Children = Property of Parents

LarryC wrote:

A politician could act according to your personal morality provided that he or she gets the votes, or is lobbied for it. If there's more money and more votes coming from the converse, whoever is elected will act consistent with that.

We know this! This is still not a shocking revelation. We do, in fact, understand that there are faults with our system of government.

I would prefer for that variation to stay out of my personal family interests.

And I would prefer for my family to stay out of my personal life, and I'm glad that the state will be willing to intervene if they overstep the bounds set out by me.

LarryC wrote:

I resent that remark. I don't dance. I have made full comment on what has been presented, as I see it. If you have any issues on which I have not made a clear statement, present them.

When I asked you if there should be laws against child abuse, you said basically "Well, no one's allowed to assault people so they shouldn't assault children, unless of course they HAVE to." Ignoring the fact that child abuse takes many more forms than just assault, and implying there might be cases where it is okay. I mean, how about child neglect, the most common form of child abuse? And I sure can't imagine a case where a parent absolutely must hit their child to save their life outside of some contrived thought experiment, unless you consider "yanking them out of the way of danger" as the equivalent of hitting.

If a family abuses their children to the point where that reduces their power and influence as a family, then I really don't see that as much of a personal concern. More for the rest of us. The strong survive.

So your position comes down to turning a blind eye to child abuse since it doesn't personally affect you. I can't even. I seriously cannot even.

LarryC wrote:

Not particularly. What I've seen of the West just reinforces what I see locally. Politicians act and enact laws according to their interests. This was true when they needed the US to wage war against Iraq for their own interests. True for the Conservatives in their war against women. How is it any less true for anyone else?

A politician could act according to your personal morality provided that he or she gets the votes, or is lobbied for it. If there's more money and more votes coming from the converse, whoever is elected will act consistent with that.

I would prefer for that variation to stay out of my personal family interests.

This perfectly illustrates that you don't understand the West as well as you think you do. It is indeed true that politicians act in their own (or their party's) interests, but there are other branches of the government whose job it is to ensure that those interests don't trample over the rights of others. Granted this doesn't work perfectly, but it's a far cry from what you think it is. For instance, the legal wrangling took years, but Terri Schiavo was finally allowed to die over the interests of politicians (up to and including the President). Laws were made that served the politicians' interests, but were ultimately struck down as unconstitutional.

LarryC wrote:

Did I miss saying that I did not mean "We" benevolently and that I am also acting in my own economic interests in that situation?

You certainly did not, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you wouldn't allow a child to die just because a parent could pay enough to overwhelm any ethical concerns. My point is: What is the functional difference between "We" acting in the best interest of a patient, and "They" asking, firmly, that you act in the best interest of a patient?

LarryC wrote:

This is not "faults" in general. This is specifically government stepping in and mandating things like abortion and surgeries of various kinds.

They are not mandating abortion, they are mandating that the patient has the right to choose. You continue to refuse to acknowledge this difference.

LarryC wrote:

That's probably one of the cultural differences we have. Just the thought of being separate from the protections of family life terrifies me.

So child abuse and domestic abuse are nonexistent in your country, then?

Because if not, it's not a cultural difference, it's you failing to acknowledge that plenty of people have good reason to need protection from their own families.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

Can I ask why you keep making arguments about how other countries should run themselves, and then when pressed for your reasons, talk about conditions in your country? I'm not talking about something like "my country is better than your country here": I'm talking about pure applicability of arguments.

I speak when I think it's applicable, obviously. I can clearly see health care being fought and implemented along party lines in your country. I foresee the family unit being dissected along similar lines if the state gets too much of its powers.

Without derailing this back to the original destination, I don't think you're clearly seeing it.

Here's what I'm saying, though: your foresight is based on experience with a very different state, yet you ferry that across with almost no translation. It's very strange to hear you talk about government in the abstract, then when pressed start talking about your specific government when your government is not the one under discussion. Especially when you take such effort to reminds us so frequently of how different your government is. It seems like you forget your own advice a lot of the time, like you just said:

I assert suspicion of governments in general. It happens to center around the US state because I usually get a lot of abuse from GWJ posters if and when I talk about the Philippines at any length. It's just a matter of what I'm allowed to talk about. I can wax poetic about the shortcomings of the Philippine government if you want.

What I'm talking about is when you wax poetic about the shortcomings of the Philippine government as support for your beliefs about American government. If you're going to assert a suspicion of governments in general, you need support that is 'general' too.

Stengah:

I would argue that that's less a case of right eventually coming to practice, and more of a case of your/someone's moral/political side eventually winning a heated public battle.

Branches of governements that are meant to watch over each other work best when their political and economic interests and both implicitly and explicitly made to contest each other. Of course, this sometimes has the problem of a lame duck, but that's how it goes.

I do not see how these balancing government forces balance each other vis a vis family powers. They are all government; it is all in their interests to gain more power for themselves and their interests.

I cite the meltdown of your financial markets recently as a similar case where not enough obvious counterforces resulted in a disastrous conflict of interest.

Rezzy:

You certainly did not, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you wouldn't allow a child to die just because a parent could pay enough to overwhelm any ethical concerns. My point is: What is the functional difference between "We" acting in the best interest of a patient, and "They" asking, firmly, that you act in the best interest of a patient?

None. The differences there were not bound to the pronouns used. I assumed that that was obvious.

Demyx wrote:
LarryC wrote:

A politician could act according to your personal morality provided that he or she gets the votes, or is lobbied for it. If there's more money and more votes coming from the converse, whoever is elected will act consistent with that.

We know this! This is still not a shocking revelation. We do, in fact, understand that there are faults with our system of government.

I would prefer for that variation to stay out of my personal family interests.

And I would prefer for my family to stay out of my personal life, and I'm glad that the state will be willing to intervene if they overstep the bounds set out by me.

LarryC wrote:

I resent that remark. I don't dance. I have made full comment on what has been presented, as I see it. If you have any issues on which I have not made a clear statement, present them.

When I asked you if there should be laws against child abuse, you said basically "Well, no one's allowed to assault people so they shouldn't assault children, unless of course they HAVE to." Ignoring the fact that child abuse takes many more forms than just assault, and implying there might be cases where it is okay. I mean, how about child neglect, the most common form of child abuse? And I sure can't imagine a case where a parent absolutely must hit their child to save their life outside of some contrived thought experiment, unless you consider "yanking them out of the way of danger" as the equivalent of hitting.

If a family abuses their children to the point where that reduces their power and influence as a family, then I really don't see that as much of a personal concern. More for the rest of us. The strong survive.

So your position comes down to turning a blind eye to child abuse since it doesn't personally affect you. I can't even. I seriously cannot even.

This might be the sort of answer you're looking for.

LarryC wrote:

I do not see how these balancing government forces balance each other vis a vis family powers. They are all government; it is all in their interests to gain more power for themselves and their interests.

That works fine until you're faced with the fact that "the government" has lessened it's power in numerous instances. It's not perfect, sometimes it messes up spectacularly, and there certainly are parts of it that try to gain as much power as they can, but that's why other parts are tasked with making sure they don't take power they're not supposed to have.

Demyx:

They are not mandating abortion, they are mandating that the patient has the right to choose. You continue to refuse to acknowledge this difference.

Acknowledged. The government mandating a minor's right to abortion is different from the state mandating minor abortion at the specifics of implementation.

I was asking you to acknowledge that on the question of powers and prerogatives, those two are not meaningfully different. Once you relocate those powers to the state, you're one bad election away from nationwide mandates and laws that you will find fantastically reprehensible (like mandated abortions for minors, maybe? I don't know what your political leanings are.)

So child abuse and domestic abuse are nonexistent in your country, then?

Because if not, it's not a cultural difference, it's you failing to acknowledge that plenty of people have good reason to need protection from their own families.

No, it's probably a cultural difference. As bad as a wife has it under a husband who beats her, if she strikes out with no protections whatsoever, no money, and no prospects, it's likely she'll have a short life as a sexual slave on some wharf; or worse.

If I'm failing to acknowledge that child abuse and domestic abuse happens, let's correct that now. I fully acknowledge it. I just don't think that that's a good reason for the state to use to justify taking powers away from my family regarding its own affairs.

CheezePavilion:

What I'm talking about is when you wax poetic about the shortcomings of the Philippine government as support for your beliefs about American government. If you're going to assert a suspicion of governments in general, you need support that is 'general' too.

People act according to their economic interests. I think that that's a general enough principle. We're talking about broadly taking family powers (not just for special cases) and granting them to the state. That's worrisome just based on the above principle.

LarryC wrote:

None. The differences there were not bound to the pronouns used. I assumed that that was obvious.

It was not.
Thanks for clarifying.

LarryC wrote:

I was asking you to acknowledge that on the question of powers and prerogatives, those two are not meaningfully different.

If the government mandates that the parents always get to choose, how in the world is THAT meaningfully different?

No, it's probably a cultural difference. As bad as a wife has it under a husband who beats her, if she strikes out with no protections whatsoever, no money, and no prospects, it's likely she'll have a short life as a sexual slave on some wharf; or worse.

That's why the government should provide protections so that a woman who is abused can leave her husband without ending up as a sex slave. Do you seriously think that what you described is the way things should be? That a woman should have a choice between beatings and slavery?

EDIT: I can't believe I'm arguing this. I should probably bow out.

LarryC wrote:

Demyx:

Because if not, it's not a cultural difference, it's you failing to acknowledge that plenty of people have good reason to need protection from their own families.

No, it's probably a cultural difference. As bad as a wife has it under a husband who beats her, if she strikes out with no protections whatsoever, no money, and no prospects, it's likely she'll have a short life as a sexual slave on some wharf; or worse.

Like on a pier?

You know, I was going to make a comment about how something you said combined with sexual dimorphism would lead to a controversial logical result--funny to see I wasn't far off.

CheezePavilion:
What I'm talking about is when you wax poetic about the shortcomings of the Philippine government as support for your beliefs about American government. If you're going to assert a suspicion of governments in general, you need support that is 'general' too.

People act according to their economic interests. I think that that's a general enough principle. We're talking about broadly taking family powers (not just for special cases) and granting them to the state. That's worrisome just based on the above principle.

Then use that as support, not examples from your own experience of a specific government that is much different from the one under discussion. Or at least, you need to put a lot more work into showing why we can extract general principles from that experience.

I mean, most of America doesn't even border commercial waterways, let alone have active shipping in the area.

Stengah:

That works fine until you're faced with the fact that "the government" has lessened it's power in numerous instances. It's not perfect, sometimes it messes up spectacularly, and there certainly are parts of it that try to gain as much power as they can, but that's why other parts are tasked with making sure they don't take power they're not supposed to have.

Which specific other parts would you say is going to take up the cudgels and speak according to I have spoken - for family powers?

Demyx:

When I asked you if there should be laws against child abuse, you said basically "Well, no one's allowed to assault people so they shouldn't assault children, unless of course they HAVE to." Ignoring the fact that child abuse takes many more forms than just assault, and implying there might be cases where it is okay. I mean, how about child neglect, the most common form of child abuse? And I sure can't imagine a case where a parent absolutely must hit their child to save their life outside of some contrived thought experiment, unless you consider "yanking them out of the way of danger" as the equivalent of hitting.

No dancing.

There are laws against assaulting children; that's subsumed into the general laws for assault. Where's the dancing there? Child neglect, I think of that the same as latter, to which you've not offered any counter.

If you want a concrete example, imagine a poor family living under the bridge in cardboard boxes where cars frequently cross at great speed. It can become necessary to condition a child to stay away from the road using corporal punishment strictly as a short-term measure. If the child survives to age of majority, the wisdom of staying out of the way of deadly projectiles will make itself obvious in retrospect.

That's not a thought experiment. It's not logic either. That's daily reality.

So your position comes down to turning a blind eye to child abuse since it doesn't personally affect you. I can't even. I seriously cannot even.

Speaking dispassionately, those families will eventually die off because of those abuses and the abuse will cease to be. Granted, it will not be good for those children who go down with the ship. I told you that I am not speaking in theoreticals, nor purely in logic. That's how it goes down around here.

You can posit a theoretical counter against that, but I don't think you can assess blame against me (or others like me) for looking out for my own survival. Frankly, we have enough on our plates just scurrying out from under the more deadly threats. If you care to, feel free to give up your current life and fix things down here.

If the government mandates that the parents always get to choose, how in the world is THAT meaningfully different?

You give the power to a plausible legal actor. Consistently. That is different from talking about and discussing the decision on a government level over and over.

For example, we typically default the choice of children's sock color to their parents, and parents typically to their children.

That's why the government should provide protections so that a woman who is abused can leave her husband without ending up as a sex slave. Do you seriously think that what you described is the way things should be? That a woman should have a choice between beatings and slavery?

