Quote:
|
Originally Posted by somerfrost
Brian...so what you are saying is that because these two women behaved immorally (in your opinion) that relieves the man of his moral responsibility? How does that jive with free will and individual responsibility?? And a human being is never "property"...a parent has a MORAL responsibility to care for, protect and educate a young child, that involves setting rules and limits and controlling aspects of the child's life but that does not constitute "ownership"...the fact that so many folks see children as something they are "entitled to " is part of the problem.
|
If a biological mother gives her child up for adoption and a man and a woman adopt the child -- if those two break up, is it right for the female adoptive parent to hunt down the biological mother for financial support? Of course not, she is the mother, she is not the parent. People who become parents through adoption or sperm donation are taking on the responsibilities of parenting -- that very act relieves the biological mother or father of their parenting responsibilities. That's what sperm donors are for -- so that women can become pregnant without another man having claim on their child. So why does this donor's lack of anonyminity make this case somehow different from an anonymous donor?
They are the same thing. Biologically he is the father, but he is not the
parent. Now that their relationship went to crap, this lady wants him to be posthumously financially the parent?
It's all about good faith. Somer, let's say you needed $10,000 to make sure your house wouldn't get foreclosed on. If I had lots of money, I'd certainly be willing to give that to you if you asked me to help save your house. Now if you turn around and use that money to hire a hitman to kill your neighbor, and then try to blame it on me and make me accept criminal responsibility for it because it was my money and I should have been responsible in giving it away -- well, it would sort of be as outlandish as this scenario.