Subject:
|
Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:26:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
407 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > > 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 intention is not to give the adoptive parents a way out, but to prevent the
natural parents an absolute way out. I believe that the parental
responsibility transcends legal fabrications. When you bring a child into the
world, you owe that child every scrap of a proper raising that is within your
power to give. No matter what. If adoption suits the situation, then that is
an acceptable arrangement, but I do not believe, whatever the law might say,
that the natural parents' obligation has gone away.
Once a child is adopted, the new parent(s) have an equal responsibility to the
child. Forever. And while that situation might ease the burden of providing
for the child on the natural parents when times get tight, it does not
remove it.
> 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.
You're looking at the poor rape victim come mommy. I'm looking at the baby who
didn't ask for any of this and is owed just as much as any other baby. The
simple fact is that every female in the civilized world has the ability to,
with trivial inconvenience, manage their fertility with near perfection. You
could still point to a woman who was trying to have a kid with her long-time
husband and was raped at the fertile point in her cycle, but I don't think that
weird circumstance absolves the parent of their debt.
I don't think it's right of the rapist to force the obligation on the victim,
but I think it's even less right to force a baby into a situation of neglect.
The mother may well be within her rights to sue the rapist for compensation
that would help her to deal with her newly found obligations, but that kind of
financial help is just help, not doing away with it.
> I know health care rationing" is a dirty word, but we must do it.
We agree. I want technology to keep providing more and cooler technologies
even if they are cost prohibitive for most people. We have come to expect an
absurd level of care. We should be cooperatively financing doctors who are
willing to work for a reasonable cash in an environment where they can not be
sued for silly sums of money for honest mistakes. I think that would supply
everyone in the country with basic health care. There are cash-only docs out
there making a good living.
> This raises an interesting question. Is there ever an obligation for
> children to care for their elderly parents.
Not unless the child, as an adult, opts into such an obligation. I stand firm
on the parental contract being completely one sided.
> I think there is a very
> similar obligation to the parents obligation to care for the children.
I reject that you can be signed up for contractual obligation by someone else.
> This seems like a fair payback.
I agree, and intend to care for my elderly parents in my home (not a nursing
home) as long as it is possible. But that's my choice. And even an obligation
that I happen to feel is a moral one, but not something that I'd inflict on
others.
> > > If 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.
Well, it was kind of a flippant answer. But I do not get as freaked out at the
idea of early infanticide as most people do. And I do think that assisted
suicide is an appropriate action.
> 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.
Certainly independance is a spectrum, but until the child feels ready to be on
their own, they shouldn't be forced to. And once they prove capable of doing
so, I think the obligations end. I still reject the birth-obligation on
philosophical grounds.
> Another example I remember is that our parents involved us in trip
> planning.
My son basically has a give-or-take equal share in any major family decisions.
We have discussed as a family having one (or two) parent(s) quit working,
moving into a more affordable house, and changing lots of things about our
lifestyle. So far we're both still working. Garrett chooses where we go
camping more often than either adult. Last summer we had a lot of fun on the
Appalachian Trail (short day hikes only) here in New Jersey.
> 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)]).
I camped in southern Oregon many times as a kid growing up in LA/Orange County.
I saw Crater Lake a bunch of times, all before I was nine (when we moved to
Missouri). I then saw it again almost six years ago on my honeymoon road trip.
Crater Lake rocks!
Cathy and I think that our most likely next stop is either the shores of Lake
Superior or the PNW. We both like coastal NoCal through BC an awful lot. (But
we'll have to consult our kids, of course/ :-)
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) 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. (...) Ok, it did seem reasonable that the parental obligation mostly ends when the child attains (...) (21 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