I'm not telling you how it ought to be. I'm telling how it is, and where I come from.

I would love for a world where a dispassionately moral government always protected individuals as individuals without regard for the interests of its specific actors. I do not believe that that government is possible; certainly I have seen no example of its like.

A woman who is abused locally CAN leave and not end up as a sex slave; typically through the protections of family. That or she can arm herself and fight her husband to the death, in the unlikely event that she has no one she can turn to. There are also Women's Desks in some places, and she may have built up some credit with the police force or local government/economic powers. It depends.

I do not see that situation as a justification for government to step in broadly and make rules that encourage husband against wife or vice versa. That sort of thing could be easily abused locally to separate a wife from husband against both their wishes, on a technicality, because that's how a powerful local personage wants things to be.

I would prefer for the government to stay out of it and let the woman's family (and presumably herself) keep her husband in check.

CheezePavilion:

You know, I was going to make a comment about how something you said combined with sexual dimorphism would lead to a controversial logical result--funny to see I wasn't far off.

Would you prefer an example where a husband getting abused by his wife has no choice except to sign up for indentured servitude and death on some Middle Eastern construction site?

Well, presumably he could also sign up for local gang membership and take up a criminal lifestyle, but that's really unpleasant and has a really short life expectancy, too.

Then use that as support, not examples from your own experience of a specific government that is much different from the one under discussion. Or at least, you need to put a lot more work into showing why we can extract general principles from that experience.

My concerns over government taking too much family powers is fueled by my local background, but I can see worrisome signs in your news. I don't haphazardly advance these concerns else I'd be harping on about how your local unemployment may lead to widespread human trafficking problems. I have mentioned them already. Demyx doesn't seem overly concerned over it.

Simple question, Larry. In a society where parents can tell their child what to do how would you adjudicate this scenario (a hypothetical, but something that actually happens).

A parent rapes their child. The child runs away and seeks an abortion. Should the parent be allowed to prevent them from having that abortion simply because they have the right to make decisions for the child?

DSGamer wrote:

Simple question, Larry. In a society where parents can tell their child what to do how would you adjudicate this scenario (a hypothetical, but something that actually happens).

A parent rapes their child. The child runs away and seeks an abortion. Should the parent be allowed to prevent them from having that abortion simply because they have the right to make decisions for the child?

Hm.

That's not a hypothetical. I have seen that.

First, the local response.

We have extended families. More accurately, they're really households. It is possible for a group of young men, all unrelated by blood, to come together under a household and become "family," in the sense that we allow them to be each other's health advocates; and even complete legal actors with power of attorney.

Situation 1: A parent who rapes their child typically faces a lot of sanction from his parents, his wife's parents, his brothers and sisters, his wife's brothers and sisters, and maybe his wife's close family friend or so. All the adults in this situation can be consulted for consent on the abortion; the raping parent will typically not be able to voice dissent on account of hiding from death squads.

Situation 2: A very powerful personage (such as a potent local warlord) can typically do whatever he wants. You can debate with him about it over a battlefield or two. Whoever lives gets to decide.

In the US situation where the norm is a nuclear family or less, I can see where that might be a problem. I would still prefer this to be a special case, and only for the raping parent to not have power of veto. If the mother consents to abortion, that ought to be enough.

There's additional questions of coverage and cost, however. Presuming that the abortion isn't consented to, who is financially responsible for the child? Even if the minor is given the choice, and she says she wants to keep it, we cannot expect her to be financially capable of doing so. Presumably, part of the restitution from the raping father will be to support his new child, should his daughter consent to keeping it; but that's a matter for criminal law.

My chief concern here is child survival. You have to get at least one parent aboard on whether or not the child has the abortion, or some next of kin who is similarly potent. If the mother doesn't consent and you go in and shore up the child against both her parents, who will take charge of the minor afterwards? That goes similarly for when the child does consent.

At worst, you could just remove the minor and her child (or not) altogether and remand her to the state. How well does that work in general? It's a relevant question here against just leaving the family unit intact as it was.

I imagine that with a strong enough state raising tradition, you could remand all children to the state and just leave parents out of it altogether. That's not a bad way to go (but I would obviously object to it! For reasons already explained.).

Well damn, I'm convinced that local warlords and roaming death squads are a much better system than allowing children to exercise their own rights.
You also completely avoided answering the question: Should the parent be allowed to prevent them from having that abortion simply because they have the right to make decisions for the child? In this situation, the child does not want to have the baby, they want to abort it, and the cost is covered (doesn't matter by who, it's just already paid for and not a concern). Their parents either both object to the abortion, or there is only one parent to consult.

Stengah:

Sorry to disappoint you, but cost is always a concern. If the baby and the child can be remanded to the state and come up in good condition, then that may be desirable for the state, if they want to rear children for state reasons. If the state wants to cut costs, it may encourage abortions in order to cut its responsibilities. I'll add that the same motivations could be present in the child and her parents. Money doesn't just come from nowhere; it is not right not to consider the economic concerns of providers. tanstaafl.

In the case of a child who was raped where both parents are against her or only has the rapist parent at home, I would seriously consider getting her out of there and getting consent from any other party who is next-of-kin; the parents void veto rights. I mentioned this already; was it not quite clear?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Let's assume that the kid has 10 adult next-of-kins, not the rapist, who all think that she ought to carry through with the pregnancy. In this case, her conceding to their wills is to her own interest, since she can then ask them for financial support and succor against her father. It stands to reason that any kin willing to step in and put their oar in can be tasked to care for the minor and her child.

The case of a lone kid without any other next-of-kin and only a rapist father at home is truly deplorable, but giving her decision rights for an abortion to go against her father so boldly only endangers her further; at that point it is necessary to talk about additional concerns such as I talked about (committing her to state care). Also, I would consider that a special exception.

At this point, the minor is essentially at the mercy of the state and its representatives. States may have financial motivators to encourage abortions to cut costs for wards, or encourage taking the child to term and putting it up for adoption, for hefty "finder fees," or whatnot, or just to raise the children normally with a mind to indoctrination and/or elite personnel training.

Each is a possibility; we cannot presume that the state and its representatives will not act according to the forces in play. Since the current US milieu has concerns over cost of health care and overall state service costs, I would look askance at "giving rights to the child," where the expected/encouraged outcome is an abortion.

I'll just say it again since you keep ignoring it, but the state cannot force anyone to get an abortion against their will. They could recommend it, but that's highly unlikely since the current theme is states trying to make it impossible for anyone to get an abortion, led by people who share your Family Rights > Individual Rights stance. Any state found to be encouraging pregnant teens in their care to get abortions (whether they want them or not) would be crucified in the news, and rightly so. It's not the state's job to make that decision, it's the state's job to ensure that the decision of the minor is upheld. From Wikipedia: In Planned Parenthood of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983) (link to the actual ruling), the Supreme Court ruled conclusively on the constitutionality of parental consent laws– parental consent was found to be constitutional so long as it also allowed a judicial bypass if such consent could not be acquired. So the parent's consent is usually requested, but it is unconstitutional to make it be required before a minor can get an abortion. If the parent's consent, great, they're in agreement with their daughter. If they don't, the daughter can still get the abortion, and while it will create friction in the family, that's just something they're going to have to deal with (or not).

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

You know, I was going to make a comment about how something you said combined with sexual dimorphism would lead to a controversial logical result--funny to see I wasn't far off.

Would you prefer an example where a husband getting abused by his wife has no choice except to sign up for indentured servitude and death on some Middle Eastern construction site?

Well, presumably he could also sign up for local gang membership and take up a criminal lifestyle, but that's really unpleasant and has a really short life expectancy, too.

I was referring to this:

It is an inherent truth that parents have rights over their children, because they're bigger and more powerful. Whether or not that is moral according to your worldview is not part of this assertion. Parents can enforce their will on their children by dint of many mechanisms, some of which are biologically wired.

It also has interesting applications for when parents become old and children become fully grown adults. Or the relationship between the able-bodied and the handicapped.

Then use that as support, not examples from your own experience of a specific government that is much different from the one under discussion. Or at least, you need to put a lot more work into showing why we can extract general principles from that experience.

My concerns over government taking too much family powers is fueled by my local background, but I can see worrisome signs in your news. I don't haphazardly advance these concerns else I'd be harping on about how your local unemployment may lead to widespread human trafficking problems. I have mentioned them already. Demyx doesn't seem overly concerned over it.

Well then it comes down to whether the people you are trying to convince are on the same page as you regarding how worrisome those signs are.

Stengah/CheezePavilion:

You guys really have a thing for giving me stuff to think over. Rest assured, I've not dropped this one. Still thinking.

