From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: Are children property? (was Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 03:39:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.235131.2227876@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.010529.21970@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>>
>>I'm really sick of the system the way it is: I pay (thru taxes) to
>>send everybody's kids to school.  Then, I'm responsible (legally)
>>for making sure they're safe. Then I have to put up with them
>>yelling and screaming out of control whereever I go. Parents (many
>>of them)  take so little responsibility these days. Parents
>>should bear the costs and responsibilities of having kids. 
>>Don't get me wrong.  I love kids.  But I think our current system
>>forces society to pay for everyone elses kids. 
>>
>>I'm not trying to pick on you, Judy. You sound like a reasonable 
>>Parent. I just get sick of the way many parents try to pawn off
>>(what should be parental) responsibilities on others. It's not
>>fair to others, and it's not fair to the children. 
>>
>
>I think that the problem we are seeing in this most interesting discussion
>(interesting because of the multiple views expressed and the courtesy shown
>by all regarding these views) is that we see children differently.
>
>You seem to see children as "property" of the parents.  I see children as
>part of our communal future.  That means that while you pay taxes today to
>put them through school, they will in turn pay taxes to pay for your Medicare
>when you become to old to function.  As such, children are not just the
>property of their parents, but are part and parcel of our community.
>
>I am a firm believer in community and civic responsibility and not living
>one's life just for oneself.  Because of that, if I see a child about to do
>something foolish or dangerous I will stop that child.  I will, and have often
>done so in parks, parent a child that is not my own.  Therefore, I believe,
>as I think many other parents in this forum do, that we have a civic 
>responsibility for all children within our community.  In other words, we
>are our brother's keeper.

It's attitudes like this that breed the philosophy that "I'll have twelve
kids and let society take care of them".  NO . I don't want to pay
for them. Furthermore, I don't beleive in the fed govt giving tax
"incentives" to have more children!

>
>Others, most notably evident in this post, but also in others, seem to believe
>that our society is one of each person for himself.  Your civic responsibilty
>begins and ends with you (and any children you happen to have - though there
>are some who will abdicate even this responsibility).  As long as you are
>not hurting anyone else, then whatever you do with your own property is your
>own business.  And if others in the community don't like it, well, they should
>just stay out of your face.  In other words, you are NOT your brother's keeper.
>

If I see a kid in trouble (or anyone) I will try to help. But I AM NOT going
to take full responsibility (READ: LEGAL) for another person or their kids.

>I look at the results of each type of community and have chosen the one I
>consider to be most likely to create a better quality of life for everyone.
>I believe it is the former.  When I first moved from NYC to LA I used to laugh
>about the difference between the two cities.  My comment was that "If you're
>down and out in LA, people will step around you.  If you're down and out in
>New York, people will step ON you."  I vote for a community where, if you're
>down and out, people will reach out and lend you a hand.  
>

No problem here. Help one another- but I don't want to be forced to PAY for
everyone elses CHOICES

>Thus, if you see a child fall into a river and do nothing to save that child's
>life, then you are as negligent as if you had pushed the child in yourself.
>That is the model I live by and the one I believe will make a better world.
>Clearly you disagree.  But I cannot imagine living in your community.  It seems
>awfully cold and lonely.  
>-- 

Again, no problem here. Paying for another person's kids vs. saving their lives
in danger are two ENTIRELY different issues.

>Judy Leedom Tyrer
>


Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,rec.pets.dogs