"So, you would be willing to forgive a crook that defrauded you out of your house because it benefited the thief's child. You understand this principle can be applied to that, don't you? In the end of it, you can be unwilling to let the con man off for that, but the courts rules against you because of the precedent where a child is involved.
You folks learn how to think past the first coat of paint. Look around you. The nation is falling into brainless socialism precisely because of such thinking. It is liberal thinking. Are you a conservative?"
Oh I am very much a conservative. I love my family. I'm sure you love yours, too.
We are talking about FAMILY here. This woman he is suing is his 'partner' (translation: He has been living with her like a wife). The child is his daughter in every way but blood. As far as the child is concerned, he IS her father. This was a FAMILY.
In the example you gave, their was no parent / child relationship. If you cannot see that this situation is not the same as letting a crook steal your money or your stuff there is nothing I can say that will make this any clearer.
I said that if this man could walk away from this little girl after 5 years of being her father he was cold as ice.
I stand by that. He may sue and he may win his money back, but he is a moral loser.
There are no "buts" to Conservatism. Not for Family, not for anything. No exceptions. When you find exceptions in the Constitution, please let us know.
We are talking about FAMILY here. This woman he is suing is his 'partner' (translation: He has been living with her like a wife). The child is his daughter in every way but blood. As far as the child is concerned, he IS her father. This was a FAMILY. This not a conservative idea, no matter how conservative you think you are. Our system or law and customs revolve, and linked into our entire inheritance and social systems, around blood lineage.
As far back as you want to go to the genesis of our law and customs, blood lineage has been the point of family, not the safety of children, except as it it coldly pertains to the interests of the state and society's extension into the future.
Conservative is keeping what has been held valuable in the past, having been the result of many centuries of men and women socializing, working and living together. These ideas, no-fault divorce, "it's all for the children", are not conservative ideas and virtually guarantee the destruction of our western civilization.
The only reason that the common law, both American and it's English source, made it the presumption that a child in a marriage was the man's is because there was no way to absolutly prove it. However, in the rare cases it could be proven that the child wasn't, the consequences were harsh beyond imagining for the woman (but also for the man if he were proven to have stepped outside the marriage).
So, no, you are not a conservative; you have been conditioned with ideas the conditioning agent said were conservative. Such agencies have been trying to break down our system of law for decades because on that rests the foundation of our constitutions, which make us different and better than other forms of government, and which isolate us from the rulership of men by ruling us with laws. And, as you see, it has been effective; you have no idea that this thing has been done to you.
