Addendum. And I have a point for you.
I should have said that I agree with the quoted statement as written.
I'll buy your argument that "the only principal involved is the woman" if and only if you buy the proposition that the biological father to an out of wedlock pregnant teen is held harmless by any decision the "woman" makes.
An out of wedlock teen pregnancy is a mistake. Once pregnant, a decision needs to be made. Whatever decision is made, if the sperm contributing partner has no say in the next decision, he shouldn't be held accountable for the consequences of that decision.
But that's not the way the law currently works, is it? Better to leave it out of the law entirely.
Edited by
mmoffitt
Oct. 21, 2011, 09:39:07 AM EDT
Addendum. And I have a point for you.
I should have said that I agree with the quoted statement as written.
I'll buy your argument that "the only principal involved is the woman" if and only if you buy the proposition that the biological father to an out of wedlock pregnant teen is held harmless by any decision the "woman" makes.
An out of wedlock teen pregnancy is a mistake. Once pregnant, a decision needs to be made. Whatever decision is made, if the sperm contributing partner has no say in the next decision, he shouldn't be held accountable for the consequences of that decision.
But that's not the way the law currently works, is it?