Hi Tim, to respond to your question
<<<"BTW do you think a 15 year old girl should have a right to an abortion if her parents (her family) does not want her to?">>>>
---I believe absolutely and totally in NO gvnmnt interference. That is, the gvnmnt should take NO part in this problem which is a family matter. The girl should get her abortion (assuming she wants it) by subterfuge, which would be easy enough. Probably she will have little trouble finding the help she'll need in that. The gvnmnt has no more right than you or I would to step in and enforce our opinion. To have the gvnmnt take the position that it has the right to interfere between parents and child in moral matters is absolutely unacceptable, imo.
Stand aside, gvnmnt. This is none of your business.
------------------------------
Tim, you wrote:
<<<<..."I don't have any children either. If we both did I would think you are right when you state the often the government interferes to much in how they are raised, but they would be seperate people from you or me and would have their own rights. I think in clear cases of abuse the government should intervene. I am not particuarly trusting of the government but in this situation they are probably the only orginization capable of interveneing. (Unless you are going to let other relatives, or aquaintinces take the children away when they see abuse, as bad as social serices can be I don't think it should be replaced by a vigilantee version of child protective services)...">>>>
In regard to instances of child abuse, I am sorry to say that there is no good solution.
However, it is clear to me that gvnmnt intervention is certainly not a good solution.
I would like to emphasize that when we allow gvnmnt to have the power to intrude into families when abuse is reported, we don't get the Supreme Court carefully weighing the situation and giving due consideration to all factors bearing on the well-being of the child in question.
---We get some dim-bulb overloaded caseworker who uses his/her own moral standards and prejudices to make hurried decisions on whatever facts and assumptions he/she has picked up in a scan of the situation. Then, if ms/mr Bulb doesn't like the child rearing practices of the family, the power of the state is brought to bear.
Examples of the harm done by gvnmnt social services agencies 'in the children's best interest' are horrific and ubiquitous. Yes, I would prefer a form of vigilantee-ism whereby people who know + love the children in question took matters into their own hands. Sloppy and uncertain? Yes. But closing our eyes and assuming gvnmnt social services is a modern day version of 'Boy's Town' with Spencer Tracy is not the way to go, imo.
---Also, Imo when we allow the empowering of gvnmnt to interfere in families in this manner, it has the effect of distorting the relationship between citizens and gvnmnt to the detriment of individual liberty and the sanctity of the family. I touched on that in a previous post.
-------------------
Mr horn, I'm sorry to have <<Off Topic-ed>>> such a flurry of posts today on your tax thread, and will try to make this the last.
regards,
diana |
