From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:13:26 GMT

pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:


>|> In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>|>  > As the author of the article says, "In other words: 'Don't worry,
>|>  > we'll still leave mundane decisions to the discretion of parents, it's
>|>  > just the important ones they can't be trusted with.'"
>|>  > 
>|>  > Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
>|>  > could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far reaching
>|>  > and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years old?  Or even
>|>  > 13, or 14!

>When I read Anne's intentionally distorting post, I thought about 
>my friend whose father raped her repeatedly throughout her childhood. 
>Sure, it's always better to keep the parents in charge. They know what's 
>best for their child! You can't trust a 12-year old to make a decision 
>for herself.

\begin{sarcasm}
No, of course you can trust 12-year-olds to make informed decisions. Much
better to make parents prove they're competent parents. While we're at it,
random inspections of the homes of children by the local agencies would be 
a good idea. And just to be sure that no offense goes undetected, lets have
mandatory medical examinations of all children, preferably random and
un-announced, with follow-up in-depth interviews of the children by
the sympathetic staff of the local family services department. 
\end{sarcasm}

Sounds like yet another vote for government in loco parentis. No doubt,
many children suffer abuse and worse at the hands of their parents.
Equally beyond doubt is the fact that agencies of the government are
intrusive. On balance, I see no persuasive argument for increasing
the role of the government in the private lives of citizens on the
pretext of redressing the wrong suffered by some children.

Frankly, I consider the persistent attempts to remedy social ills and
personal misfortunes by recourse to the unwieldy machinery of legislation
and judicial resolution as misguided at best, and deliberately pernicious
at worst.

We are drowning in laws and regulations, we have more lawyers per capita than
any other country, we are by far the most litigious society ever, and yet
people continue to offer yet more laws as the solution to our problems.

"There ought to be a law..." may be the quintessential American complaint, 
but it shows little insight and less originality.

>I'm not campaigning for the Clintons, but a post like Anne's makes me 
>think that I should be. How many out there consider misc.kids an 
>appropriate forum for misleading statements attacking a political 
>candidate? I don't!

Sorry you feel your ox got gored, but given the context, i.e. the contention
that children should have the right to sue their parents, the forum seems
quite appropriate. Perhaps you believe that soc.women is more appropriate
for expounding your political views?

Regards,
       H.Biesel s.N.a.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women