Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:43:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
412 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> > Hmm, does that never mean that the parent has an obligation to support
> > the child if the child loses his/her job in a layoff after attaining
> > self sufficiency?
>
> It's hard for me to think of it as an obligation. I've never met anyone
> able-bodied who was in a position that precluded them from supporting
> themselves. Also, wouldn't the parent _want_ to help out? Just like the adult
> kid would _want_ to be productive around the house.
I agree that in many cases the parent would want to help, and a properly
raised kid should want to be productive around the house.
> But that's kind of dodging your question. I guess I think that self-sufficient
> adults are no longer the recipient of the parental obligation. And to cover my
> bases, I think that people who declare themselves as self-sufficient adults
> incorrectly should have a way to back out of it. But it seems kind of like
> planning obscure minutae.
Ok, it did seem reasonable that the parental obligation mostly ends when
the child attains self-sufficiency.
> > How is this modified when rape is involved? How do we hold the rapist
> > responsible for his part of the obligation?
>
> I think that both parents are obliged. If I give up a child for adoption, I
> ahve exercised a socially acceptable (by and large) way of temporarily
> dispensing with that obligation. However, if the adoptive parents then refuse
> to do their job, I am once again (or still) (along with the adoptive parents)
> obligated to the kid. I don't see rape as a clouding issue.
I would want to feel that a properly initiated adoption would absolve
the parent of future obligation. I'd prefer to see adoption (and foster
care) present the same parental obligation as (more) natural parenthood.
Leaving the natural parent in a position of obligation gives the
adoptive parents a way out.
My feeling on rape is that the raped parent (presumably usually the
mother...) should have less obligation to the child. I don't think it's
right to force an obligation on someone in this way, or at least force
the same level of obligation.
> > Are you obligated to become destitute when you have a child that will
> > need care forever? If not, who can the child demand support from? If
>
> I think that if the child has needs that require destitution, then the answer
> is yes. OTOH, I think this is a pretty rare case.
It's pretty rare, but when it happens it can be pretty devestating. Of
course there is a whole area of medical care and quality of life that we
need to understand better. I sometimes feel some "pro-life" people would
feel that if there was a way to keep more people alive by 100% of the
population spending 100% of their resources on improving medical care. I
know health care rationing" is a dirty word, but we must do it. We can't
spend ever increasing wealth on low payback health care. I'm not talking
about things like transplants that give many years of quality life to
the recipient and such - I'm far more concerned about things like not
being willing to let someone die today instead of next week (but if
you've got a good reason to extend the life a week, like so grandma can
attend her granddaughter's wedding, well, I'm more willing to spend the
money, of course if you're truly spending your own money [either because
you're a millionaire or because you bought optional health insurance,
then you can do what you want]).
This raises an interesting question. Is there ever an obligation for
children to care for their elderly parents. I think there is a very
similar obligation to the parents obligation to care for the children.
This seems like a fair payback. If we develop good methods of
determining what care is reasonable given the resources available, then
there should be no fear of making the children destitute while caring
for their parents.
> > not, what actions can a parent take to end or reduce the obligation?
>
> Smother the child.
But isn't that reneging on the obligation? Or are you saying that
assisted suicide has a legitimate place? Personally, I think there is a
place for assisted suicide, of course the checks and balances must be
strong.
> > Does this obligation rise to the level of demanding the mother risk
> > death (serious injury or other lesser things) in order to bring a baby
> > to term?
>
> Well, if we like binary states so much, we should draw a line somewhere before
> which the child doesn't count and after which it does. But if I had the magic
> wand, the social/legal ramifications for putting a baby down would be trivial
> at conception and increase as time passed up to the point where we decide that
> psychological humanity begins -- roughly 2-4 months after birth, at which time
> it would just be murder.
>
> So I think a measured analysis of the risk to mother and child (including the
> age of the child) should dictate our response. If my wife had a 5% chance of
> dying _or_ my unborn baby had a 100% chance of dying, I'm not sure if and when
> I'd want to risk it. Certainly when the baby is a little blob of snot, I
> wouldn't want to risk it. A few days before birth would be a different matter.
This all seems reasonable.
> > Who becomes obligated to the child when the parents die?
>
> Grandparents if they're around. Otherwise, no one or The People depending on
> your philosophy. The grandparents owe contractually (the way we're thinking
> about it) and no one else does. I prefer the aesthetic of a world in which The
> People find an ethical way to care for the needy. (Not the lazy.)
I think we're pretty much in agreement here. Of course one might argue
that the lazy had poor support from their parents... Of course the
solution is for aid giving to be a two way street. The recipient should
have some obligation in return for the aid. Of course the obligation
depends on capability. I've got no problem with giving aid to folks laid
off, but if they're able, there should be monitoring of their job search
progress, and they should also be putting some time in for community
service or something.
> > > I think that competence should be determined every step of the way. It's just
> > > not reasonable to hold someone (even an adult) to a contract they enter when
> > > the verbiage is so convoluted as to be indecipherable to them. The burden for
> > > making sure that your contractual partners understand their role in the
> > > contract should rest on everyone.
> >
> > The question is how do we reasonably determine competance. What can we
> > enforce for those who are not competant (i.e. are minimum driving age
> > and drinking age laws supportable)?
>
> I agree that that's the question. But at the same time, it's just an
> implementation issue. Theoretically we think that a combination of testing,
> age, and economic incentive does a reasonable job of determining who's fit to
> drive. Why not just test more thoroughly and do away with the others? (Not
> that I like that -- I think that driving is something that everyone should have
> access to unless and until they prove to be incapable.)
Is it reasonable to have things like driving require some degree of
competancy test prior to driving? I think so. But I think that should
happen pretty naturally, I wouldn't give car keys to someone I didn't
have evidence of capability to drive. I really see no problem with
letting anyone enroll in drivers ed, or be taught by their parents. If
keys aren't handed over irresponsibly, there's nothing wrong with a 10
year old (who has proven capability to drive safely to whoever handed
them the keys) driving (I wouldn't expect many 10 year olds though to be
given the keys to drive on the highway, but I bet in many cases they
could drive safely under supervision or in limited situations [like
around the farm]).
> > Hmm, is the contract really one-sided. Couldn't the child have
> > obligations under the contract in relation to his/her ability to be self
> > sufficient (which includes the competence issue above).
>
> I think that's like having a contract with the Solar system requiring that the
> sun continue to rise each morning. People will seek independence to the best
> of their ability. The mere fact that someone is not independent of their
> parents shows a disability (natural age related, parentally imposed through
> improper psychological conditioning, or physical). I think it's one sided.
Hmm, I guess I still see it as two-sided, however, I think the
dependant's obligation is commensurate with their ability. I guess what
I'm driving at here is that I don't think independance is a line, but a
spectrum.
> > For example, if
> > a parent does owe his 30 year old son support after the son is laid off,
> > can that support be provided under a contract that makes demands of the
> > son? I think one could demand the father provide room and board for the
> > son rather than let the son live on the public dole, but I think also
> > the father could as part of that, demand the son participate in
> > maintaining the house, and have legal recourse if the son refuses (or
>
> Under normal circumstances, I don't think the father should legally owe the son
> in that case, but any contractual living arangement with or without work
> obligation would be fine.
This goes back to the question at the top. If the father's obligation
has ended when the son declared independance and went off to work, then
it seems reasonable for the father to owe the son nothing, and then they
are free to enter any form of contract each is willing to agree to. My
feeling of course is also that there should not be a public dole, and
thus that the father might desire to take the son in rather than the son
living on the street, or getting assistance from a church that demands
things of the son that the father doesn't agree with.
> > I'm not sure it should be too easy for children to terminate their
> > relationship with their parents. If it's too easy, then it's easy for a
> > malicious outsider to get the relationship terminated. Clearly the
> > system needs to have good ways to determine when real problems are
> > occuring (without a real problem, a child should never want to terminate
> > the relationship with their parents).
>
> I don't think such termination should be a one-way street. I also don't see
> how the ease with which a child can emancipate is implicitly linked to the
> hacking of malign forces.
I guess my concern is what "easy" means. I think the system does need to
allow third parties to petition for termination of parental
relationships, but if that's too easy, then it can easily be used
malliciously.
> > But you have to draw lines somehow.
>
> Some situations are binary by nature. Many others are not even though we're
> very used to thinking of them that way.
>
> > There is clearly a line between
> > conflicts that are resolved by the court system and those that are not.
>
> In each case of conflict, after the fact, it is either court-settled or not.
> But there are instances of classes of conflict that are sometimes court-settled
> and not others. My son's mother and I are not married or otherwise romantic.
> We're both married to someone else. We have never used a court to help figure
> out what happens with him. We just worked it out. But lots of parents seem to
> need the courts to help (hurt?) them. I think the line is not as clear as you
> suggest.
>
> > There is clearly a line between conflicts that result in someone being
> > involuntarily confined (in prison or treatment centers and hospitals)
> > and those that don't.
>
> But my answer above applies here too. Sometime murderers are jailed and other
> times they are not.
>
> > We have to have standards that let us decide which
> > side of the line people lie on.
>
> Or an agenda of things that a jury should consider when deciding each case
> individually.
I think I'm agreeing with you that the examples you mentioned sometimes
involve the court and sometimes not. My point is that there needs to be
standards that tell when to involve the court system and when not to. I
don't think we want to involve the court system in every situation where
a life is terminated (or about to be terminated - I can't see a world
that has no situations where some abortions are accepted, and some
assisted death is accepted - there are also situations of self defence
or accidents that can be dispensed with without going to court). Really,
the court system is just part of the standards (so maybe there isn't
really a line afterall).
> > On the other hand, I tend to agree that
> > the line should be drawn in terms of measurable standards of competancy
> > (and responsibility), and then people placed on one side or the other
> > based on how they compare to that standard.
>
> In general, I think that if we just let people choose the side of the line they
> wanted, we'd be better off.
Probably, assuming that an enlightened system is used to deal with
people who make mistakes. I think we're actually mostly in agreement.
This "debate" interests me because I think what is needed is not
agreement that this is the way to go, but exploration of what the
"standards" should be and how to get there.
> > Unfortunately, age is one of
> > the easier measures (and remember, no measurement is going to be
> > perfectly accurate). Age is also one of the few measures that had any
> > truth to it until fairly recently.
>
> How do you mean? The most accurate measure is to let people figure out for
> themselves what they're ready to do and then correct them when they turn out to
> be wrong.
>
> > Hmm, I'm trying to remember how old I was when we had a system where we
> > posted the savings goals each kid had, and their progress towards those
> > goals. With inflation, the goals were probably not too far off from $400
> > (though the rate of inflation for the types of things we were buying is
> > not that extreme). Since it happened before we moved from Concord to
> > Lexington, I was less than 13 (and my younger sister who participated
> > also was by extension less than 9). I know that was a valuable exercise
> > for me (as evidenced by my remembering it - it was certainly one of the
> > first times I learned money planning). I know I didn't have "perfect"
> > parents, but I can certainly say I got a pretty good deal from them.
> > There is no doubt in my mind that my most important life skills and
> > values came from them.
>
> That sounds good. Who decided what your goals were? We talk about our goals
> and they are commonly known, but there's nothing as formal as you're describing.
I don't remember a lot of details. I know that many of the goals were
toys and such that we chose. I know that we had a chart posted on the
wall near the kitchen where each person's progress was shown.
Another example I remember is that our parents involved us in trip
planning. The earliest I have a specific memory of is our trip to europe
when I was 9. Each person in the family was allowed to specify one place
they wanted to see for sure (my choice was in Switzerland, my mom's was
Loch Lomond, I don't remember the others, I wish I remembered my younger
sister's since she was 5). We were also encouraged to choose an artist
so that we would have a goal and interest in visiting art museums (my
choice was Van Gogh).
I also remember a friend asking me why we got to go on such fun trips
while eating Twinkies (or some other snack product) in his kitchen. I
used the fact that my mom homemade most of our snacks as one example of
the thriftyness (or setting of priorities) that allowed us to do so.
This was when I lived in Lexington so I was in Junior High or High
School (probably High School - I suspect it was in connection with our
trip across country [where my choice of what to see under the same
system as the European trip was Crater Lake (1)]).
(1) I've recently realized that my journey to the Pacific Northwest
started at least way back then. That trip was also definitely one of the
things that sparked my interest in caving (we visited Wind Cave on the
trip - and I remember that we considered the "wild" cave tour [which
would have been real caving - I think I didn't do it because of time, or
perhaps I was too young]), though I also very much remember earlier cave
visits, including one on our first cross country trip (when I was 3 - I
realized later that that must also have been Wind Cave since I found an
old Wind Cave brochure in my father's collection of maps).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) It's hard for me to think of it as an obligation. I've never met anyone able-bodied who was in a position that precluded them from supporting themselves. Also, wouldn't the parent _want_ to help out? Just like the adult kid would _want_ to be (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
