Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: "Jon Enslin" <jenslin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Mar 2006 05:57:42 -0800
stephenj wrote:
Jon Enslin wrote:
Bryan S. Slick wrote:
Uhhh....I never claimed it was either. Just that it was a difference
that means that the rights of a man and a woman are therefore do not
necessarily have to be the same.
seems to me that enright has pointed to some problems in the law and/or
how they are enforced. if i had to bet the root cause is that these laws
were crafted during a time when women were generally-speaking 2nd class
citizens such that a woman who couldn't attach herself to a first-class
citizen, a man, was in deep trouble socially. and one who was left
rearing a kid by herself was in the worst possible position. so laws on
paternity and child support and whatnot were tilted in the woman's favor
out of recognition of her greater social dependency and vulnerability.
While I would agree with you, this has strayed pretty far from the
issue that was first brought up - that a man should not have to pay
child support for a child that was conceived without his intention.
That is clearly wrong.
Jon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: alicamdun
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: estebanJ
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- References:
- Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: stephenj
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: Bryan S . Slick
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: rich hammett
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: alicamdun
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: Jon Enslin
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: alicamdun
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: Jon Enslin
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: Bryan S . Slick
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: Jon Enslin
- Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- From: stephenj
- Roe v. Wade for Men?
- Prev by Date: Re: Sixteen Years Ago Today
- Next by Date: Re: Bill O'Reilly is Seriously Losing It....
- Previous by thread: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- Next by thread: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading