Should a man be ordered to pay child support for a child he does not want?

LegalFictions

Member
Joined
May 22, 2018
Messages
17
In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973) (“the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life”), the United States Supreme Court held that a zygote is not alive as a matter of constitutional law. However, a man cannot pass his DNA to a zygote that is not alive. Therefore, as a matter of constitutional law, there cannot be any such thing as “his” child.
 
Werbung:
Simply make a DNA test on the child and you will see, that the child is genetically related to you. Splitting words doesn't change your responsibility.

As a matter of constitutional law, a man cannot make a child at conception. Unless, of course, a zygote is alive and the Court lied. Did the Court lie?
 
If a child is born and therefore, as over all history, recognised to be now a human being, obviously the father should pay at least a part of its upbringing, especially if he refused to use birth control.
 
In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973) (“the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life”), the United States Supreme Court held that a zygote is not alive as a matter of constitutional law. However, a man cannot pass his DNA to a zygote that is not alive. Therefore, as a matter of constitutional law, there cannot be any such thing as “his” child.
Not until the child is born, at least. That's when the father's responsibility to pay child support begins. Unfortunately, the best that can be done for an irresponsible father is to make him pay a little money. There is no way to make him into a real father.
 
If a child is born and therefore, as over all history, recognised to be now a human being, obviously the father should pay at least a part of its upbringing, especially if he refused to use birth control.
You ignored my question: Did the Court lie?
 
As a matter of constitutional law, a man cannot make a child at conception. Unless, of course, a zygote is alive and the Court lied. Did the Court lie?
Under no circumstance would I see that the Court told a lie. In your mind they may have acted erroneously, but that does not fall under a black and white lie.

A lot of confusion comes from the fact that "human" can be both a noun and adjective. Also "alive" can have different meanings. The legal definition of human clearly refers to the time after birth. Some argue that a zygote is human, because it's not a cow zygote, etc. In this case "human" is an adjective and doesn't fall under the legal definition. In the legal definition "human" is a noun.

IMHO
 
Under no circumstance would I see that the Court told a lie. In your mind they may have acted erroneously, but that does not fall under a black and white lie.

A lot of confusion comes from the fact that "human" can be both a noun and adjective. Also "alive" can have different meanings. The legal definition of human clearly refers to the time after birth. Some argue that a zygote is human, because it's not a cow zygote, etc. In this case "human" is an adjective and doesn't fall under the legal definition. In the legal definition "human" is a noun.

IMHO
I am sorry, but you did not answer MY question: Did the Court lie about a zygote not being alive? As a matter of biology, a zygote inherits DNA; therefore, as a matter of biology, a zygote is alive. However, the Court held that a zygote is not alive as a matter of constitutional law. Therefore, a zygote cannot inherit DNA as a matter of constitutional law. Unless, of course, the Court lied about a zygote not being alive. Did the Court lie about a zygote not being alive?
 
I am sorry, but you did not answer MY question: Did the Court lie about a zygote not being alive? As a matter of biology, a zygote inherits DNA; therefore, as a matter of biology, a zygote is alive. However, the Court held that a zygote is not alive as a matter of constitutional law. Therefore, a zygote cannot inherit DNA as a matter of constitutional law. Unless, of course, the Court lied about a zygote not being alive. Did the Court lie about a zygote not being alive?
I hope you stretched before trying that twist. It would be unfortunate to add injury to the mix.
 
I am sorry, but you did not answer MY question: Did the Court lie about a zygote not being alive? As a matter of biology, a zygote inherits DNA; therefore, as a matter of biology, a zygote is alive. However, the Court held that a zygote is not alive as a matter of constitutional law. Therefore, a zygote cannot inherit DNA as a matter of constitutional law. Unless, of course, the Court lied about a zygote not being alive. Did the Court lie about a zygote not being alive?
Maybe I wasn't clear. The court did not lie. They were making a legal judgment, not a biological judgment. Discussions like this always get bogged down in crosstalk where defining "alive" by different people come from biological, moral, religious, and legal perspectives. You are conflating the biological with the legal.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top