In England since the sixteenth century. I have seen this question raised time and again on the internet. I assume it is raised either dishonestly or from immense ignorance.
Burn of the Day
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Challenge accepted.
Yves, we find your terms acceptable.
Amazing how many on the left think this is some sort of “gotcha.” As though any pro- lifer wouldn’t take this deal in a baby’s heartbeat.
It’s really not that hard. Just don’t sleep with people you don’t have children with. And in many states if you’re married, child support is awarded against the husband even if he isn’t the biological father. Marriage as far as the Civil Authorities are concerned is “where do we send the bills?” #send them to Dad
This “proposal” would be the pendulum swinging back toward the midpoint, and sanity.
Ancient Roman men had absolute rights over their infants, including the right to “expose” them to die if unwanted. At the time, the biological theory was that the seed came from the father and the mother provided only a suitable place to grow.
More modern biology revealed the genetic contribution of both parents, but feminists succeeded (as they always do) in blowing past equality to female dominance. They claimed complete ownership of the infant up to and including the right to “abort” the pregnancy at their sole discretion.
It would be at least *equality* if both parents must consent to kill a child. Of course, Christians and any others who do not believe in slaughtering innocents should not play this game. I’m looking at you liberal gals. If you don’t believe in death row, if you’re vegan, if fur is murder, you shouldn’t believe in abortion.
(I have little hope for such women, though. As CS Lewis once asked “What do they teach them in these schools?”)
Eh, there’s more to a father’s role than the payments. And there’s a whole subculture in the US (across races, but strongest in urban areas) that doesn’t take fatherhood seriously. So I give half a point to Yves and half a point to McClarey.
The financial support is only part of a father’s duties, but that is the part that a court can compel. Compelling someone to be a good parent is beyond the capabilities of any court, as I have had amply demonstrated by cases over my 43 years at the bar. I would note that adoption is always an option for people who do not wish to, or cannot, be good parents, an option often not thought of by people who pose this type of question.
Right before my wife and I become Catholic we were watching the former UMC’s General Conference, where every four years they would get together to waste time trying to turn the denomination gay by approving same-sex marriage. To be fair, it was fairly entertaining viewing.
Anyway, during one of the sessions someone thought they had a “gotcha” and proposed an amendment (or whatever it was) to apply the same disciplinary standards to pastors who got divorced as were applied to those in same-sex relationships. The rationale provided was that if the argument is that the Bible says that same-sex intercourse/relationships are sinful, then they should be consistent since it says similar things about divorce. (The person might have also thrown in contraception, but I can’t remember.)
My wife and I I looked at each other and then back at the livestream and both said at the same time: “Sir, your terms are acceptable!”