From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:18:57 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

My response to paul was not so much directed at his article, but at the
thought his article raised. Get this: the question is not directed at
Paul directly, because he has shown no evidence that he feels this way.

"Are children possessions?"

And if not, why do so many insist on treating them as such.

In article <1992Oct8.015017.20423@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
:In article <2757@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:
:>I agree that the state should stay out of it but I have a question.
:>
:>Do you own your children?
:>
:>I know this could be seen as a nasty, snide question, but that is
:>not how is was meant.
:>
:>Think about it.
:
:Ok. I've thought about it... what is your point?
:
:My children are a gift from God.

My children are not a *gift* but I feel responsible for their
care and welfare.

That does not lessen the validity of your feelings, it just
demonstrates the diversity of parents views towards children.

My feelings are, in some areas, different than yours.  Is one more
valid than the other?  Who is to judge?

That is a good question.  Who is to judge?  So that leads to:

:We must make it clear as a society that we expect parents to take their 
:role very seriously. 

I know you didn't mean things like these.  You mean abuse and neglect.

But ...

The only problem I have with that (though I agree with it), is with who
decides what it means to take the role "seriously".  There are those
who would equate being a lesbian/bisexual/gay person as not a "serious"
parent.  There are those who would equate practicing paganism as not
being a "serious" parent.  Someone who believes in open marriages may not
be viewed by 'society' as a serious parent. You could also include 
couples involved in consentual S&M (something that should be their 
business, just like the other examples.)

I know my examples are strong ones, but they are valid none the less,
because people have had their custody placed in question for things
like these that put the welfare of their children at *no* risk.  Whether 
or not you agree that any of my examples are acceptible, you surely 
will see that if they find one thing unacceptable, and base a judgement 
of the seriousness of a parents interest in thier children on that, then 
what is next?  Extrapolation takes its toll.

:Unfortunately, people these days expect the State 
:to perform the role of parent and solve all of their problems - protect 
:and raise our children, (sex) educate them, pay them when they don't work, 
:etc - parents (and their kids) aren't getting the message that responsible 
:behavior is expected.
:
:Further undermining of parental authority continues this pattern of 
:sending the wrong message.

I guess it depends on if 'parental authority' is a person denying
health care for thier child based on religious grounds, or abuse
under the guise of dicipline.  

:-Paul




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.