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: The Philosopher who wrote (17201)	6/20/2001 5:50:28 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I wasn't saying the "John" or "Jill" should try to get out of supporting the child. I simply said they should sue the hooker for cash. This is a civil suit. A service has been agreed upon and paid for and the "John/Jill" has been harmed financially as a result. The criminal court can still prosecute the prostitute for breaking prostitution laws. The "John/Jill" likewise can be charged with a crime. If a drug dealer burns down your house lighing a joint, you can sue him; right? If the civil case for prostitutes were tested and won, it would go a long way for bringing the weight of responsibility more to the center. I am sure it would have some ramifications as a precident for other types of sloppy sex.