Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:57:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
334 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> 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
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
