From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:45:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BrsJF4.7r8
Distribution: misc.kids
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:

>> So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
>> children??

>this is called "abandonment".  perhaps you've noticed that children are
>often not fully able to take care of themselves, and that they tend to
>have serious trouble eating and sleeping in warm dry places if there is
>no adult taking care of them.

>> Oh, I guess [the parents ...are] not allowed to have a say in their
>> own life.

>do you even understand what you're suggesting here?  do you know what
>principle would be in effect if the law permitted what you are here
>calling "divorce" ?

>--
>Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
>Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
><vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
><paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me

Well, think about it.  Hillary is saying that the 12-year old child
capable of making such a decision is basically an adult.  Which means
this kid is responsible for her/his decision to divorce, along with
everything that implies.  Now, let's assume the child *IS* that competent,
but doesn't want a divorce.  However, one or both parents *DO* want one.

Will Hillary support the parent who decides to divorce this "competent"
child?  Is that "abandonment" within the meaning of the word?  The 
question raised by the previous poster strikes right to the heart of the
matter.  What Hillary is requesting is a remarkably subtle break-down of
the concept of what constitutes a family.  

The concept of family assumes that there exist ties between individuals
which can never be sundered.  Formerly, marriage was such a tie - once
made, sundering it was so impracticable as to be non-existent.  However,
our society has largely made that an historical relic.  We still hold,
however, that ties of biology and genetics are non-sunderable ties.
Even though we divorce each other, our daughters and sons are still "our"
family - the family has upwards of two or three sets of parents/grandparents
perhaps, but the children still  constitute "our" family in an ineffable
way.

These biological ties are being destroyed even as we speak, however.
We can look at the popularity of in-vitro fertilization with anonymous
donor sperm, surrogate motherhood, donated eggs, donated uteruses -
everything that makes the biological tie binding is being trivialized
and blown away by the twin tornadoes of technology and social mores.
According to the Tennessee ruling on frozen embryos, men can choose not
to be fathers.  Women can already choose not to be mothers any time they
wish.  Men have grabbed that "de facto" right by walking out on  pregnant
women and refusing to pay child support - either because they don't
want to be fathers or because they are not being treated like fathers
by the mothers (i.e. no visitation rights).

Hillary aims to complete the process.  If children can "divorce" parents,
and parents can, presumably, "divorce" children, the whole concept of
family becomes something very similar to a law-firm partnership or a
corporation - we are only attached to each other for as long as we
unanimously desire the attachment.  As soon as any one of us wants to secede
from the union, we can, and the law will support us in that secession.
Hillary proposes that there are NO binding, unseverable ties.  
The new technologies are creating a whole new socially acceptable set
of morals.  The fact that we even argue about Hillary Clinton's 
brave new proposal, a proposal that would have been unthinkably laughable
only twenty years ago, just highlight the change.

I don't know what you people think about this, but *I* think the world
is becoming a very lonely place.

Steve Kellmeyer

From slkg9733 Tue Jul 21 22:27:26 1992
Received: by uxa.cso.uiuc.edu id AA15690
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for slkg9733); Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:27:24 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:27:24 -0500
From: "Steven L. Kellmeyer" <slkg9733>
Message-Id: <199207220327.AA15690@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: slkg9733
Subject: follow failed
Status: RO

Article not accepted by server; not posted.
/usr/local/libexec/news/inject/injnews: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women: no groups in active file/usr/local/libexec/news/inject/injnews: article in /usr/local/libdata/news/dead.article/usr/local/bin/inews failed

Your response has been saved in ~/dead.letter

Your article/letter follows:
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?

kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.182938.7985@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>>In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>>
>>
>>>I've said it before [though maybe not here] and I'll say it
>>>again... the #1 reason why I would not even *consider* Bill Clinton
>>>for president, is Hillary Clinton.
>>
>>Americans have never been quite comfortable with a self-possessed
>>woman who speaks her mind, rather than spending all of her time
>>smiling up at her husband.
>>
>   Touche!

I know a LOT of people who would vote for Jean Kirkpatrick for president
(including me), but I have to agree with the original poster - Hillary
Clinton is scary.  

I don't mind women in a position of power.  I mind crazy people in a 
position of power.

>>-- 
>>"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
>>			-Joseph Beam_
>>Terrance Heath 
>>heath@athena.cs.uga.edu

>   
> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

>	"Creativity overcomes violence."
>			John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"

Steve Kellmeyer
Newsgroups: misc.kids