Stengah:

I'll just say it again since you keep ignoring it, but the state cannot force anyone to get an abortion against their will. They could recommend it, but that's highly unlikely since the current theme is states trying to make it impossible for anyone to get an abortion, led by people who share your Family Rights > Individual Rights stance.

I have not seen anyone in the US who truly shares my Family perspectives and stances. It's clear to me that they're just using that rhetoric to get what they want, not to really uphold the family as a sociopolitical unit. If you could point me to a political position you think is close to what I believe, feel free to post a link.

As for forcing abortion; I would say that that's largely a function of the current political climate. It's more appropriate to say that the state can't force anyone to get an abortion against their will right now. If you can forced to get a chemo against your and your parents' wills, what's to differentiate another medical procedure?

Once the power shifts to the state, its application gets affected by the political climate.

It's not the state's job to make that decision, it's the state's job to ensure that the decision of the minor is upheld. From Wikipedia: In Planned Parenthood of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983) (link to the actual ruling), the Supreme Court ruled conclusively on the constitutionality of parental consent laws– parental consent was found to be constitutional so long as it also allowed a judicial bypass if such consent could not be acquired. So the parent's consent is usually requested, but it is unconstitutional to make it be required before a minor can get an abortion. If the parent's consent, great, they're in agreement with their daughter. If they don't, the daughter can still get the abortion, and while it will create friction in the family, that's just something they're going to have to deal with (or not).

That's not how I read the decision. It's the state's job to find whether or not the minor's decision gets to be upheld over her parents' or vice versa. This means that in any case where there is a conflict, the state gets to choose which side it favors. The power is with the state, not with the minor. It's making it sound like it's with the minor. It's pretty, but the loopholes and catches are in there.

Moreover, even if how you interpret the application of the decision was true, I take note that familial conflict is of no import to the Court or to the State. It empowers family members to wage war with each other, without regard for its internal politics. If "how they're going to deal with it," involves making the minor miserable for every moment of her life until majority, I can see how you can get really bad family conflicts, and can see how common it seems to be.

CheezePavilion:

It also has interesting applications for when parents become old and children become fully grown adults. Or the relationship between the able-bodied and the handicapped.

I don't see how it's particularly interesting. As children grow in financial and political power and take over the family as heads, power shifts over to them. Is this not commonplace in your society?

Well then it comes down to whether the people you are trying to convince are on the same page as you regarding how worrisome those signs are.

Well, apparently some people are just fine with it. I found that fairly mind-blowing. I would rather people kept out of my affairs rather than have a small amount of power to interfere with their lives in exchange for losing control over my own. I'm not really the "interfere-with-other-people's-lives" type.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

CheezePavilion:

It also has interesting applications for when parents become old and children become fully grown adults. Or the relationship between the able-bodied and the handicapped.

I don't see how it's particularly interesting. As children grow in financial and political power and take over the family as heads, power shifts over to them. Is this not commonplace in your society?

Not on the basis of being bigger and more powerful. That's actually a problem that we're starting to address: elder abuse.

Well then it comes down to whether the people you are trying to convince are on the same page as you regarding how worrisome those signs are.

Well, apparently some people are just fine with it. I found that fairly mind-blowing. I would rather people kept out of my affairs rather than have a small amount of power to interfere with their lives in exchange for losing control over my own. I'm not really the "interfere-with-other-people's-lives" type.

There's a big difference between "interfere with my life" and "interfere with my child's life."

Not on the basis of being bigger and more powerful. That's actually a problem that we're starting to address: elder abuse.

"More powerful" isn't limited to physical power, though.

There's a big difference between "interfere with my life" and "interfere with my child's life."

See, that's possibly a cultural difference. Anyone who interferes with my life necessarily interferes with my child's life because we are family. We're not as close as a married couple, but we're close enough that that just cannot be avoided. Likewise, anyone who interferes with my child's life interferes with my life; also by necessity, since I have obligations and rights (as my child will have obligations and rights over me later on) that way.

I can trade my family's power within itself for the ability of my family to meddle in the affairs of other families, but frankly, I don't see the point. Moreover, the disproportionate power of families who are economically and politically powerful will make it so it is their will that is enacted on me far more often than the converse. I don't see the upside. Is it so I can feel good about myself or something?

LarryC wrote:
Not on the basis of being bigger and more powerful. That's actually a problem that we're starting to address: elder abuse.

