Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Jan 2001 22:12:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
402 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| 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 (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (24 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
|
|
|
|
