Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: zbigreddogz
The kid shouldn't be made to suffer because of the sins of it's parent.

So why should a man be made to suffer because of the sins of a woman? If a man is *innocent* of the charge of fathering a child, why should he loose a significant chunk of his paycheck for someone else's act? It is insane and immoral to me that a man should have to pay for another man's actions.

And what about his *true* biological children? Do they not loose part of their quality of life from their father's reduced income? Why should they have to suffer?

This is the ONLY place in US law where a person has to pay the penalty for another person's crime. Disgusting.

As far as the child in question goes; it is his *mother's* responsibility to either locate the true biological father or provide for her child on her own. (My mom did it.)

Heck, the Libs have a fit about the idea of forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want. Where does the rights of the child trump the rights of the mother in *that* situation?

33 posted on 01/09/2006 1:34:16 AM PST by Marie (Support the Troops. Slap a hippy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Marie
So why should a man be made to suffer because of the sins of a woman? If a man is *innocent* of the charge of fathering a child, why should he loose a significant chunk of his paycheck for someone else's act? It is insane and immoral to me that a man should have to pay for another man's actions.

You are completely missing the point. First off, fathering a child is not a crime, and you can't be 'innocent' if it.

Second, he may not have fathered the child, but he accepted responsibility for it by calling it his own at birth. He's now accepted responsibility for the kid. It merely requires him to live up to his responsibility.

This is the ONLY place in US law where a person has to pay the penalty for another person's crime. Disgusting.

Rediculous. Again, this isn't a crime, and I'm pretty sure this isn't unique to the US. It's a legal principle that is hundreds of years old.

Heck, the Libs have a fit about the idea of forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want. Where does the rights of the child trump the rights of the mother in *that* situation?

Do you realize what you are saying?

If you are arguing the pro-abortion side, you just did a great job. But if you are pro-life like me, you just made my point.

51 posted on 01/09/2006 2:06:40 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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