"More powerful" isn't limited to physical power, though.

And adult child being more powerful doesn't make the elderly parent less competent.

There's a big difference between "interfere with my life" and "interfere with my child's life."

See, that's possibly a cultural difference. Anyone who interferes with my life necessarily interferes with my child's life because we are family.

Anyone who interferes with my neighbor's property interferes with my property because of resale value. I'm not talking about knock-on effects, I'm talking about intent.

We're not as close as a married couple, but we're close enough that that just cannot be avoided. Likewise, anyone who interferes with my child's life interferes with my life; also by necessity, since I have obligations and rights (as my child will have obligations and rights over me later on) that way.

I can trade my family's power within itself for the ability of my family to meddle in the affairs of other families, but frankly, I don't see the point. Moreover, the disproportionate power of families who are economically and politically powerful will make it so it is their will that is enacted on me far more often than the converse. I don't see the upside. Is it so I can feel good about myself or something?

It's for the same reason behind any time we trade our power for the ability to meddle in the affairs of other people: to make things better.

CheezePavilion:

And adult child being more powerful doesn't make the elderly parent less competent.

Elderly people generally, but not always decline in terms of financial and political power by dint of various ways and means. It's not universal, but it is commonplace. An adult child is generally at the peak of her powers; she is usually seen as the most potent member of the family.

Anyone who interferes with my neighbor's property interferes with my property because of resale value. I'm not talking about knock-on effects, I'm talking about intent.

I'm not sure I get it. My child is dependent on me. If I'm killed, that matters to her fairly directly. Is that a knock-on effect? Anyone who wishes to kill me cannot pretend to not know how it will affect my children.

It's for the same reason behind any time we trade our power for the ability to meddle in the affairs of other people: to make things better.

I'm not seeing how it's better.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

And adult child being more powerful doesn't make the elderly parent less competent.

Elderly people generally, but not always decline in terms of financial and political power by dint of various ways and means. It's not universal, but it is commonplace. An adult child is generally at the peak of her powers; she is usually seen as the most potent member of the family

That's not relevant to what I said. One thing can decline while another thing can peak, yet both can remain perfectly competent.

Anyone who interferes with my neighbor's property interferes with my property because of resale value. I'm not talking about knock-on effects, I'm talking about intent.

I'm not sure I get it. My child is dependent on me. If I'm killed, that matters to her fairly directly. Is that a knock-on effect? Anyone who wishes to kill me cannot pretend to not know how it will affect my children.

Yes, that's a knock-on effect. To go back to the discussions of abortion and Catholicism we've both been in around here, I think it would be a 'double effect'.

It's for the same reason behind any time we trade our power for the ability to meddle in the affairs of other people: to make things better.

I'm not seeing how it's better.

To make things better. The idea that the society as a whole will benefit from the government having certain powers.

There's also the idea that the power you are talking about is not legitimate power. That goes down to different views of what a family is and the status of individuals within it.

CheezePavilion:

That's not relevant to what I said. One thing can decline while another thing can peak, yet both can remain perfectly competent.

Okay. Sure. How is this relevant to children becoming the most powerful members of their families as they transition to full adulthood? Was that not the supposedly interesting situation?

Yes, that's a knock-on effect. To go back to the discussions of abortion and Catholicism we've both been in around here, I think it would be a 'double effect'.

Okay. Go on.

To make things better. The idea that the society as a whole will benefit from the government having certain powers.

There's also the idea that the power you are talking about is not legitimate power. That goes down to different views of what a family is and the status of individuals within it.

My society is significantly devolved. This means that we have power largely distributed amongst small segments of society, each of which is presumed to be self-sufficient and potent. The smallest sociopolitical unit is the family. That's not goobledegook. Head of household is supposed to be a political position. The next larger unit is barangay: a gathering of several familes. This unit has an elected head, but also has legislative and judicial arms and powers; also sufficient to itself.

So, the family being the smallest political unit means that to us, family IS government. The conflict is centralization vs. devolution. This is a legitimate social structure; we have presumably had it since before Spanish invasion. Pre-Communism China has a similar idea - independent "farms."

I'm not sold on the idea that directly interfering with the powers of family will bring about positive social changes. If your current general family situation in the US is anything like I read it, I'm even less sold.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

That's not relevant to what I said. One thing can decline while another thing can peak, yet both can remain perfectly competent.

