Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site gloria.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
From: colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.motss
Subject: Re: child-lovers
Message-ID: <1088@gloria.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Apr-85 10:53:14 EST
Article-I.D.: gloria.1088
Posted: Sat Apr  6 10:53:14 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 00:19:10 EST
References: <185@osu-eddie.UUCP> <1056@gloria.UUCP> <5164@fortune.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Jack of Clubs Precision Instruments Co.
Lines: 32
Xref: linus net.singles:5585 net.motss:1306

["The vilest abortionist is he who attempts to mould a child's character."]

> >> ARE THERE ANY SINGLE MEN OUT THERE WHO WANT KIDS BUT NOT A MARRIAGE?
> >
> >Yes.  They're called "pedophiles."
> >What else would they want them _for?_  Housework?
> 
> To love, to raise/rear, to have responsibility for.

I should know better than to hunt rooks with a pitchfork ...

1. "To have responsibility for."  This sounds like a synonym for "borrowing
	trouble."  But if you insist ... see 4. below.

2. "To raise/rear."  This appears to be a combination of 1. above and
	the opportunity to impress a child's mind with your ideas.  My
	bug line expresses my opinion exactly.  Ideas are nothing but
	the shadows cast by words.

3. "To love."  This is highly speculative--what if you come to hate
	the child instead of loving it?  You'll be worse off than
	before.  But if you're willing to live with somebody on the
	mere chance of coming to love him ... see 4. below.

4. Take a wife!  The arguments for adopting a child apply with
	greater force, since the rewards are greater.

In passing, I note that Topher Eliot will be doing just that.
Congratulations, Topher!
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel