🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Dz8ru4.4op@eskimo.com>, <quester@eskimo.com> writes:
> Newsgroups: pa.general,misc.legal,dc.general,alt.law-enforcement,alt.politics
> Path: washington.Capitol.Net!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!newspump.sol.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!mvb.saic.com!eskimo!quester
> From: quester@eskimo.com (Charles)
> Subject: Re: Let Me Raise My Own Kids!
> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
> Message-ID: <Dz8ru4.4op@eskimo.com>
> Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id)
> Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 01:22:52 GMT
> Lines: 20
> Xref: washington.Capitol.Net pa.general:8311 misc.legal:201594 dc.general:52022
> 
> This argument is phrased here as it is everywhere: the rights of parents
> versus the rights of the community.  But `rights' are the power of the
> powerless, and the powerless in this configuration are the kids.  It is
> *their* rights that should predominate.
> 
> Kids have the right to physical security.  If their families do not
> provide it, they have the right to seek help elsewhere.  Kids have the
> right to be exposed to a wide range of information and to different world
> views.  If their parents do not so expose them, others should.
> 
> Kids are not property.  Not the community's, not the State's ...and not
> their parents'.
> 
> There can be much debate as to the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring
> that kids get their rights.  But the priority of those rights is to me
> undebatable.
> 
> Charles Bell
> 
> 
> 
I think a cup of warm milk is in order here... or perhaps some exlax