-=> Quoting Legend #130 @1810006*1 to Shotgun #1 @1360000*1 <=-

 L#@> Re: And then again.....

 >      Since there isn't any requirement to be able to support children when
 > someone is getting them started, I don't see why it should be such a great
 > issue later.  People who can't (for whatever reason) raise children, shouldn'
 > get them started.  If a parent then CHOOSES to leave, they shouldn't be able
 > to require the other parent to pay for their choice.
 >                                            Shotgun

 L#@> It isn't the other parent that is requiring them to pay support.  It
 L#@> is society.  The other parent is simply availing their child to the
 L#@> benefit of society's decision.

 <smiling> That's cute.

 L#@> need or use for support from their father.  However, I will not let him
 L#@> off the hook so he can start yet ANOTHER family when he's proved that
 L#@> he couldn't provide for his first one.  So the money goes into a trust

 "...not let him off the hook...". That's not society speaking now, is it?
 Perhaps ONE member of society. Sorry, sounds judgemental and vindictive
 to me.

 L#@> Basically, some of you guys sound like the sort of deadbeats that want
 L#@> to screw, feel proud that you can get some chick knocked up, like that
 L#@> makes you some kind of man, and if you can't maintain her respect, then
 L#@> you should be able to dump your responsibilities and start all over,
 L#@> previously affected lives be damned.
 L#@> <<The Legend>>

 Namecalling. BZZZT. Debate lost.
 Z�D!

... Remember: "Stressed" is just "desserts" spelled backward!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12