> > Here's a curious gray area. Should the custodial parent be
> able to cut a
> > deal, waiving child support in return for severely curtailed or
> non-existent
> > visiting rights?
> >
>
> IMO no. That cheapens the value of a kid's life even more than
> the existing DR laws.
What are you talking about? How does it cheapen the value of a kid's life?
That's such a vague catchphrase that it's hard to understand where it fits
into the discussion. For example, we're not talking about a kid's life vs.
death here -- we're talking about quality of life.
> We have ways not to have kids, including abortion. As a
> libertarian, I support women's right to choose as strongly as I
What that actually means, is that women have ways not to have kids. Men
don't actually have the ability, realistically, to choose not to have kids
(Assuming the man doesn't want a vasectomy because he wants kids someday,
just not right now, or now with this woman).
So as a libertarian, don't you support the man's right to choose not to have
kids? How do you propose to protect that right if a woman fraudulently
arranges to get pregnant despite his efforts?
It's been suggested to me that the right thing to do is to allow the
biological father to sign away all parenting rights and responsibilities at
or before birth (part of the requirements of being allowed to do this would
be to swear that they have never encouraged the mother to have the kid or
promised support in the case of pregnancy). I'm not sure I agree that's the
right thing to do, but on the other hand, I haven't been able to
satisfactorily refute it, either.
Lisa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:25 PDT