You know, I have a BIG problem with the assumption that "your parents did enter into a contract when they had you."

I think this is just as big and stupid an assumption as is that of the state.

I'm not saying that it's not a pretty good deal most of the time, but to enshrine it as some kind of "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS!!! thing is a bit much.

- NonE

I hope I'm not thread-jacking here. I just felt a need to say this, as everyone seems to accept that premise, including Stef, and I think it is fallacious.

{edit} In fact, it is the same kind of argument "the state" makes about a "social contract," and it's total bullshit. (to put it delicately!) A contract requires a meeting of the minds and an exchange of value.

but parents make a decision to have a baby (even when they just don't take birth control) so it does seem to be a unilateral positive obligation implicit contract, wouldn't you say? (and I will raise hell - hell I tell you - if you don't say so)

Okay, I'm ready! Have at me! "I don't say so."

There. Go for it! ;-)

Unilateral Positive Obligation. Hmm. I like the ring of that. I think I could build a great empire around that concept.

I didn't make no damned decision at all, I just got laid. And if I were young and catholic I probably wouldn't even understand what was involved in said layment. (Is that a real word? Jeeze. Sounds kinda cool. Can we make it a word if it isn't already?)

(Besides, I don't believe in hell, so you're REALLY gonna have to do a good job on me with this hell thing. )

- NonE

P.S. I actually have a pretty good argument, but I'm really looking forward to your wrath first, so you're gonna hafta wait for the good stuff.