I find it interesting that you had no response whatsoever to all the historical and modern reasons for declaring a legal father, nor for the reasons why other options were not -- and still are not always -- viable.
Instead you pick out two sentences and claim they make me "anti-husband." That type of response would appear to make YOU "anti-responsible," anti-children... Your solution -- "taxpayers should pick up the tab" -- is no longer an option with welfare reform. Despite your wistfull thinking, most citizens DO NOT AGREE that it is society's job to care for children who have no other recourse. The powers that be these days would rather remove the children from the mother who could not care for them, and sell them on the adoption market ... [oops, fees aren't "sales price," right?] ==== On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:20:29 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:58:51 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > <snip> >> Children HAVE to have a legal father whenever it is possible. The way >> our systems are set up, fathers are responsible for caring for their >> children. If a husband could simply say "Hey, they're not MY kids" then >> who would support the children? You & Me -- the taxpayers!! > <snip> > Your opinion on this matter is very anti-husband. > In cases where the biological father cannot be tracked down, then the > taxpayers should pick up the tab for supporting the children if the > mother cannot afford to do so herself, or if it appears that the mother > had conceived as a result of having been raped by an unknown attacker. <snip> > Also most > citizens will agree that it is the duty of the entire society to provide > for the welfare and well-being of children whose mothers cannot do so on > their own and whose fathers cannot be identified or whose fathers cannot > be made to pay child support for reasons of the father's unemployability > and/or lack of sufficient net worth. -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
