[Obdigore]

HoosierDaddy, on 04 March 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

A case of competing constitutional rights: the right to raise your child as you see fit as protected by the First and its protection of religion and the right of a child to... pretty much everything.

How this stands Constitutional muster I'll never understand. The right to raise your child ceases at the point in which you fail to care for your child, religion or not.

I've had to write actual legal documents to courts about this shit. It's disgusting.

I would imagine that the first thing to do would be to stop treating children as property by law.

[Terez]

That is a can of worms. Not saying the philosophy shouldn't be advanced; just saying most people are conditioned to believe that children are property to the point that it's difficult for them to imagine it being anything but the way things are and always will be. In our lifetimes, we might achieve certain protections, but I doubt we'll ever see a day when children are treated as anything other than property. For example, we might pass laws that put religiously-motivated medical neglect into the category of child abuse. Would that really change the status of the child as property? It only establishes guidelines for how human property must be treated. Changing that is not where we start, but where we end, and I don't expect to live to see the end.

This post has been edited by Terez: 04 March 2013 - 11:57 AM

[worry]

Republicans who didn't vote for Violence Against Women Act say they did anyway because why not?
http://www.dailykos....ecause-why-not#

[King Lear]

I feel like I treat this thread as my personal I-don't-understand-America-someone-explain-please but is this an actual thing or is it being blown out of proportion and my google skills are failing me?
And if it is a thing, how is this possible? And why have I not heard of it before?

Homeland Security Creates "Constitution-Free" Zones

[Terez]

It's slightly exaggerated, since according to the article, legal precedent exempts border areas from 4th Amendment strictures. To truly be "Constitution-free", then border areas would have to be exempted from all Constitutional strictures. Yes, it's an affront on civil liberties, and the 4th Amendment should apply everywhere, but unfortunately we are getting numb to this sort of thing, so the erosion continues. (Also, as far as I'm concerned you can feel free to treat this thread as your personal 'wtf America' thread.)

[King Lear]

Haha, thanks, it's much easier just to ask someone who's actually there than to try and figure stuff out from news outlets sometimes

Exaggeration for effect is not terribly surprising I suppose, but that's pretty awful.
I'm surprised the right-wing small-government types aren't throwing a fit though. The article says that travellers are targeted (which probably explains the lack of fit throwing), but what does that actually mean? People travelling between states, or anyone who looks vaguely foreign and/or dodgy?

[Shinrei]

I have a question about the children as property idea. Is that so in a "legal" sense? I mean, I feel the majority of responsibility lies on the parents to raise and take care of their child. As an analogy, I have primary responsibility to take care of my classes at my school, but I don't "own" my classes.

[Terez]

Ornery Owl, on 06 March 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Haha, thanks, it's much easier just to ask someone who's actually there than to try and figure stuff out from news outlets sometimes

Exaggeration for effect is not terribly surprising I suppose, but that's pretty awful.
I'm surprised the right-wing small-government types aren't throwing a fit though. The article says that travellers are targeted (which probably explains the lack of fit throwing), but what does that actually mean? People travelling between states, or anyone who looks vaguely foreign and/or dodgy?

I'm guessing anyone who appears foreign or is known to be foreign would be targeted. Which means I'm in trouble, since I live in the Zone and the staff always tries to speak Spanish with me when I go to a Mexican restaurant. As for the anti-government types, they care more about certain liberties than others and have shown themselves willing to sacrifice certain liberties for "national security". Those who aren't so willing are joining the libertarian ranks.

This post has been edited by Terez: 06 March 2013 - 12:29 PM

[Terez]

Shinrei, on 06 March 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

I have a question about the children as property idea. Is that so in a "legal" sense? I mean, I feel the majority of responsibility lies on the parents to raise and take care of their child. As an analogy, I have primary responsibility to take care of my classes at my school, but I don't "own" my classes.

