 | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) 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? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | He's not much of a victim - it was HIS choice to take the risk of causing a pregnancy (even IF birth control methods were used) - no sympathy from me there. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) there. So you wouldn't feel victimized if you found out that you had a ten year old son that had been kept from you? I would. Chris (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | I meant he wouldn't be much of a victim to be forced to pay child support due to his previous action. I thought that was obvious. I KNOW *I* don't have any children in the world, and never will. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) If he wasn't informed about the pregnancy in a timely manner and if he would have willingly taken on the responsiblility had he known, I think it's fair to say he's a victim in all this too. Maggie C. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | So the only one that isn't a victim is the non-biological father forced to pay child support? That's the largest pile of bovine dung I've ever heard! (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) No, I agree he's a victim too. If anyone is not a victim in all this it would be the mother, who should have informed both of her partners of the possibility that either of them could be the father at the very beginning. Maggie C. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) pay (...) possibility (...) I don't usually do this, but... Yeah! What she said. I certainly never meant to imply that the false-father wasn't a vicitim. He's the worst one. Chris (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Family values? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Family values? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (snipped, but I don't think unduely so) (...) At the same time, society has already invested a great deal of resources into the adult and almost none into the kid. From the point of view of "society," doesn't it make more sense to value the adult? (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