Okay. Sure. How is this relevant to children becoming the most powerful members of their families as they transition to full adulthood? Was that not the supposedly interesting situation?

You'd have a competent person with rights over another competent person. The argument you were making wouldn't just be limited to putting the head of the family in charge of non-competent people like minors.

Yes, that's a knock-on effect. To go back to the discussions of abortion and Catholicism we've both been in around here, I think it would be a 'double effect'.

Okay. Go on.

They don't want to interfere in your life. It just can't be avoided in protecting the rights of your child.

To make things better. The idea that the society as a whole will benefit from the government having certain powers.

There's also the idea that the power you are talking about is not legitimate power. That goes down to different views of what a family is and the status of individuals within it.

My society is significantly devolved. This means that we have power largely distributed amongst small segments of society, each of which is presumed to be self-sufficient and potent. The smallest sociopolitical unit is the family. That's not goobledegook. Head of household is supposed to be a political position. The next larger unit is barangay: a gathering of several familes. This unit has an elected head, but also has legislative and judicial arms and powers; also sufficient to itself.

So, the family being the smallest political unit means that to us, family IS government. The conflict is centralization vs. devolution. This is a legitimate social structure; we have presumably had it since before Spanish invasion. Pre-Communism China has a similar idea - independent "farms."

I'm not sold on the idea that directly interfering with the powers of family will bring about positive social changes. If your current general family situation in the US is anything like I read it, I'm even less sold.

There's a difference between thinking someone is having their rights infringed upon, and what to do next about that infringement. I can disagree with you about what beliefs are right and wrong, while still agreeing with you about what actions would or would not bring about positive social change. It may very well be that that directly interfering with the powers of family won't bring about positive social changes. Of course, it may be that the devolved, collectivist social structure you're talking about is propping up the corruption and other problems in your society that you often tell us about.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

I'll just say it again since you keep ignoring it, but the state cannot force anyone to get an abortion against their will. They could recommend it, but that's highly unlikely since the current theme is states trying to make it impossible for anyone to get an abortion, led by people who share your Family Rights > Individual Rights stance.

I have not seen anyone in the US who truly shares my Family perspectives and stances. It's clear to me that they're just using that rhetoric to get what they want, not to really uphold the family as a sociopolitical unit. If you could point me to a political position you think is close to what I believe, feel free to post a link.

As for forcing abortion; I would say that that's largely a function of the current political climate. It's more appropriate to say that the state can't force anyone to get an abortion against their will right now. If you can forced to get a chemo against your and your parents' wills, what's to differentiate another medical procedure?

Once the power shifts to the state, its application gets affected by the political climate.

It's far more useful to look at what is happening instead of what could happen. Yeah, our government could become so broken that the state starts forcing people to get abortions against their will, but it's not that broken now. And you can't be forced to get chemo against your will. The quote you're pulling that from (iirc) is a doctor, not a lawyer. If he tried to force someone to get chemo they didn't want, he'd find himself in legal trouble so fast his head would spin.

It's not the state's job to make that decision, it's the state's job to ensure that the decision of the minor is upheld. From Wikipedia: In Planned Parenthood of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983) (link to the actual ruling), the Supreme Court ruled conclusively on the constitutionality of parental consent laws– parental consent was found to be constitutional so long as it also allowed a judicial bypass if such consent could not be acquired. So the parent's consent is usually requested, but it is unconstitutional to make it be required before a minor can get an abortion. If the parent's consent, great, they're in agreement with their daughter. If they don't, the daughter can still get the abortion, and while it will create friction in the family, that's just something they're going to have to deal with (or not).

That's not how I read the decision. It's the state's job to find whether or not the minor's decision gets to be upheld over her parents' or vice versa. This means that in any case where there is a conflict, the state gets to choose which side it favors. The power is with the state, not with the minor. It's making it sound like it's with the minor. It's pretty, but the loopholes and catches are in there.

Moreover, even if how you interpret the application of the decision was true, I take note that familial conflict is of no import to the Court or to the State. It empowers family members to wage war with each other, without regard for its internal politics. If "how they're going to deal with it," involves making the minor miserable for every moment of her life until majority, I can see how you can get really bad family conflicts, and can see how common it seems to be.

It may be of no import in your culture, but it is of import in this culture. As I've repeatedly told you, in the US, individual rights trump familial rights.