Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:58:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

> Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:14:24 CDT
> From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
> Subject:      hilary or carl? tough choice!
>
> Carl, I don't mean this as a personal insult but your post on Hilary
> Clinton reminds me of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous
> thing".

>
> Hilary Clinton is a very intelligent, well educated woman. Her point is
> that parents should not have total control of their children if the
> control is not consistent with the best interests of the child. Sounds
> like a good idea to me. I suppose you have a high opinion of Nancy "Let
> me ask my astrologer" Reagan who is portrayed as a less than ideal
> mother by her children ?

  Fred, who id responsible for determining the best interest of the child?
  I beleive that the average, sane and non-abusive, parents are best for
  determining the best interest of the child.  The danger with the Hillary's
  point is that if a sane and loving parent makes a decision that the child
  does not like, the parent most likely will be sued by their child.  Just
  because a child disagrees with a parent on an issue is not grounds to
  steamroll the parents and their authority.

  If you read Hillary's comments you would notice that she does not want the
  parents to have sole authority over a child in regards to: motherhood,
  abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of veneral diseases,
  employment, and "other" decsions.

  So Johnny doesn't like Catholic School, so he sues his parents.  Or he
  wants to go to an expensive private school that would financially break
  the family's back, but he wants to go so he sues his parents.  Mary at
  the age of thirteen wants to have a child, parents say no and get sued.
  Now when Hillary and her judges tell Mary that she can be a mom, who's
  going to pay the bills?  Or Debra Horovitz wants cosmetic surgery, she's
  in puberty and feels that her nose is ugly.  Her parents know that it
  isn't that bad but its a stage, but they are sued because Debra wants
  the surgery and Hillary uses a "psychological harm" approach to win. Boy
  that would be great wouldn't it Fred?  Then there's Bob, he wants to
  work but his parents think that he's not ready, he needs to do better
  in school.  Yet Bob thinks it is his right to work so he calls Hillary
  to sue his parents.  This is great huh Fred.  Not only that but according
  to Hillary & Co. there doesn't even *have* to be a complaint from the
  child.  Hillary & Co. can go ahead with a law suit on behalf of the
  child even without the child's approval.  Geez Fred I'm so glad that
  you showed us how warped you are by supporting this sort of thing.

  What about the parents' rights?  What about raising your children without
  the state interfering?  Granted, some parents do not make the best
  decsions.  But this legislation would be twisted by lawyers to line their
  pockets at the expense of the family and housholds where parents do care
  and make good decisions will be intruded by lawyers and others that think
  12 year olds know best.

> Hilary Clinton has great credentials. Your problems with her are at the
> ideological level.

Let's all stand and applaud Fred for supporting the destruction of the
family, it seems to be in vogue and a requirement to be accepted by the
Looney Left Radicals of a Socialist America.

Carl------+   The US National Motto: In God We Trust
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU