Most conservatives do not know that the same Supreme Court, in the same term, that decided Roe v. Wade decided the equally revolutionary Gomez v. Perez (409 U.S. 535), which nullified the bastardy statutes of all 50 states and altered the common law of millennia regarding a man's obligations to his children.
Just as 38 years of unrestricted abortion has changed our nation, so has the revolutionary idea that the solemn obligations of a married man to his wife and his children can be contracted with a slut in the bathroom of a bar in a moment of foolishness.
A man undertakes the MORAL obligation to support the children of his wife's body when he marries her before witnesses and God, as a reciprocal to her obligation to bear only his children.
When pumping and dumping a slut, no such obligation has EVER existed, not in the entire history of the human race, until the Roe court announced this OTHER revolution in 1973.
Conservatives should be as outraged about this as they are about the Roe decision.
You mean Two sluts in a bathroom, right?
You babbled on for several paragraphs as if the man in such a situation were in any way better than the women he was involved with.
Larry Flint runs the place you normally post at one may safely assume.
Quite untrue. Under common law a man was always responsible for the support of his illegitimate children. Often wasn't effectively enforced, and prior to DNA testing was difficult to determine accurately, but it was the law.
A major plot line in the novel Tom Jones (1749), and many other stories of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_(law)
Personally, I know it is exceptionally weird, but I believe neither men nor women should engage in intercourse unless they're willing to take the chance that it will result in pregnancy and deal responsibly with the consequences (also known as new, utterly innocent human beings).
Fairly obviously, this does NOT allow for "pumping and dumping a slut."
BTW, I hold the man who would do such a thing in exactly the same respect as the women who would allow him to. Which ain't much.
In exchange for freeing fathers from having to pay to raise their bastard children, could we bring back adultery criminal penalties in full force? I don’t think the PUHLEEEEZEmen would be too happy about that either.