The Rights of Children, by Ghs (1981)


George H. Smith

Recommended Posts

Seem interesting. Is it written? I watched a few minutes here and there. Lectures are a monumental waste of everyone's time. I speak at meetings, but when I do so, I attempt to provide to the audience with my presence what could not come from an essay. Most people can read faster than you can talk.

Someone breaks into your home and steals from you While you are unaware. You might be sleeping; that's common enough. But I read about thieves who liked to hit mansions during dinner parties because everyone was in one place and the house was largely unattended. To me, at that moment, you are in the position of an infant. At that moment, a police patrol car sees the burglar's vehicle, recognizes it, and obtains verification. But you have not lodged a complaint that your rights were violated. Should the police be pro-active? In that case, they are acting like the state that protects an infant. (Maybe the burglar is a guest, in fact...)

There's a lot to be considered with infants, but those considerations apply to everyone, if, indeed, government does have as its function, the protection of the rights of those living under its jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot to be considered with infants, but those considerations apply to everyone, if, indeed, government does have as its function, the protection of the rights of those living under its jurisdiction.

Understood.

In loco parenti, we all saw Scent of a Woman.

However, where does that "government protection" start? More importantly, where does it run into the right of individual privacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys think there is only one answer? Let me give you two real-life examples from my current moral baromater - Law and Order SUV

Case One: Doctor convinces stupid mom there is no such thinkg as AIDS. She refused to let her children be treatd for HIV, which they have.

Case Two: Mom does diligent and lots of research on innoculations, learns about side effects and refused to have her child innoculated. Gets sued.

Do you think both cases should be treated the same?

My thinking: First case, yes, the mother s endangering the children. That's what the law is for, to protec t them.

Second case, mother made her best and informed choice and the law needs to butt out.

If any of this is covered in George's writing, I aspologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is complicated. Sodium and potassium and the Crab Nebula are complicated enough. Then, some people want to use the same methods and apply the same standards to human beings. Without any trouble at all you can find self-described "libertarians" who claim that each of us has Individual rights, but then the very same libertarian philosopher will decide what must apply to all individuals. Myself, I am not so sure. Inside your own body, no two hemoglobin molecules are identical. How can two individual humans be identical? Even so-called "identical twins" have different fingerprints, proving that they are not identical. When considering complex moral decisions, every case is unique and must be decided on its own merits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6egCk43qf4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with Michael's assessment about lectures being "a monumental waste of time," I would prefer a transcript if one is available. :smile:

Sorry, but I haven't had a transcript of that talk since 1994. In fact, I had forgotten all about it until libertarianism.org dug up that video and posted it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys think there is only one answer? Let me give you two real-life examples from my current moral baromater - Law and Order SUV

Case One: Doctor convinces stupid mom there is no such thinkg as AIDS. She refused to let her children be treatd for HIV, which they have.

Case Two: Mom does diligent and lots of research on innoculations, learns about side effects and refused to have her child innoculated. Gets sued.

Do you think both cases should be treated the same?

My thinking: First case, yes, the mother s endangering the children. That's what the law is for, to protec t them.

Second case, mother made her best and informed choice and the law needs to butt out.

If any of this is covered in George's writing, I aspologize.

Case two , despite making the" best and most informed decision"( informed by whom however, Jenny McCarthy or the Scientologists?), to avoid side effects for her own child from inoculations she unwittingly "initiates force" against other children her child, a possible sufferer or carrier of fatal diseases, may encounter. If my baby , too young for inoculation, died by contracting a disease from an uninoculated child, \I would certainly sue and expect to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that people who come to work sick should be sued, maybe even charged under law with criminal endangerment.

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is complicated. Sodium and potassium and the Crab Nebula are complicated enough. Then, some people want to use the same methods and apply the same standards to human beings. Without any trouble at all you can find self-described "libertarians" who claim that each of us has Individual rights, but then the very same libertarian philosopher will decide what must apply to all individuals. Myself, I am not so sure. Inside your own body, no two hemoglobin molecules are identical. How can two individual humans be identical? Even so-called "identical twins" have different fingerprints, proving that they are not identical. When considering complex moral decisions, every case is unique and must be decided on its own merits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6egCk43qf4

Question: What is the criteria for determining individualhood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys think there is only one answer? Let me give you two real-life examples from my current moral baromater - Law and Order SUV

Case One: Doctor convinces stupid mom there is no such thinkg as AIDS. She refused to let her children be treatd for HIV, which they have.

Case Two: Mom does diligent and lots of research on innoculations, learns about side effects and refused to have her child innoculated. Gets sued.

Do you think both cases should be treated the same?

My thinking: First case, yes, the mother s endangering the children. That's what the law is for, to protect them.

Second case, mother made her best and informed choice and the law needs to butt out.

If any of this is covered in George's writing, I aspologize.

In that episode, I believe it came down to being the teenager's decision, which I totally agree with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys think there is only one answer? Let me give you two real-life examples from my current moral baromater - Law and Order SUV

Case One: Doctor convinces stupid mom there is no such thinkg as AIDS. She refused to let her children be treatd for HIV, which they have.

Case Two: Mom does diligent and lots of research on innoculations, learns about side effects and refused to have her child innoculated. Gets sued.

Do you think both cases should be treated the same?

My thinking: First case, yes, the mother s endangering the children. That's what the law is for, to protec t them.

Second case, mother made her best and informed choice and the law needs to butt out.

If any of this is covered in George's writing, I aspologize.

Case two , despite making the" best and most informed decision"( informed by whom however, Jenny McCarthy or the Scientologists?), to avoid side effects for her own child from inoculations she unwittingly "initiates force" against other children her child, a possible sufferer or carrier of fatal diseases, may encounter. If my baby , too young for inoculation, died by contracting a disease from an uninoculated child, \I would certainly sue and expect to

Excellent point. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Excellent point. That's why I say the answers aren't easy. However, the mother's first responsibility was for the welfare of her child. I've verified the side effects of innoculations. If you accidentally give someone a disease/cold/whatever, what's the guilt? I'm asking because I don't know.

SAMSON: I disagree. A teen should not be making critical decisions like that. Again, It pains me, but I think it's a case for the law.

+++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ginny, what do you mean by "verified side effects of inoculations"? If the risk of verified side effects on her child outweighs the risk of harming other children, then that mother must be prepared for the consequences of her decision.

I can verify that my kids (now adults) suffered no side effects from vaccinations, for example, but that does not mean I don't acknowledge that some kids do. Public health unfortunately is a numbers game. I know that the word "public" is not the most popular on this venue, but there is such a thing as public health, and in the case of inoculations I do not think we have a right to privatize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dauce, that's the point. Many opnions. People should have the right to made mistakes.

Emancipation. To me, that's slippery slope. I don't think too many get emancipated. I don't know enough aout the process, but my gut says no..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But but but - in matters of scientific fact, you do not have the right to make the mistake of adopting a minority opinion, to the detriment of others'lives!

Are you being witty and satirical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now