On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:23:38 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > I find it interesting that you had no response whatsoever to all the > historical and modern reasons for declaring a legal father, nor for the > reasons why other options were not -- and still are not always -- > viable.
I found the historical background which you wrote about very interesting. You have explained very well why in olden times it made sense to consider the husband as the legal father. Things have long since changed and it is now very easy for modern medical technology to positively determine paternity. I don't think it fair to make the husband to pay child support when he is not the party responsible for siring the child. > Instead you pick out two sentences and claim they make me > "anti-husband." > That type of response would appear to make YOU "anti-responsible," > anti-children... I am not anti-children. I say that children should be well provided for and cared for, preferably by their parents if the parents are able. If their parents are not able, then society must pick up the tab for their care and for their support. > Your solution -- "taxpayers should pick up the tab" -- is no longer > an option with welfare reform. It never has been an OPTION. It has always been MANDATORY for either the taxpayers or charitable organizations to pick up the tab for supporting the children of indigent parents. If the taxpayers and the charitable organizations should not care for the children of indigent parents, then who should? Welfare reform is needed only to stop people from scamming the system by falsely claiming that they have little or no income or assets and that they can't get a job. > Despite your wistfull thinking, most > citizens DO NOT AGREE that it is society's job to care for children who > have no other recourse. Most citizens DO AGREE that it is society's job to care for them. Should we just turn them out to freeze and starve to death? > The powers that be these days would rather remove the children from the > mother who could not care for them, and sell them on the adoption market > .... [oops, fees aren't "sales price," right?] If the mother's difficulties in caring for her children are only financial in nature, then the powers that be will just want to give her whatever money she needs. They are not going to take the children away from the mother unless they find that she is an "unfit mother". The mere lack of money does not render a woman unfit to care for her children. If that is the only problem with the poor woman, then that is a problem that can easily be cured by a simple welfare handout. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
