Re: Aid to children

Bryan Moss (
Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:56:05 +0100

Michael S. Lorrey wrote:

> > Exactly, which is why I call it slavery. Kids as property.
> This doesn't parse. The traditional concept of slavery was one of a
> prisoner to work off debts to society or to the individual(s) who were
> damaged by the individual or his associates. Such prisoners could be
> sold on a market, but it was a matter of the market value of their
> indenturement, not of their persons. [...]

Obviously you know more about this subject than me. I'm just using the word 'slave' because when I talk about this people tell me it's slavery.

> In the issue of treating minor children as 'slaves' or 'property',
> nothing could be further fromt he truth. Just because you are their
> guardian and must make most of their decisions for them does not make
> you their master or their owner. Its a false analogy, which is disproven
> if you take the case of an adult who is judged incompetent, either due
> to medical condition that leaves them physically or mentally unfit to
> make their own decsions, like a coma, or schitzophrenia, etc. Just
> because you are their guardian does not make you their owner. On the
> contrary, for anyone who has been in such positions it feels more like
> they own you. My family is going through this right now with my mother's
> parents, one of which is quite senile, while the other is merely a
> senior citizen version of a spoiled brat.

Property, when not state enforced, is merely what you can hang on to.

> Now given my earlier description of a slave market, where oh where is it
> legal to sell your children or other legal dependents????? Case closed.

I fail to see your point.

> Oh shit. As much as I would have applauded this when I was a child, now
> that I'm an adult I can clearly say that the kind of decisions I made as
> a child clearly demonstrated my unfitness to be treated as an adult.
> What children need is parents who ACT LIKE ADULTS, something which I see
> as sorely lacking in the current baby boomer generation of parents.
> Children don't need to be adults, their parents need to be adults.

Please reread the paragraph; I have not suggested the child be responsible for anything, quite the opposite in fact.

> So now you guys are advocating not only an inbred fealty to the state
> welfare apparatus, but teach them to not honor their contracts either. I
> now know at least two people IMNSHO should NOT be parents.

I don't recall advocating any of the above.