Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (5846)	2/14/2001 6:19:27 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You're talking about allowing them to deny all responsibility for the product of their entertainment. I find this notion a bit jarring in the middle of a discussion about moral codes. Well, a woman has the absolute right to deny all responsibility for the product of her entertainment. She is free to get an abortion without the father having any right at all to object. If she doesn't want the responsibility of 18 years of personal and financial responsibility for the child, she can get out of it freely. All I am suggesting is that we need an equivalent right for the father. What is moral about allowing a mother, maybe after a single one-night stand where the protection failed, to have the absolute power to choose for both parties whether or not they will be responsible for raising a child (don't forget the State will be quite aggressive in getting the 18 years of child support out of the father even if it means his other children of a legal marriage go short) and giving the father no say whatsoever? Seems to me it takes two to tango, and there's nothing moral about sticking all the choice on one party and no options on the other.