Showing posts with label children as property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children as property. Show all posts

December 21, 2009

mc on father's rights and children as property






mc Says:

December 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Marriage was a contract. A man promised to provide, and a woman promised him exclusive use of her womb. He paid her to bear his children. That's why they assumed his name. That's why up until 200 years ago they were considered his property until they came of age. This is how fatherhood became an institution and a cornerstone of civilization, rather than the random mating activity that is more commonly seen in Nature.


Read this again slowly a second time. Are you disgusted also?

Mark on children being property *taken from the GS blog)






Mark Says:

December 19th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
To be honest I tend to favor a return to the idea that children of married parents are the property of the father, and children of unmarried parents have no father. In the first case is discourages divorce because there will be no child support payments. In the second case in discourages having children outside of marriage because there will be no child support payments.


Now let's take this apart word by word, okay?

To be honest I tend to favor a return to the idea that children of married parents are the property of the father, and children of unmarried parents have no father.Okay children are property? And a child born to an unwed mother is a bastard? That is what the good ol' days said about children and Mark wants to go back there?

In the first case is discourages divorce because there will be no child support payments. No child support payments? Maybe we are now getting to the truth of the matter....

In the second case in discourages having children outside of marriage because there will be no child support payments. I really think we have hit the nail on the head. Mark wants COMPLETE CONTROL and NO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS....
enter