived--deliberately or not--into accepting financial and moral
responsibility for a deadbeat's offspring.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) I think that something we've been forgetting is that the "deadbeat" might very well be the victim too. There is no knowing that he knows there is a child in the world of his genetic lineage. Just a point, Chris (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Once the man is known as Dad in the child's eyes, he is no longer just another man. As to why the child should be given greater consideration, even if you don't believe it is the right thing to do, from a pragmatic standpoint it is better for (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
