From: sjk@strl.labs.tek.com (Steven King)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:35:54 GMT
Reply-To: sjk@strl.labs.tek.com (Steven King)
Followup-To: misc.kids
Organization: Software Technology Research Lab, Tektronix, Inc.

In article <1992Jul22.144714.10646@news.nd.edu>, slarsen@verdi.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
|> In article <24037@castle.ed.ac.uk> yfcw06@castle.ed.ac.uk (S R Leather) writes:
|> >shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >>If I truly believed that this idea would help neglected or abused
|> >>children, then I wouldn't have even posted it.  Geez, I'm not
|> >>unreasonable, or unfeeling even.  I happen to believe though, that it
|> >>will not only not help the kids who need it, but it will *harm* those
|> >>kids who are *not* mature enough to make such decisions, but drag
|> >>their parents to court anyway..because they can.  So what if they end
|> >>up losing their case...the harm done to the family at that point could
|> >>be irreparable.
|> >
|> >>This is NOT to say that there aren't real problems with the system.  I
|> >>just don't think that this is the answer, and in fact I think it could
|> >>be very harmful, in the long run, to the kids themselves, as well as
|> >>to society as a whole.
|> >
|> >In summary, I agree with Anne - keep children children (and safe).  Let
|> >them grow up when they are ready to grow up - don't force them to feel
|> >that they have to make decisions about sex (safe or otherwise), peer
|> >repression etc.  Give them the discipline that they need and
|> >(subconciously want) and prepare them to be responsible adults in a safe
|> >world.
|> 
|> But the problem is, when a child is completely dependent on their 
|> parents not only for survival, but also protection of their legal 
|> rights, some children are not being kept safe.  What mechanisms protected 
|> Lisa Steinberg from Joel Steinberg?  What mechanisms protected the 
|> little girl from Gary whose parents, a doctor and a school teacher, 
|> fed her poison?  What mechanisms protected the little girl in 
|> Florida, who ended up with AIDS because the system kept returning her 
|> to her guardians?  And, for the *I* story, what mechanism protected my
|> cousin, whose parents did not want to pay for heart surgery, from dying 
|> at the age of 16 when his heart literally exploded?

Who will ever know the reasons behind that decision.  Perhaps the parents
didn't have the money?  If so, who can best make the tough decision of
where to draw the line?  Laws, like those suggested by Clinton, imply
that the state can step in and reverse parental decisions based upon a
disagreement between the child and the parents.  How can the child, or
the state, make such a tough decision any "better" than the parents?

And we all know how often adolescents disagree with parents!  What if a
child felt that cosmetic surgery (as suggested by Clinton) would make them
more popular at school?  What if the parent disagreed and the child chose
to challenge them?  It would be one thing if the child had enough money to
purchase the surgery, and an entirely different matter if the parents were
required to pay for it.  What if a child didn't like their 11 o'clock
curfew?  What if a child wanted an auto but the parent didn't want to pay
for the insurance?  The list is endless.

The assumption seems to be that children who are physically/sexually/
emotionally/mentally abused will be protected by such laws, and that is
why we need them.  Well, the vast majority of abuse cases are covered
by current laws, so why do we need more?  More laws will not stop these
crimes from occuring.  They only create greater potential for abuse by
the law enforcement and other agencies.

EXERCISE:  Find one form of child abuse (proven, not opinion) that is
not covered by a current law.  Spanking, timeouts and raising your vioce
do not count towards your score.  :^)

There is a fine line in law, as with anything else.  No set of laws will
ever completely stop the abuse of children.  Laws do have the potential
to interfere with our constitutional freedoms.  There is a balance, and
we must be careful to maintain the balance.

|> The argument that giving children the ability to sue their parents would 
|> cause for frivolous lawsuits is, IMO, callous and shallow in light of 
|> the huge numbers of children being abused by the same persons who are 
|> charged with protecting the interests of the children.  If there is a 
|> real failure on the part of the parent, where can a child go for help?
|> Maybe H. Clinton's suggestion that a child should be allowed to divorce 
|> a parent is unworkable, but at least the woman is trying to find a 
|> voice for those whose voices are not loud enough, or strident enough, 
|> or persistent enough to get a hearing on their own.

As previously stated, abuse is already covered by law.  Separating the
child from the parents is already covered by law.  Having the child sue
based upon abuse is already covered by law.  Allowing the child to sue
based upon a difference of opinion is what Clinton suggests.
 
|> Instead of trashing H. Clinton for possibly stepping on a few parental 
|> toes, I think the woman should be commended for having the courage to 
|> put the force of her personality, learning and reputation to work for 
|> the poorest and most legally defenseless segment of our society.

She never specified the poor and the legally defenseless.  Perhaps it would
be more effective to find those children who's plight is already covered by 
the law and give them the aid they need, instead adding further complexity
to the issue?  Complexity solves nothing.  Action does.

OBSERVATION: I still find it interesting the number of people who want
to protect children from every form of harm without regard to cost or
consequence, but have no qualms about rescinding protection if the child
has not yet entered this world.  But, we are all guilty of opinion
juxtapostion, are we not?

Well, it looks like my quarter is all used up...

Steven (sjk@strl.labs.tek.com)

"Sometimes if you have a cappuccino and then try again it will work OK."
(Dr. Brian Reid)  "Sometimes one cappuccino isn't enough." (Marcus Ranum)
"A double vanilla latte always works."  (Me)