Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: zbigreddogz
A. Because he married her, and is now responsible for her.

Excuse me?

He's "responsible" for her when she's not responsible for herself. So long as she exercises the privileges of a citzen, he has ZERO responsibility for her.

Because a child is involved, and it would be far worse to suddenly have the person it's known as it's father ripped away from it. For whom? I think "for the children" as an excuse for state sponsored discrimination is wearing mighty thin these days.

It's a longstanding legal precident, that if you take responsibility for the child at it's birth, you are responsible forever.

From a time when women didn't exercise full citizenship, and enjoy minority protections even though a numerical majority!

he only knows his life as it was given to him, and he shouldn't be made to suffer for others.And he shouldn't be insulated from suffering at the expense of an unwilling foster-parent, either.

I am also pro-life, because I don't think that the child should be made to suffer because of the sins of the parents.

"Parents" don't have a thing to do with that. The only person that can put an unborn child to death is a Mother.

If the man was a man of character, he'd pay it without the court order.

So his character is questionable if he resists victimization? You're as bad as she is.

79 posted on 01/09/2006 2:39:57 AM PST by papertyger (We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: papertyger
Excuse me? He's "responsible" for her when she's not responsible for herself. So long as she exercises the privileges of a citzen, he has ZERO responsibility for her.

Yah, you're wrong.

Try that one out if your wife runs up a million dollars in credit and see how it goes. You won't like the results.

From a time when women didn't exercise full citizenship, and enjoy minority protections even though a numerical majority!

Yah, so what? A lot has changed since the Constitution was originally written too. Does that make all of it's ideas void?

"Parents" don't have a thing to do with that. The only person that can put an unborn child to death is a Mother.

That is perposterous unless you consider parenthood to be nothing more then having sex with results.

A father is more then a sperm doner.

So his character is questionable if he resists victimization?

No, he's of questionable character if he would ditch a person he called his son or daughter because of his own convenience.

88 posted on 01/09/2006 2:47:47 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson