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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (15587)	1/18/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

What if the parents had a child who had a severe case of Asthma. So bad that when the parents do smoke the child is put in the hospital? I keep saying this, but no one listens: some asthmatics smoke occasionally (or all the time, as in the case of Lawrence Eagleburger) because doing so stops attacks. I know someone who was asthmatic as a child and teenager. By the time he was sixteen or so he carried a pack of cigarettes with him and smoked when he felt he needed to, though he didn't enjoy it. (Doesn't have asthma anymore, and smoking never became a habit.) This is not to say that asthmatics should be encouraged to smoke, or that it's good for them, but it can have a beneficial effect on their specific problem.

To: greenspirit who wrote (15587)	1/18/1998 3:08:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael you do not seem to understand that rights do not exist in a vacuum. With a "right" comes a "duty." Parental rights come with a duty to provide care. What level of care? Well, I would argue one must not endanger the child. Here I mean generally agreed to levels of apropriate care. One must not starve one's children to the point at which they become malnourished. One may not physically assault their child to the point that child requires medical attention. One may not use drugs and alcohol to the point that one endangers the safety of one's child, routinely. Children are much more likely to be killed by their parents than by the serial killers that are the boogie men of so many horror movies. Children are most likely to be sexually molested by their father or live in boyfriends of the mother. Children, unlike property, HAVE RIGHTS TOO. Therefore the problem of parental rights is more difficult to determine than property rights. If you choose to shoot your car with a gun, burn down your place of business, or hack your home apart with a hatchet, you have committed some crimes, but unless the fire gets out of control, no one else was injured (well, your mortgage lender may have a problem with you). But if you do these things to your child, you have violated the rights of another human. They may be little humans, but they have (IMO) the same basic rights (to life, for instance) and frequently need to be protected from their parents. You may not like the idea of parents who are a danger to their kids, but there are lots of them out there.