From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Atheist Marriage - not me!
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 01:05:28 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <19227.2afa88c1@levels.unisa.edu.au> 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:

[a "Modest Proposal"...]

>In a more outlandish radical belief, I think that children should
>not automatically be raised by their biological parents but
>be raised by a couple whose way is paid for by the state. They
>would raise eight or more kids (not all at once, theye'd get a
>new baby to look after every three years). About 10-15% of the
>population woud be raising kids, the rest would be out earning
>tax to pay for it.

 Oh, my.

>I can hear some objections now, not only stupid religious ones I
>shall ignore but valid social ones:

 No kidding. Objections? Really?

>1. "Parents do it because of genetic ties that bind so bio-parents
>   are best."
>   What BS is this?
>   Does this mean we will have damn little love for others with 
>   different genes?? Talk about xenophobia IN THE EXTREME!

 Oh, go read a book like Richard Dawkins' _The_Selfish_Gene_. I
don't have time to sum up kin-selection theory here.
[deletions]

>2. What about those who are trying to do solely for the money?
>   I can assure you, they wont last long, there wont be many
>   of them and besides, it would be a DAMN sight better than the
>   loveless poverty that MILLIONS of children are currently forced
>   to endure.

  For all I know, you could be right about #1 & #2. But why should I
believe that. Convince me. As for #3, that's a trifle arguable...
but heck, I'm in a generous mood, I'll concede it and let someone else
argue it.

>3. Do teachers do it just for the money? Do nurses do it just for the
>   money? Do police do it just for the money? Why should parenting as
>   a profession be any different?

 Greater time commitment. Interference from biological parents. Or were
you not planning on telling the biological parents where their kids were?
Who sets the standards for a 'good parent?' How will such standards be
enforced?

>4. If the money is only part of it, who cares as long as they do a
>   good job and atleast show some love for the children. With any
>   luck, the responsibility would change them.

 Assuming they do a 'good job' (and *that's* assuming we have a set of
criteria to measure by) I suppose I don't have a problem. Still, I think
I'd rather not give *my* kids to someone who was in it for the money...

>5a.What about those who want to keep and raise their own children?
>   If they have enough money flowing into the household, let them.
>   If not, then maybe they will want to take in another few kids
>   and get somehelp from the state?   

 "Let" them? How are you planning on enforcing this? Take away the kids
at gunpoint? Go on "mother hunts" for unregistered children? What if
they are poor parents, but have plenty of money? How do you judge who's a
bad parent, anyway? (Yes, I'm going to keep harping on that.)

>   Those that want to raise their own, can't afford a decent living
>   for the children but wont take in others are to be scorned upon,
>   not even the most fundie of christians would be like that, they
>   are supposed to be charitable. These people would not be doing
>   it for the children or the money, probably some twisted religious
>   belief that promotes fear and hatred of people who are different.

 Or maybe they think that they can love their own children far more than
some stranger? Or maybe they are adamantly opposed to the state interfering
in their business?

>   Short of ramming these beliefs down their throat, something nobody
>   has the right to do, if they refuse to take part in society we
>   would kick them out. If, on the other hand, the kids are screaming
>   out for help, it is a perfect excuse to step in and rescue them from
>   that nightmare (very poor and very xenophobic parents, don't forget).

 Who's "we?" How many of your friends agree with this idea? What if the
fundie country next door stages raids to 'rescue' your kids from bondage?
Why would you be right and they, wrong? (Or do you think they'd be justified?)

>   (any more questions?)
   
 Yes, do you genuinely believe this, or was this a joke? I really hope
I'm being stupid, and this was the latter...
 If the former, what about people who continually have kids, due to
laziness about birth control, and foist them off on the State? Or
would you set birth limits?

>It would wipe out the unfairness of unequal opportunity for children,
>there would be NO poor people and a GIGANTIC chunk of the social ills
>that plague our society would be wiped out without resorting to the
>evils of socialism.
 
 Having the State in charge of assigning parents isn't socialism? What is,
then? Sheesh.

[deletions]

>John J McVey

 I'm kind of surprised; I usually agree with most of what you say...

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Epistemology: Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?"
               -- Woody Allen