Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Ignoring the irrelevant negative characterizations, I didn't say crafting the contract changed the law or that the requirement to have a clinic or doctor involved isn't reasonable, I'm saying that I think the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
|
And what I'm saying, and pretty much every jurisdiction I know of agrees, is that the best interests of the child come first, so if there is someone there with established paternity they should be required to pay for their child.
And the negative characterizations are completely relevant. This isn't adopting a pet, this is bringing a child into the world. The stakes are high, and homemade contracts shouldn't have any bearing in that situation. If you're dumb enough to engage in something like this you have to face the consequences.