Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:54:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> we're talking about a man who has been
> deceived--deliberately or not--into accepting financial and moral
> responsibility for a deadbeat's offspring.
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
