Reply #17: and once again, the real agenda [View All]

[iverglas]

... exposed by the willingness to make false claims in support of it:

Would you allow a 16-year old to have a breast augmentation without parental consent???? Why??? It's invasive medical procedure that has inherint risks. Abortion is EVEN MORE risky!!!

Got any facts to back that claim up? Didn't think so.

You will hold a parent accountable if the child steals or commits violent crimes.

Well, maybe *you* will, but I don't actually know of any sensible people who will. A parent may indeed have failed to fulfil some parental responsibility and that may have been a contributing factor in the child's actions ... but holding a parent "accountable" for a child's actions, the way a farmer is held accountable for damage done by his/her livestock ... well, you know: children, chattel ... . Children are human beings, not livestock, and cannot, and may not, be controlled by anyone the way livestock are. Thus, obviously, no one else can be "held accountable" for what they do, unless s/he caused them to do it, and that's a pretty sticky wicket in terms of proof.

You will hold the parent accountable if the child turns into a fucking asshole that disturbs school and beats up their classmates.

Well, again ... maybe *you* will.

But does that actually mean something? I'm at a loss. How exactly does one hold someone "accountable" in this situation. Impose a fine? a prison sentence? The PARENT did not cause any damage; the PARENT is not responsible for it. A parent's insurance policy may cover damage caused by a child, but a parent simply CANNOT be held liable personally for a child's actions. (Yeah, I'm sure there are places in the US where they may in fact be, but there are places in the US where all sorts of weird and unconstitutional things happen.)

Nonsense. Utter meaningless nonsense.


This extends to abortion as well. Would you allow a 16-year old to have a breast augmentation without parental consent???? Why???

Actually, when someone is proposing to interfere with someone else's fundamental rights, the question is not why someone should be "allowed" to do something, it is whether the first someone HAS JUSTIFICATION FOR PREVENTING him/her from doing it.

Children do have rights, despite muddle-headed claims to the contrary. Parents are vested with the authority to exercise children's rights on the children's behalf, thus necessarily in the children's best interests. Children really are not livestock, and parents really are NOT the final arbiters of what is in a child's best interests.

If you don't believe me, just try beating your child, or starving your child, or letting your 2-yr-old wander the streets at night. No matter how much in their best interests *you* might consider any of those things to be, you really won't be getting the final say.

.