Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:09:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

Kerry's hypothetical situations are interesting.  I think that the
question it raises is whether or not the State has that kind of
vested interest in a child.

I think not.

        i think that it has nothing to do with "vested interests"

To give the State the ability to override a parental decision even
in one of these areas, is opening the door for giving total control
to the State of the family unit.

        last i heard, this particular country has some sort of
        ideological document that defines what they call inalienable
        rights, namely "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of HipHop."
        now the way things are set up is that for all legal purposes,
        children are the property of their parents, with all the
        rights, responsibilities and priveliges thereof.  the result
        of this is that many (not "some" or "a few") children suffer
        the effects of abuse, both physical and emotional, and others
        suffer the effects of bad judgements on the part of their
        well-intentioned parents.

        this is not a small problem, and the current system is not
        (despite carls claims) adequately addressing the problem.

Whether or not the "decline" of the US has anything to do with
the "decline" of the family, I can't really say, but others
would.

        whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant.  this is some other
        debate that has been tacked on to this one to distract us from
        the issue.

To put all far speculation aside, I do believe that laws such as
Hilary Clinton is proposing, would have a negative effect on society.
It would encourage children to be more disrespectful than they already
often are.  It would encourage breaking a family up even more than
it already happens.

        some families should break up.  trying to keep them together
        is bad.  it has bad effects on the kids and the adults.

Children don't vote and aren't responsible for their actions legally
(-by and large-) for the simple reason that they don't know enough,
haven't experienced enough and aren't mature enough.  There are
exceptions to every rule, but parents have the responsibility to
make these decisions because they are presumably more mature than
their children.

        hah.  there it is! the p-word!
        presumably, parents are more mature than their children, but
        when a baby is screaming because it is 35 degrees out and his
        parents haven't bothered to put shoes on him and his feet are
        BLUE, are you going to tell me that the parents know what the
        kid needs more than the kid does?

Parents have responsibility for their children.  At this time,
there are laws that can have that changed, when these parents
are abusive.

I think that this is as far as it should go.  To give the State
the ability to meddle into individual affairs of a family I
believe goes against everything for which our country has stood.

        i think that it is not the case of the state being able to
        make decisions for the family, but of the state ensuring that
        the child can make her/his own decisions on occassion, and
        that sometimes the parents are wrong.

        brni
-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU