Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199703182356.XAA02032@mailhub.amaranth.com>, on 03/18/97 at 08:39 PM, Alec <camcc@abraxis.com> said:
Not in every case do the parents have the right to determine what treatment shall be performed or whether it shall occur at all. More often than not the courts have allowed medical treatment for the child who is not able to consent to such treatment for himself.
In many instances courts have stepped in to authorize blood transfusions for children of Jehovah's Witnesses, who follow Biblical injunctions not to "eat" blood (Gen. 9:4). Recently the Church of Christ Scientist [?] has been under societal and governmental attack for insisting on substituting healers for medical teams even in cases of children afflicted by cancer accompanied by apparently unbearable pain.
Parents most certainly are not the only ones to determine the welfare of their children; society has assumed a significant role and typically moves to protect the child from the parents or from the _beliefs_ of the parents.
Just because the government subverts the RIGHTS of the parents does not mean that the parents do not have those rights. A parent is the sole person who has a *RIGHT* to determine the welfair of their childern. You do not have that right, I do not have that right, the government does not have that right. To beleive that the government should "protect" a child from the beliefs of its parents is truly FASISTS/COMMUNIST/STATIST (pick you flavor they are all the same <G>). I as a parent have the sole right to determine what religon to teach my children, how to rase my children, how to teach my children, how to reward my children and how to punish my children PERIOD. Perhaps you should take your STATIST tendicies over to alt.hitler.fanclub as they are quite out of place here. "When the wants of society override the rights of the individule that society must die" -- whgiii - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I'm an OS/2 developer...I don't NEED a life! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 ES000000 iQCVAwUBMy+K649Co1n+aLhhAQG7nAP/Y4hrT/SVyNr9xYOe/5pyERD00dMzOtNw W16+9Sx9ZAge7NCbpHP9nOvYOHJ5sZqjUzgJrrqoEWgE9Mm16dBKBbYZzs86/u3u rLxb2MK9pAzWgikFe45Gb9Rfv/mDyFQz/rx9iBSE46lJ/B/7w9AaFNdgGnXzDruf d/obdF244mc= =iPaz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William H. Geiger III wrote:
Alec <camcc@abraxis.com> said:
Not in every case do the parents have the right to determine what treatment shall be performed or whether it shall occur at all. More often than not the courts have allowed medical treatment for the child who is not able to consent to such treatment for himself.
A parent is the sole person who has a *RIGHT* to determine the welfair of their childern. You do not have that right, I do not have that right, the government does not have that right. To beleive that the government should "protect" a child from the beliefs of its parents is truly FASISTS/COMMUNIST/STATIST (pick you flavor they are all the same <G>).
As a person who was once a child in a very unhappy home (5 kids, nobody talks to anyone else), I can testify that I would have been willing at several points to take a chance with the State. Would it have helped or hurt more? I believe that would have depended on knowing how much worse things would have gotten at home (some homes get worse, some get better, some stay the same), and just how bad it would have been under the State. I think those are the issues, but how are you gonna predict which is worse, unless you have some real incriminating evidence against the parents? On a related note, there's a valid point about the State raising kids being not only unnatural, but leading to bad things preparing the kids for a future statist society. Just another factor as far as I'm concerned, when the life and safety of a defenseless child is in question.
Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
William H. Geiger III wrote:
Alec <camcc@abraxis.com> said:
Not in every case do the parents have the right to determine what treatment shall be performed or whether it shall occur at all. More often than not the courts have allowed medical treatment for the child who is not able to consent to such treatment for himself.
A parent is the sole person who has a *RIGHT* to determine the welfair of their childern. You do not have that right, I do not have that right, the government does not have that right. To beleive that the government should "protect" a child from the beliefs of its parents is truly FASISTS/COMMUNIST/STATIST (pick you flavor they are all the same <G>).
As a person who was once a child in a very unhappy home (5 kids, nobody talks to anyone else), I can testify that I would have been willing at several points to take a chance with the State.
Would it have helped or hurt more? I believe that would have depended on knowing how much worse things would have gotten at home (some homes get worse, some get better, some stay the same), and just how bad it would have been under the State. I think those are the issues, but how are you gonna predict which is worse, unless you have some real incriminating evidence against the parents?
On a related note, there's a valid point about the State raising kids being not only unnatural, but leading to bad things preparing the kids for a future statist society. Just another factor as far as I'm concerned, when the life and safety of a defenseless child is in question.
That's a tough one, Dale. On one hand, if the kid is born to psychotic parents (or just stupid parents) and the trait is inherited, then it's better for the species as a whole if they mistreat the kid and possibly kill him. On the other hand the mistreatment may be due to the parent's environment and not be an inherited trait - that it's not the kid's fault, just bad luck. I'm not at all arguing that having the state make choices for children too young to make choices is better than having parents make choices. There are plenty of examples of parents mistreating children in ways that the state finds objections (e.g. having sex with one's children used to be widely accepted in miswestern U.S. but is now frowned on) and examples of state permitting what I consider severe abuse (e.g. in 18 and 19 century Italy many parents castrated their male children if they showed any musical/singing talent - hoping they'd become male sopranos; or, u.s. parents who indoctrinate their children with fables about "god"). Perhaps Jim Bell's assassination politics is the answer - you can abuse your children by commisis (circumcizing an infant, lying to them about "god" and Santa Claus) or omission (denying medical care or education) but you're running the risk of the kids growing up and taking out a contract on you. Cool. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
That's a tough one, Dale. On one hand, if the kid is born to psychotic parents (or just stupid parents) and the trait is inherited, then it's better for the species as a whole if they mistreat the kid and possibly kill him. On the other hand the mistreatment may be due to the parent's environment and not be an inherited trait - that it's not the kid's fault, just bad luck. or, u.s. parents who indoctrinate their children with fables about "god"). Perhaps Jim Bell's assassination politics is the answer - you can abuse your children by commisis (circumcizing an infant, lying to them about "god" and Santa Claus) or omission (denying medical care or education) but you're running the risk of the kids growing up and taking out a contract on you. Cool.
Good points all. I'd add that since society and standards are evolving, and the state's negative influences are gaining along with the positive ones, a goal of keeping the state at bay is a good one to pursue. One issue that concerns me, though, is the kids' access to their own redresses. There was the kid who "divorced" his parents, and probably other examples where kids have brought third parties (other than government) between them and their parents. I think this sort of thing has merit in some cases, but would likely be exploited by Hillary types for bad. If kids can (or will) have more access to grievance-intermediaries, how can that be controlled, just enough so it doesn't get out of hand (or has letting the genie out of the bottle already lost the case for future parents)?
participants (3)
-
Dale Thorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
William H. Geiger III