In a previous post, Dez left a comment that I thought contained so much input, I wanted to make sure it got noticed. I asked him for permission to bring it forward, and here it is:
I like the idea of keeping laws to the minimum standard of "do as thou wilt, as long as it doesn't hurt others".
But, divorce is often a sticky issue, especially in regards to child custody. Someone is going to get hurt in some way, such is the nature of breakups. The trick is to minimize the impact on the little ones. (The adults have made their bed and should have to sleep in it; the children, however, have no choices in the matter.)
Personally, I like the idea of making such decisions on a case-by-case basis, rather than using some all-encompassing policy that tries to make everyone happy, and fails.
On the subject of abortion, I believe in everyone taking responsibility for their own actions. Here again, the trick is to minimize the hurt for all concerned.
And let me take the time here to point out (what should be) the obvious: A fetus is not a baby, but could be a potential future citizen of Chimeria, and as such deserves some consideration under the law. This is obvious to any woman who has ever had an abortion (I've known a few), in that none have ever made the decision lightly. This is a HUGE decision on the woman's part, and she always knows it. I believe her right to make that decision must be protected. If she decides to get the abortion, she should not be given any further grief from that choice.
On the other hand, if she decides to go to term, she takes full responsibility. If she can convince someone to assist with the parenting job, such as the father-to-be, that's great. I don't think it is the state's job to interfere with that.
If, for whatever reason, she is not expecting any parenting assistance, that also needs to be decided up front. Some people can handle the solo-parent thing, and some can't.
Have we talked about CPS yet? Child Protective Service is one of those controversial government agencies that you either hate or love. My opinion is that, if government has any responsibility AT ALL, it has the responsibility to protect the helpless.
I've seen it happen. A single parent is overwhelmed by the huge task of caring for an infant while holding down a job, or a couple is too busy fighting with each other to notice the little one needs to be fed. Or, sometimes, there is deliberate abuse.
The decision to remove a child from the home should never be made lightly, but sometimes it needs to be done. There are a lot of people willing and competent to raise a child - hopefully more than those who can't.
Please note: there should be no government support for raising children. No state-supported foster homes. No welfare mothers. Nobody makes money from the government by raising a child. You can either foot the bill yourself, from your own (or your family's, with their consent) pocket, or you don't get to raise a child. Period.
And that needs to be made clear before the first trimester. The ability to support a child for 18 years needs to be part of the decision to abort or not abort.
I suspect this will result in an increase of abortions. Also, eventually, an increase in adoptions.
Ah well.This is the kind of thoughtful feedback I'm seeking. What would it take to actually fulfill the fantasy of creating your own country? What kind of structure would you want? Who would live there? And why would they want to? And why would you want them?Money no object...thank the gods! Wouldn't it be embarassing to create a place in which you couldn't afford to live?