Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:41:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

> Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:21:51 -0400
> From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
> Subject:      Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!
>
> fred asked:
> >> 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 ?
>
> and Carl replied:
> >  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.
>
> 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?

  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.

> 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.

> >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.
>
> Ooooh, look!  Another ad hominem attack!  And I thought those departed with
> Jay :).  Much as I'm tempted to respond in kind, I'll listen to my better
> self and simply point out that some of us sane, reasonable, and responsible
> parents think Hillary's got some good ideas.  If anyone has access to more
> details on her proposals (I only know what I've read here and there), I'd
> like to see them.

  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.

  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.

>
> Thanks

  Your Welcome

> Kerry

Carl--------------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU