From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:08:37 GMT

In article <P174wB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>> I'm not so sure that it is. Removing a child from an environment where the 
>> (biological) parents violently DISAGREE on the value and worth of the child, 
>> to an environment where both (adoptive) parents strongly AGREE on the value 
>> and worth of the child, and are able to WILLINGLY provide full emotional 
>> _and_ financial support, with far less risk that the child will end up being
>> used as a pawn by the parents to inflict emotional pain on each other, seems 
>> to me to be a wise and compassionate act.
>
>If the government is going to be involved to such a degree as you suggest
>here (it has the ability to arbitrarily and capreicously decide on who
>should and how they should parent) ...

I'm not suggesting that, Bob. I never said the government should get involved
in the sticky questions of "who should and how they should parent". I was
suggesting that if EITHER biological parent thinks that adoption is the best
answer, then that might, in and of itself, WITHOUT going into the whys and
wherefores, be considered sufficient reason to put the child up for adoption. 
I don't think children should be brought up in broken homes unless BOTH 
parents agree that that's the best thing for the child, and are therefore much 
more likely to make it work. When one parent wants the child to be raised in a 
broken home, and the other parent just gets dragged along with that decision, 
kicking and screaming, I don't think that benefits the victimized parent or, 
ultimately, the child either, nor would I be surprised to find that the 
majority of CP's later end up regretting that decision. At least, in case of
adoption, there's a much better chance that SOMEBODY will be happy.

>...then perhaps everyone who wants to 
>have sex should have to get a license from the government. A condition of
>that license is that both partners agree to raise in a wholesome, loving
>environment, any progeny of their union.
>
>This would prevent unwilling fathers from becomming trapped, cause choice
>to be equal between both partners, and settle the question of paternal
>obligations towards spouses and children.
>
>We could call it a marriage license.

I think you'll find many men would prefer that approach, Bob, assuming
that the "fornication fines" were not excessive, let's say about the same
as an above-average speeding ticket. What we have now is essentially a
(randomized) "fornication fine", anyway: 18+ years of child support, if 
your number happens to pop up on both the biological roulette wheel, and the 
"on second thoughts, honey, I want to start a family" roulette wheel...

And you thought gambling was illegal, huh? I guess it's OK when the 
government FORCES men to take a reproductive gamble, while giving women who 
are equally guilty of fornication, virtually 100% certainty of reproductive 
outcome. Some "gambles" appear to be more "equal" than others, eh?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right