Replies

My way of interpreting the law, was compared to liberal Leahey's idea thereof by your recently departed commrade, Buddhaboy. Are you merely condemning my comparisions that so perfectly define those who share his views of the law, or are you also condemning his totally unrealistic comparision of my views with that scum bag liberal Leahey?

You have my permission to pick up his gauntlet, or any other debris that was dislodged from his crumbling castle of reasoning, built upon sand.

A living constitution, would be one that changes with the morality of the times, rolling whichever way the wind blows, like a tumble weed in the South West. Recognizing that all laws being enacted by imperfect man, are just as limited and imperfect as those who enact them, is permitting sanity and reason to be inserted into the spirit of the law, to at least partially address the shortcomings present in the letter of the law.A welcome mat at the open door of mercy and understanding, does not equate a surrender to barbarnism.

The woman should do the time for her crime-no problem. The child has committed no crime-her heart belongs to daddy-not the sperm donor-daddy's heart belonged to her-not one damn thing has changed between the innocent pair-their relationship is a little different than they were led to believe-so what? THey are still the same two people.

I'm with you here (although I think the Taliban comparison is probably a touch over the top ;-) )

Human relationships are not just dollars and cents. Unless this guy is just slime with no heart (and that's a possibility), he has deep ties to this little girl. You don't tend and cuddle and play with a child for five years and then just drop her and walk away, even if her mom betrayed you so hatefully. He's just not acknowledging his emotional and spiritual connection right now because he's mad at the mom. Who can blame him? He has a right to be mad at her. He has a right to his child support back if he was truly deceived (and it seems like he was). What he does NOT have a right to do is be mad at the child, it's not her fault. And this sort of abandonment IS harmful, I've seen it happen. Even if it doesn't happen in every case, he needs to have a couple of good friends take him aside and counsel him not to take away from this girl the only daddy she's ever known. To her, he IS her daddy, no matter what the DNA says, and he needs to acknowledge and honor that need on her part. He needs to do the right thing here and not hurt this child out of rage and spite at her mom. I'm certain that such a courageous act on his part will be rewarded later in life, somehow.

I've seen it happen before. I know a man who stepped into the breach without a moment's hesitation when the children's mother died (the father had died years before and the stepdad had married their mom.) When I knew him he was old - in his 80s - and his stepchildren adored and honored him and cared for him like a prince when he couldn't live alone any more because of health reasons. He lived across the street from us, and we would often go over to visit. He used to tell me, "Any man can be a daddy, but it takes a real man to be a stepdaddy."

A living constitution, would be one that changes with the morality of the times, rolling whichever way the wind blows, like a tumble weed in the South West. Recognizing that all laws being enacted by imperfect man, are just as limited and imperfect as those who enact them, is permitting sanity and reason to be inserted into the spirit of the law, to at least partially address the shortcomings present in the letter of the law.A welcome mat at the open door of mercy and understanding, does not equate a surrender to barbarnism.

Yes, but while in the best of all possible worlds both of our societies follow our respective laws, the mullahs don't amend their laws - We do. We are therefore free to change the letter of our laws as much as common consent will allow, instead of allowing the "spirit" of the law to be determined by judicial activists. (Yes, I know that activists get their day in the sun too, that's not the point). That, I think is the fundamental difference, that when someone says "rule of law", we all know what he's talking about, and either agree with the rule of law or work to change it without fear of being a soccer-game half-time show.

The woman should do the time for her crime-no problem. The child has committed no crime-her heart belongs to daddy-not the sperm donor-daddy's heart belonged to her-not one damn thing has changed between the innocent pair-their relationship is a little different than they were led to believe-so what?

Absolutely no argument with you there. The "father" and child's relationship are thier's alone to work out.

I think you misapprehend the potential relationship between the "sperm donor" and the daughter. Because of the woman's deceit, they may never have a father/daughter relationship, and the denial of that right by the mother is purely evil, regardless of her intentions.

their relationship is a little different than they were led to believe-so what? THey are still the same two people.

The man who was duped has found out that his relationship is a LOT "different" than he was led to believe, and the unknown fellow who is the biological father has a pretty powerful relationship that he knew nothing about.

Will the child be hurt? Absolutely. Who's actions made that hurt inevitable? I don't think we disagree that any harm that comes to the little girl is undeserved. To make that harm inexcusable is the fact that this was all avoidable from the start.