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: Rambi who wrote (79071)	11/12/2003 5:38:06 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Sounds reasonable. But if the father won't pay, then society will have too. I hope all those super caring people out there won't mind putting their hands in their pockets to help these unfortunate little tykes. And there's a lot more reason to help them than just compassion and "morality" (whatever that is)- we help and protect ourselves by helping children grow up healthy and educated. It is the neglected, the abused and the ignorant that grow up to scavenge upon the rest of us- I don't really care if the sperm donor gets off the hook, but someone must pay to make sure every child gets a decent start. And people who don't want children to get a decent start, even if it costs money- how decent can they be?

To: Rambi who wrote (79071)	11/13/2003 12:52:26 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"it seems unfair for the woman to have the choice, and the man to not have one, and still be financially responsible. I think that sounds reasonable." I disagree. The argument has sound but no substance. The man earned the accountability for his action. But intercourse did not give him privilege over the body of another. In circumstances he may be entitled to claim damages. He may not, however, claim the fetus as his own property. He ought to be financially accountable for what he is responsible for... The point is that the man DID have a choice--hence his responsibility. This was the choice of intercourse with possible consequences. This choice is separate from the choice of motherhood which belongs only to the mother. As I said, if she mislead him he ought to have the right to claim damages; but he may never have a right to her body. He cannot rape her for his values and he cannot force her in any other way for his values. No more can the Government or any of his other relatives...

To: Rambi who wrote (79071)	11/13/2003 2:55:25 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Respond to of 82486

I had a friend who pulled that stunt. She assured her significant-other that there was no chance of her becoming pregnant. He had absolutely no desire to be a father. Time was, she had no desire to be a mother to anything but her cocker spaniel. Well she became pregnant and opted to keep the child and stiff (it's the law) the hapless man for substantial child support. It did not hurt that he was quite well off financially, but so was she. Did I mention she is a former friend? I lost all respect for her because of this caper.