From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Are children property? (was Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:51:31 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <1992Sep30.010529.21970@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>
>I'm really sick of the system the way it is: I pay (thru taxes) to
>send everybody's kids to school.  Then, I'm responsible (legally)
>for making sure they're safe. Then I have to put up with them
>yelling and screaming out of control whereever I go. Parents (many
>of them)  take so little responsibility these days. Parents
>should bear the costs and responsibilities of having kids. 
>Don't get me wrong.  I love kids.  But I think our current system
>forces society to pay for everyone elses kids. 
>
>I'm not trying to pick on you, Judy. You sound like a reasonable 
>Parent. I just get sick of the way many parents try to pawn off
>(what should be parental) responsibilities on others. It's not
>fair to others, and it's not fair to the children. 
>

I think that the problem we are seeing in this most interesting discussion
(interesting because of the multiple views expressed and the courtesy shown
by all regarding these views) is that we see children differently.

You seem to see children as "property" of the parents.  I see children as
part of our communal future.  That means that while you pay taxes today to
put them through school, they will in turn pay taxes to pay for your Medicare
when you become to old to function.  As such, children are not just the
property of their parents, but are part and parcel of our community.

I am a firm believer in community and civic responsibility and not living
one's life just for oneself.  Because of that, if I see a child about to do
something foolish or dangerous I will stop that child.  I will, and have often
done so in parks, parent a child that is not my own.  Therefore, I believe,
as I think many other parents in this forum do, that we have a civic 
responsibility for all children within our community.  In other words, we
are our brother's keeper.

Others, most notably evident in this post, but also in others, seem to believe
that our society is one of each person for himself.  Your civic responsibilty
begins and ends with you (and any children you happen to have - though there
are some who will abdicate even this responsibility).  As long as you are
not hurting anyone else, then whatever you do with your own property is your
own business.  And if others in the community don't like it, well, they should
just stay out of your face.  In other words, you are NOT your brother's keeper.

I look at the results of each type of community and have chosen the one I
consider to be most likely to create a better quality of life for everyone.
I believe it is the former.  When I first moved from NYC to LA I used to laugh
about the difference between the two cities.  My comment was that "If you're
down and out in LA, people will step around you.  If you're down and out in
New York, people will step ON you."  I vote for a community where, if you're
down and out, people will reach out and lend you a hand.  

Thus, if you see a child fall into a river and do nothing to save that child's
life, then you are as negligent as if you had pushed the child in yourself.
That is the model I live by and the one I believe will make a better world.
Clearly you disagree.  But I cannot imagine living in your community.  It seems
awfully cold and lonely.  
-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake