NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/men/23444

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 1.6 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:23444 alt.abortion.inequity:6755
Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!ulowell!m2c!bu.edu!stanford.edu!ames!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu!garrod
From: [e-mail] (David Garrod)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Back to responsibility
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:18:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 20

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
......
>
> A right to be supported? Yes. A right to get that support from a particular
> source or sources? Why? What's the justification? Does it really matter to
> the child whether his or next meal is paid for by Mommy's greenbacks, Daddy's
> greenbacks, taxpayer's greenbacks, or a combination of the above? Seems to
> me that the legislature only has a vital interest in whether the child is
> adequately supported. The question of WHERE that support comes from should
> be settled using common law notions of legal obligation, as I have proposed.
>
      I would suggest that the first obligated to support the child
      are BOTH of the parents.  (not necessarily equally, but according
      to their ability.)
      Only AFTER it has been shown that the parents do not have the
      capability should society, in general, support the child.

The KEY word, which you seem not to understand is RESPONSIBILITY.

See title!