In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard

On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, fathers wrote:

> Gentlemen,
> 
> Can you think of any better way to undermine families and fatherhood than 
> the following from the UN?

Yes.  You could perpetuate the Myth that fathers have a right to custody. 
You could encourage them to spend everything they will ever make fighting
to get custody.  Then charge them so much in child support and taxes
that they will never be able to be fathers to any child again. Finally, 
you can let him "visit" them 2 or 3 days/month so that the children 
really learn to hate the pain that comes from falling in love with daddy, 
only to be abandoned month after month.  To a young child, not being with 
a parent they love and trust is abandonment.

> Can you think of any use the UN has if it plans to destroy families all 
> around the world?
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:26:57 EST
> From: Wayne D. Martin 
> 
> Please correct my use of the word paraphrase what I meant was quote. 
>   Wayne
> >
> >Refer: Human Rights a Reference Handbook by Lucille Whalen
> >       Contemporary World Issues  ABC-CLIO 1989
> >       Santa Barbara Ca.  Oxford,England
> >
> >Paraphrase from The Declaration of the Rights of the Child
> >Proclaimed by General Assembly (U.N.) 1386(XIV) Nov.20, 1959
> >
> >                 Principle 6
> >"The child, for the full and harmonious development of his person-
> >ality, needs love and understanding. He shall, whenever possible,
> >grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents,

Notice that the first tenet is that the child be kept with both parents.  
The primary goal is to provide a two-parent family.

> >and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and
> >material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in
> >exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.

This still leaves ground for proving exceptional circumstances.  I can 
understand this concern, especially in areas like Kenya or north Africa, 
where it would be tempting to take a Nursing baby from a starving woman 
on the premise that you could save 2 children with less food that it 
takes to save one child and it's mother.

One must always remember that to specify any other alternative is to 
provide the right to take a new-born or nursing infant from it's nursing 
mother, without cause, justification, or provocation.  The most likely 
victims would be single mothers on welfare who can't identify the father 
accurately (because there were multiple candidates).  The going market 
for a healthy white infant is nearly $100,000 - none of which goes to the 
mother.

> >Society
> >and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular
> >care to children without a family and to those without adequate
> >means of support."

This creates the possibility of several possibile scenarios.  One 
possible scenario is that the mother could remarry, assuring the children 
of a two-parent family.  The only way the mother could truly make a 
responsible choice would be if the new husband were to commit to be 
legally and morally responsible.

Another possible scenario would be to encourage estranged fathers to 
marry single mothers.  Nearly every state in the union has an employment 
agency or "Job Service Center" where the unemployed can obtain free 
placement and employers can obtain skilled labor without the inherant 
costs of Head-Hunter's commissions.  Why shouldn't the state provide a 
"match making" service where single mothers could meet estranged fathers.

This might actually solve two problems.  First, it gives men who really 
want to be committed husbands and fathers the ability to do so in a way 
that really contributes to society as a whole.  Second, it eliminates or 
reduces the number of single mothers receiving public assistance.

"Big Brother" has already insinuated itself into every aspect 
of my personal life (the IRS knows about every Check, Credit Card charge, 
Company expense, other agencies track other interesting details).  Why 
not at least give them the chance to give me something for my $2000/month
in taxes, fica, and related subsidies.  If I get married again, they 
could save an additional $1000 in welfare benefits and administrative costs.
In addition, her children could live quite well on what I would save in 
taxes.



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Mar 20 00:13:55 1996