Replies

Charity and love is all I'm arguing for, not state control of families. You inserted an argument I didn't make.

Respectfully, Ma'am, you were responding to ETH's argument that the man should be allowed to walk away, without obligation.

Then that is all the more reason why duped dads should be allowed to walk upon learning they'd been deceived. ~~ ETH

In other words, punish the child for the mother's behavior. You care more about the man than the child, which is not surprising since we live in an age of "me me me."

Respectfully, the Bible is not a book of "me me me". But while it certainly has oceans of good (neh, infallible, of course!) things to say in favor of Charity and Love, when it comes to the making of Law (i.e., "what should the man be allowed to do in this situation"), ETH's position is 100% Biblically spot-on as it comes to the proper legal requirement.

What should the man, in this situation, be allowed to do?
Biblically, he should be allowed to walk away -- with zero Legal Obligation.

Fine, op. Side with the one who thinks its okay to break a 14 year bond with an innocent child who has done nothing. If it were me, I would care for her as my own out of love. I would consider it a moral obligation.

And yes...me me me...that's all I've heard on this thread. I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from a society that's devolved into hedonism.

Have a good night, op.

And I already said I wasn't arguing from a legal standpoint. Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument. Doesn't mean that a man should walk away and leave that child like he never knew her. That's punishing the child for the sins of the mother. An ugly thing to do.

Gotta run..