The importance of biological lineage
Re: “2 men in 3-way parenting: Who’s the dad? Both are,” Nov. 6 Style essay.
David Shneer, in his essay regarding a “visionary” three-way parenting arrangement, pointedly tells us that it is none of our business to know his child’s biological father.
Is it really?
That child, not named on his list of those who need to know, is going to grow up and probably wonder about such things. Will this be a secret from him or her as well? Along life’s path, the child will also likely be asked about his or her biological dad. If the child knows, should he or she be put in the uncomfortable position of not telling anyone? To inflict ambiguity and secrecy on a child is a bad start, to say the least.
A child is more than personal whimsy and clinical roulette. His child is a person, who when faced with a challenging world, might at least be at ease with the knowledge of his or her biological roots, and feel comfortable sharing it with others. Make it the child’s opportunity, not the parent’s limitation. Additionally, biological lineage is important to society: medically, legally, and as a matter of cultural heritage. Why be so private and further dilute the meaning of fatherhood?
Maybe it’s more than personal curiosity that drives people to ask about a child’s biological father. Perhaps the child, as an individual, deserves a unique bond with his or her genetic dad and the comfort – if not delight – to share it with the public. We should care that his and other children have that opportunity. No disrespect to Shneer’s creative cooperative, but maybe it is our business.
David Reusch, Denver
Availability of firearms – and their use
Re: “Gun deaths at parties,” Nov. 11 Open Forum.
Letter-writer T. Rinaldo says the problem with youths gathering and drinking, and then shooting one another, is because “guns became so easily acquirable.” How so? It is now more difficult to obtain guns legally than in the past because of legislation that closed the so-called “gun show loophole.” Additionally, neither major Denver newspaper will carry personal classified ads listing any sort of firearm for sale.
The problem is much deeper than simply being able to get hold of a firearm. When I was a youth, firearms were available nearly everywhere. Most of my friends had fathers who were hunters and target shooters. Guns were in closets, dressers, atop the refrigerator, and sometimes even in vehicles. I can assure you we had our share of knock-down, drag-out fights as 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds. But never did anyone shoot somebody. It just wasn’t done. It wasn’t even an option. It never entered our mind.
I don’t think it’s the availability of guns. I’d be more inclined to look into the moral and ethical values of some parents and their children.
Sometimes, people reap exactly what they’ve sown, and sometimes that is a fundamental lack of respect and appreciation for the life of others, and the common sense to walk away from a confrontation.
David Ruthstrom, Elizabeth
Mental health for hurricane evacuees
Re: “We neglect emotional health of disaster victims,” Nov. 10 Pius Kamau column.
I could not agree more with Pius Kamau that the issues of trauma and dislocation can loom large for displaced/relocated persons – such as Hurricane Katrina evacuees – and not reveal itself for months or years unless skilled intervention is offered.
Both the Colorado Psychiatric Society and The Denver Psychoanalytic Society have mobilized to provide practitioners at reduced or no fee to those in need of psychologic intervention or treatment. Also, the Denver Psychoanalytic Society is forming a patient outreach service to offer reduced-fee, longer-term treatment for under- served populations.
We hope this initiative (and those from the Association of Black Psychologists) will encourage other professional organizations to provide what Kamau has requested – “more intensive, more generous therapy.” We strongly support his call.
Arthur D. Garfein, M.D., Denver
The writer is president of The Denver Psychoanalytic Society.
Health care economics
Re: “Health Economics 101,” Nov. 15 Paul Krugman column.
Paul Krugman seems to miss a couple of basic economic principles in his column. The first is that the only source of funds for any health care system is the taxpayers. Taxpayers will either pay for health care through insurance premiums, higher taxes or higher product prices if corporations are taxed for funding.
The second principle is that health care will be rationed, either by prices, by age, by withholding the latest technology and drugs, or by some other method. No health care system can afford to provide free, unlimited access any more than a grocery store can. The question is, who decides and what criteria do they use?
Any serious discussion about the health care system must address these two issues.
Stuart Ball, Longmont
Evangelist’s comments
I read Pat Robertson’s admonishment to the people of Dover, Pa., including the quote, “don’t turn to God.” I thought of my grandpa, now gone, who watched so-called Christian television. Grandpa was a proud, religious man. He was just vulnerable enough to believe men like Pat Robertson. I am so thankful Grandpa never heard a man he felt was anointed by the Almighty proclaim, “don’t turn to God.”
Our chosen faiths are personal and sacred. I believe it is wise to suspect those who claim to know the judgments of a God. But most important, I believe we should never, ever let anyone tell any of us not to turn to our God.
Holly DeGregori, Denver
Modern sex-toy parties
Re: “Grown-up parties are turning up the heat,” Nov. 15 Scene story.
I have no idea of the age of The Denver Post’s reporter or the sexual-health experts cited in this article, but I have a news flash for them. In the ’70s, they were called “Pleasure Parties,” followed the identical format, and were attended for identical reasons to those today. To state that today’s parties reflect “an evolution away from the sexual revolution when women simply fought for the freedom to express their sexuality without retribution, to an even more open-minded approach to intimacy” is in itself a simplistic and somewhat naive statement. Ask any woman of a certain age.
Elaine Zupancic, Denver
Drug sentencing and mandatory minimums
Re: “Pot-sale case puts focus on mandatory sentences,” Nov. 14 news story.
I see no problem with convicted drug dealers being sentenced to hefty terms just because weapons are involved. Do we sentence kidnappers lightly because they did not fire their weapons? The article suggested drug sentences are harsher than for kidnapping, hijacking and murder. The sentencing guidelines for kidnapping, hijacking and murder must be too lenient.
Drug crimes are seldom prosecuted for the first offense. Ask any law enforcement officer and they will admit most drug crimes go unpunished. A person convicted of dealing drugs while carrying a weapon is not committing a victimless crime. Drug dealers claim countless victims among the users themselves, those who suffer from crimes to pay for addicts’ drugs, and all the bystanders and others injured along the way. Think of all the tax dollars each year that go to pay for decreased productivity, health care, unemployment benefits for those who have fried their brains, and various efforts of our law enforcement community.
Illegal drugs are a scourge on our society and prevent this nation from achieving its true potential in so many ways. Let drug dealers sit in prison until retirement age, and let violent drug dealers die there.
Matthew Hayes, Aurora
