To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 19970
19969  |  19971
Subject: 
Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:02:05 GMT
Viewed: 
495 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
Christopher Weeks wrote:

I think part of what I'm looking for is how do we judge (I think
we have to have some basis for judgement, at least if we at all hold
that there are times when it is reasonable to demand a parent give up
responsibility for their child).

I'm
inclined to think that the minimum owed to a child is sufficiently
nutritious food, some minimal level of healthcare, and some minimal
standard of clothing and housing.

Yeah, that's tough.  One big problem with this is that the wants of the child
will often disagree with the thoughts of society on what should happen.
Children, even fairly abused children, usually don't want to be seperated from
their parents.

But I'd say that kids are better off in families where the three above stated
criteria are neglected a little and the kids are respected and loved than they
are in a family with wealthy parents who are largely absent and self-absorbed.
And how do you measure love, affection, and respect?

Do you owe your kid braces before you
can have a BMW for yourself (I'd like to think that a good parent would
choose the braces, but is that a must?)?

Dunno.  Sometimes a BMW (and other forms of status display) may be needed for
certain kinds of jobs.  And while occasionally braces are medically required,
most of the time they're cosmetic and can be done to adults as well.  It's not
like you're failing to provide an apendectomy.

Hmm, thinking of differing wealth levels, I think there is a point of
semi-independance where the parents can demand something in return for
some of what they give.

I think it's OK to pay kids for work.  But that should be above and beyond the
spending power that is the kids' by right.

For example, I think it is reasonable that a
parent who is able does owe their kids at least some support for
college, but I also think they can demand a certain minimal performance.

I'm conflicted on this one.  I thought it was great for me that I was required
to get big loans for college, but I _am_ growing weary of repayment.  I wonder
what is best for the young on some issues.

Chris



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
 
(...) Clearly we must trod the path of taking kids from their parents very carefully. This certainly is an area we need to work on. Perhaps there are ways to provide the kids with some safety net without removing the parents totally, so the kids can (...) (21 years ago, 28-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
 
(...) I guess we're getting into the nitty gritty details of what is owed. I don't think I'm looking for absolutes (in fact I think I want to avoid them). I think part of what I'm looking for is how do we judge (I think we have to have some basis (...) (21 years ago, 27-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR