From: das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:12:30 GMT

EMIL CHUCK (eyc@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: 
		<stuff deleted>

: The quote in question is the following:
: 
: " The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency
: relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving
: of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social 
: institutions specifically designed to safegaurd their positions. Along
: with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include
: marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system."
: 
: A family is an institution that DEPRIVES children of RIGHTS?

It certainly can be.  In the past huge numbers of children were denied
the right to develop their potential because their parents were allowed to
send them to work. But now, because of the LAW, children are rarely sent to
work (in the US), and are given a chance at greater development through
education.
: 
: While she may not have "compared" marriage and slavery per se, she most
: certainly expressed a commonality, in as much as two branches of a tree
: depend on the same roots and trunk for their existence.

And indeed marriage and slavery in centuries past did depend on the same roots
and trunk for their existence.  However, marriage is now more nearly a bonding
of equals, than the passing of a chattel from her father to her husband.
: 
: Her other pearl of wisdom is the following:
: 
: "I prefer that [court] intervention into an ongoing family be limited to
: decisions that could have long-term and possible irreparable effects if they 
: are not resolved. Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling,
: cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others
: where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child's
: future should not be made unilaterally by parents. Children should have
: a right to be permitted to decide their own future if they are 
: competent."
: 
: It is outrageous that Hilary believes ( she has not yet publicly disavowed
: these opinions ) that parents are so inept at making responsible judgments
: that the courts need to step in to review every kind of decision they make
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Excuse me, did you actually read the quoted paragraph you included?  She 
clearly stated that intervention should limited to decisions which have
long-term and possible irreperable effects.

: regarding their children. Nobody should tell anyone how to deal with their
                            ^^^^^^             ^^^^^^
: children. Nobody.
            ^^^^^^

Oh really, even if the parent thinks the proper way to deal with children is to
send them to work in a dangerous mine or factory then beat them when they 
come home?  Or not allow live-saving medical treatment to a critically ill
teenager?  Or if the parent thinks that the best punishment for a willful 
child is to withdraw food (even to the point of starving the child to death)?
Or how about verbally abusing and discouraging a bright child until they no
longer have the self-confidence to attempt college?

Maybe you should rethink your absolutes, and the conditions under which
you think society should be allowed to intervene on a child's behalf.

: -- 
: Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu

David Alaric Shorten (UofUtah BHist '90 BCS '91)    das@unislc.slc.unisys.com