From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sex education at home Re: Abortion story
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:54:29 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
 
>eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
* Full text of paragraph previous and all sentences prior to the cited
sentence below follows: 

Religious observance doesn't imply doing the right thing, but caring and
concern for one's children could. Yes, the responsibility is the
parents. Parenting doesn't start with telling children about sex. It is
a life-long responsibility (life-long for the child).

The child who goes on and acts irresponsibly because of a lack of
discipline from the parents reflects badly on the entire family. The
child won't bear all the shame; the parents also share. When a child
does something wrong (i.e., against the law), the parents are (or should
be) aggrieved.  *

>>When a child
>>does something wrong (i.e., against the law), the parents are (or should
>>be) aggrieved.
>Ooooh. Couldn't "wrong" and "unlawful" be distinct concepts?

Yes they could. If you said I went to UNC, you're wrong, but you aren't a
criminal. I'll have to look up what my discourse was that made me type
"i.e." instead of "e.g."  Nevertheless, if a child did break a law of
society, then the parents should be disappointed in their child (and I don't
mean getting arrested for civil disobedience, although some parents might
be embarrassed to know their son or daughter had been arrested in such an
act).

> Do you
>really believe that there's never been a state in the world with laws
>that it would be "right" to disobey?

I'm sure there have been.

> And are you really saying that
>parents "should" always be aggrieved when their son or daughter breaks
>such a law?

Well, I don't expect Charles Manson's parents to have thrown a party the
day their son was convicted. They should be concerned, and depending on
what the child did they either "are" or they "should be." Are there not
children -- not even in their 10s (tens not teens) -- who are out helping
drug dealers or using drugs? Were there any children/teenagers/young
adults who looted the L.A. stores during the riots taking everything in
sight only to have their parents force them to return the items?

>I'm all for anything that enables kids to decide for themselves what's
>right and wrong.

At what age then should kids decide for themselves instead of having their
parents decide for them? 13? 6?

Besides, sometimes children will find out through experience what they
will consider "right" and "wrong." The only problem is sometimes, the
consequences of "experimenting" will haunt them for the rest of their
lives. (Teenage pregnancy/HIV contraction are prime examples.)

> I'd be skeptical that it had been acheived though, if
>they equated this with what's "lawful" and "unlawful".

Parents should teach children what is "right" and "wrong," e.g., what is
responsibility and why they can't stay out after 11:00 PM curfew. Parents
should discipline their children, not let them wander off and experiment
with their own lives to see what is right and what is wrong. And when
parents do let them go off and have them use what they have learned,
parents should worry if their child will do the right thing, but they
have to trust their children that they understood what mommy and daddy
told them.



-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I have entered the week of transition from my summer job at NIH to fall
semester at Duke. I will not be able to reply to everyone. If you want
to continue a thread, please email replies to me until I can post again.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42855 alt.activism:15684 misc.headlines:6077