From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 14:42:41 MST
Gary Miller writes
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky said:
>
>> "Okay, so we should have extreme regard for the
>> individual legal rights of babies? Incidentally,
>> I think that while parents having control of
>> children is often bad, having nonparents or
>> governmental entities interfering is worse.
>> I don't say that it's none of my business;
>> I say that my goal of protecting the child
>> is best served by protecting the child from
>> governors, not protecting the child from parents.
>> It's not a perfect solution, though...
>> ... My theory here is that the child has full
>> sentient rights, that a parent who shares 1/2
>> the child's DNA is statistically more likely
>> to protect that child than a governor who
>> shares none of the child's DNA, and that the
>> child, who shares 1.0 of the child's DNA, is
>> the best decider of all..."
>
> I don't understand this at all! Government only
> attempts to interfere when a child's safety, or
> well-being is at jeopardy.
How do you know? It's hazardous to speculate on the
motives of a giant bureaucracy, and the possible
agendas of the employees at various levels within it.
Why is the government automatically better equipped
to decide what is good for the child than its parents
are? A perfect case where the government should
mind it's own business, if you ask me.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST