From: mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - Product Assurance)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Forced Adoption, "In The Best Interests Of The Child"?
Keywords: Another Devil's Advocate, but may be worth taking a serious look at.
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:03:38 GMT
Reply-To: mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - Product Assurance)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) wrote:
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>...
>I think it is awfully dangerous to grant the state the power to decide
>what is "best" for children.  That power should be retained by the parents
>(with the exception of cases of manifest neglect or abuse).  The state
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even in this case the state does not always make the best decisions for
children, and is still dangerous. Besides, they invent their own definition
of child abuse & neglect, which has varied from breast-feeding children
to empty baby carriages. They also don't understand certain disorders,
such as Autism, and they like blaming the parents for the symptoms.

Not to get off the track too much, but the state cannot be trusted AT ALL
for ANYTHING regarding children. NJ is the worst my experience, NY and CA
aren't far behind. I don't even want to think about the others.

>should act only to arbitrate in those cases where the parents cannot or
>will not agree.

Nope. Keep the state out of our lives!!!

>>Some of your are likely to call this idea "fascist," but how can you, *if*
>>you believe that "the best interests of the child" take precedence over
>>*ALL OTHER RIGHTS*?
>
>Because it is far from obvious that the state is better qualified to
>determine the "best interests of the child" than its parents.

They are not, they cannot.

>>Again, while I realise that I must surely be speaking treason :-), I'd
>>like people to consider the idea that forced adoption in cases where one
>>parent is unwilling to support, and the other is unable, *may* be better
>>than keeping the child in an environment of near-poverty with one
>>impoverished, but willing parent and one very bitter and unwilling parent.
>>Indeed, a loving environment is always in a child's best interests.

There are not always adoption opportunities. Then one must consider
other factors, such as the stress to the mother carrying an unwanted
fetus for so long. The stress itself can have adverse effects on
the fetus. Anything that the mother uses as drugs, legal or otherwise,
even proper nutrition can be a critical factor, and if the mother is
unmotivated, how can you insure the best conditions for the fetus so
that its brain, etc. is not impared? No one seems interested in
dealing with these issues.

As far as whether a man has the right to decide against the mother's
decisions regarding the ultimate fate of the unborn, that is a matter
for the couple involved to decide and arbitrate. No one else should
interfere, and no laws should be passed regarding forcing the mother
to carry the child pending the father's wishes. This should be a "hands
off" affair, and the couple should have enough maturity to come to a
mutually acceptable conclusion.

Keep Law out of the womb! Free Choice for ALL!

=== Fred Mitchell (mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP) ===================================
 One man's reality  ..      ///      If all that you say is true,         ..
 is another man's   .. \\\ ///       then why do you exist here?          ..
 fantasy.   (  66)  ..  \\X//                                  - DS9      ..
============================================================================
$lU;3NDKn#XqQLx0&UU<i_"hGxdF;]k  FZ17bB(6#`n#?Rid4]k,pAlE'EAV\/glC 0R#r(8yb!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support