| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > Well, it's rude to back out of the deal I suppose, but at the same time, if • you
> > > can get a little cash out of it and send the kid to a better family, then why
> > > not?
> >
> > But how did the mother know it was a "better family"?
>
> > > > Pity for the US family involved (The Allens):
> > >
> > > It is a shame when your past crimes haunt you.
> > >
> > > > “Mrs Allen was an unfit mother because she had an old conviction
> > > > for embezzlement.”
>
> > Fun aside, I have no way of knowing if the embezzlement charge is true or
> > relevant.
>
> Well, I think it's better that it be up to the people involved, rather than
> some strange bystander (you),
or you?
> to determine what a "better" family is. Some
> people think that a religious family would be an important ingredient in "good"
> or "better" but I don't.
Me neither. Some religious values are *good* though.
> So if I were to give/sell a baby,
Should one have the right to buy and sell humans - is that not akin to slavery?
> I wouldn't want
> those other people applying their philosophy to my life.
If one does not want a baby, once born, why should they be able to choose
where it ends?
>
> You and I don't know what the embezzlement charge is or even if it is
> completely made up.
I do not even know what constitutes "embezzlement" in US law.
> But (I guess unlike you) I trust people to use their sense
> and wisdom every day.
Indeed.
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: FA – Babies
|
| (...) you (...) Well, I think it's better that it be up to the people involved, rather than some strange bystander (you), to determine what a "better" family is. Some people think that a religious family would be an important ingrediant in "good" or (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
