Anna, I've already passed the half-century mark, but when it comes to children I've remained consistant. I've never liked kids.
Just because my place is more reminscent of a college dorm room rather than a typical suburban home (which I can't afford anyway
) doesn't mean I'm not mature.
That I've never 'settled down' or given in to the 'nesting instinct' just means that I've never really grown up. But, maturity, to me, is taking responsibility for ones actions. And that is something I do take very seriously. That is why I would never father a child. A person who doesn't like children should never have children. Seems rather obvious, but, unfortunately too often that is not the case with parents today.
To bring this back to the context of Yvonne's story, and hopefully, not to get too serious here; Yvonne is bringing up some serious issues of child raising here. CK is Jon's biological father, and therefore he has an inherent right to the child. But, it's obvious, even to Jon, that Lois and Clark have been, and probably would continue to be, able to provide a better environment for Jon and his raising. But CK's sense of loss over the death of his Lois has made him fixate on Jon as necessary to his happiness. This is wrong-headed thinking from a logical viewpoint, but that is the crux of dealing with children. Nobody thinks logically, or rationally.
From Lois and Clark's perspective; they knew that the child was not theirs biologically. So the possibility was always there that the real parents might come back. Where does that leave them? If CK's Lois had still been alive, would Lois and Clark even be having any discussions as to whether Jon should belong with his 'true' parents. Of course they would. They have an emotional investment into the child now and thus they are no longer thinking logically either. Add to that the latest complication. That Lois would run a life-threatening risk if she were to carry a Kryptonian child makes things much more emotional from their standpoint. Even if Clark were to regain his 'fertility' to even think of impregnating Lois would be criminal.
So, you have this impasse. Lois and Clark (unless we have some deus ex machina via Dr. Klein) should not be able to have their own child. So this means that they will want to keep Jon, and will find ways to reinforce that position. The main argument being, that CK as an unemployed, single, super-hero, parent is not in a position to properly care for the child. On the other hand, CK has developed an emotional dependance on the child. Jon is probably more responsible for his mental healing than anything. And... Jon is his natural son, and a piece of his own beloved, lost Lois.
Makes things a rather sticky wicket.
Tank (who thinks the above arguments just reinforces his position on children... after all, who needs all that grief)
