Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (4924)	5/12/2000 10:50:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 9127

hhahahahaha I mentioned the comparison to the Christian Scientist type cases AGES ago. Of course I think the cases are distinguishable.

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (4924)	5/12/2000 10:55:00 AM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

X, I have the highest respect for Federal judges and Judge Edmondson is no exception. I must take exception with this analogy: "it is not uncommon for courts to rule that the best interests of a child override parental rights, comparing the 6-year-old boy to children whose parents reject medical care for religious reasons. It's not that the parents are insincere Taking this analogy at face value, Elian should, therefore, be less likely to survive in Cuba. However, as Juan Miguel stated on 60 minutes, in Cuba you don't have to worry about paramilitary youths shooting classmates with semi-automatic machine guns, and health care and most essentials are provided free of charge. It's not the same as denying a crtitically wounded or ill child medical care. Elian will not physically die or suffer irreprepable bodily harm if he returns to Cuba. You can argue that without "freedom" in America he may as well be dead, or that a part of Elian will "die" if he returns to Cuba. But that is not sufficient for the analogy to work. Elian must suffer some serious bodily injury (the courts would not otherwise overrule a parent's autonomy) or be guranteed to suffer such bodily harm. It is a matter of degree. Without a near certainty of physical death, the analogy is just simply innapropriate. The Judge is giving Juan Miguel credit for making a decision on where he and Elian should live (as opposed to being on Castro's string) but is disagreeing with the prudence of Jaun's decision. I find this disturbing. If the courts plan to start deciding the geographic locations a parent can and cannot raise a child, we are going to be much closer to living under the exact system the exiles fear. Is a parent's decision to live in east L.A. (or any potentially dangerous area) really the same as denying their child medical care? Good luck finding any legal precedent on that one Judge Edmondson.

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (4924)	5/12/2000 11:45:00 AM
From: jhild	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

I don't think that there is any disagreement that there are times where society can step in on behalf of a child. Children are removed quite frequently from sexually and physically abusive parents. Or that medical attention can be demanded for children that would be neglected through adherence to a religious principle. This is fundamental to our humanity. But freedom is another story. In the minds of those that would keep Elian in the US its concept seems indistinguishable from religious fervor. Let me observe that freedom in the life and well being of a child and his development is a foreign concept. For children are never free. They are subject to the dictatorship of their parents. Otherwise, they grow like the bad boys on Pinocchio's Pleasure Island, where all the boys grew into asses by their complete lack of limits and non-existent foundation of moral values. They were only fit to be beasts of burden. The presumption that Elian will be harmed is a case that the Miami Relatives cannot make. Not only can we not see the future, but there is no evidence in his past that he was anything but loved and cared for. The only argument is a political one, that is being applied like a religious conviction. Strange isn't it that the state would demand medical attention to override a religious conviction of the parents, but would now in this case use religious-like conviction as the basis of removing a child from its parent. Since there is and can be no proof that he was or will be harmed other than the subjective application of the religious-like conviction that he would be better growing under US freedom, how is it possible that the court can find its political beliefs superior to the rights of a parent to raise their child. Especially a parent who has demonstrated not a wit of abusiveness and shows nothing but a happy relationship with his son.