X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:19:35 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

Hi, Carl:
I asked:
>> Carl, do you have any evidence to support the view that sane, reasonable,
>> non-abusive parents will be in any way affected by the establishment of the
>> kinds of legal recourse Hillary is proposing?

and Carl replied:
>  What kind of evidence?  Based on the actions of current government agencies
>  and others I think that this legal recourse would produce results similar
>  to the ones I gave as examples.  That is, parents who are not lunatics would
>  lose control over their children and would have interference from the legal
>  system.  Besides, who is able to judge who is the best to determine what is
>  best for a child.  To suggest that an educated professional would be better
>  able to make decsions would be elitists.

I can see the possibility for abuse -- goodness knows all kinds of silly
things seem to result in litigation.  But if we're going on gut feelings,
mine are that relatively few cases would result, and most of those would be
legitimate (otherwise they'd get tossed).  About who is best able to
determine what's best for a child, well, that depends on individual
circumstances.  An educated professional might just be a better bet than an
ignorant and abusive parent.

>> After all, for every
>> scenario you presented (and that I've deleted), I can present an equally
>> plausible one demonstrating how criminally parents act with respect to
>> their kids.
>
>  Applause.  That's great, but my concern is with those who do not act
>  criminally, yet will suffer from the meddling of the legal system.

That's fine -- certainly any attempt to give children reasonable rights
must be balanced against parents' rights.  I think we're seeing this issue
from opposite perspectives:  you're worried about abuse of the rights of
"good" parents; I'm worried about the abuse of children with not-so-great
parents.  The current system seems to be tilted rather heavily in favor of
parents, with very little real protection for children.  That's why I think
exploring other methods is a good idea.

>  Thank you for the "put down" in your fourth sentence. You responded in kind
>  but in disguise ;-) (2 pts for you).  How can you think that her proposals
>  are good?  Please explain.  I only meant in my "attack" on Fred that from
>  my point of view that he supports ideas that are dangerous to the liberty
>  of parents in raising their children and that it is concurrent with those
>  views by most Socialists here in America.

I guess I misunderstood your remarks.  I read them as an attack on fred,
not an attack on most Socialists in America.  I apologize.  Anyway, I think
Hillary's proposals are worth looking at because I see a failure of our
system to protect children adequately.  Kids really can be trapped in
abusive family situations -- that includes emotional abuse as well as
physical.  Currently, it's extremely difficult to intervene in those
situations (I've never tried, myself, but some of my school-teacher friends
have -- with no success).  Giving kids a little more control over their
lives by giving them access to our legal system might help.  I'd like to
see more specifics on the proposals that have been put forth.

>  Unless you are totally unaware, there is a battle over the children in this
>  country.  A battle between extreme Liberals and traditional families.  I
>  hope that the family wins, not the extreme Liberals.

I'd like to respond to this, but first you'll have to clarify what you mean
by "extreme Liberals" and "traditional families."   Then you can tell me a
little more about this battle -- at least I'll know who's fighting it :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU