Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (9856)	3/27/2001 2:11:10 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I was offering options, not endorsing them. But that said, there are arguments for requiring "an unmarried couple that is disease free and monogamous" and, I would add, presumptively fertile, to practice birth control unless they have shown a financial ability and willingness to support any child they may produce. The cost to society of out of wedlock children is enormous, and the psychological and emotional cost to the children themselves is often very high. My mother in law just got back from a volunteer stint in Romania working with abandoned children. The level of institutional autism is high, and the societal cost enormous. Basically I'm a liberal-libertarian on social issues, but I also think the rights of children have been too often left out of our societal equation since they don't vote or have money. As a family law attorney I deal with these issues daily, and I know there are no easy answers. But I also know the "answers" we have now are a failure for many children.