I don't know if comparing your job to your children (not that you have any) is a great analogy. You have a responsibility for your classes, and if you fail in that responsibility you can be fired. You have a right to hold your students responsible for their work in terms of grades or certifications (not sure which) but beyond that you have no authority over them. Parenting is very different. Until your children are legal adults you have complete control over them within the boundaries of the law, and while the law affords them certain protections, those protections are extremely limited because parents see it as their right to raise their children in the way they see fit. This includes the right to indoctrinate. And yes, of course it's necessary for children to be guided into adulthood, which is precisely why people have such difficulty conceiving of children as having rights, and why parents tend to see their children as property in every way except the nominal. Good parents give their children as many choices as possible. In a perfect society, I think children would have a wider range of guides (the old "it takes a village" proverb). But I think it will be a long time before society at large comes to the same conclusion.

[Shinrei]

What I'm getting at I'm no sure I agree

Quote

because parents see it as their right to raise their children in the way they see fit.

equals

Quote

parents tend to see their children as property in every way except the nominal

BTW, I do have a child. She's mine in the sense she's "my daughter", but it's not like she's a house or a car.

[King Lear]

@Terez, that's nuts. Maybe you should start keeping large numbers of pictures of Nic Cage in various folders on any electronic devices you have, just on the off chance. If you can't beat 'em, at least confuse 'em.



We have an 'Anti-Smacking Bill' that passed a couple of years ago (with police discretion attached, before anyone gets upset about spankings not being allowed) which closed the 'administering discipline' loophole that people were using to get away with beating their kids to death.

I don't even know what to say about beating the crap out of children and praying for them, thus getting away with it. How do you even prove you've prayed for them?? (Never mind how is that a consideration for manslaughter?)

That one bit though:

"It takes more than good intentions to nurture and protect a child."

Kinda says it all really.

[Terez]

Shinrei, on 06 March 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

What I'm getting at I'm no sure I agree

Quote

because parents see it as their right to raise their children in the way they see fit.

equals

Quote

parents tend to see their children as property in every way except the nominal

BTW, I do have a child. She's mine in the sense she's "my daughter", but it's not like she's a house or a car.

Just because we treat certain types of property differently doesn't mean that they aren't all property. I don't see my cat and my ashtray in the same way. Both are my property, in a sense. There is a certain wisdom to the idea that a living being cannot be truly owned; my cat will, within the limits we have given it, do what he wants to do. But if I wanted to stop him from doing something, I could probably do it, whether through training or through cruelty (which can be seen as a type of training, and is seen that way by many parents).

So, we can pass laws to prevent cruelty to both humans and animals, but we have a hard time defining it past a certain point. And where the law stops is where parental ownership becomes especially relevant. So long as you see it as your fundamental right to dictate your child's life, then it follows that you see your child as something that (or, in this case, someone who) belongs to you. All parents set guidelines. Is there anything you don't allow your daughter to do, that other parents would disagree with? What gives you the right to decide, vs your neighbor?

The difference between parenting and the classroom is that parenting fundamentally shapes the child into the adult that they will eventually become. What is it, exactly, that gives you or any of us the right? I'm not challenging that right, so no need to get defensive—as I said before, good parents give their children as many choices as possible, and I trust that you are one of them—I'm only asking you to define what it is that gives you that right. If not ownership, then what?

[worry]

They're not considered property in any codified sense that I know of. You guys are speaking colloquially or common perception-wise, right?

[worry]

For instance in civil courts, pets are considered property (no "pain and suffering") while children are not.

[Terez]

Like I said, the nominal. It doesn't matter what you call it; what matters is what it is. With a few exceptions, the law treats children as property of the parents in all but name. It is property that can be confiscated under strict legal conditions, but property nonetheless.

[worry]

Well I think it does matter what you call it -- especially in terms of the written law which is my view of what Shin meant in his question, since "property" (real and unreal) has very particular meaning and consequence. I do take your point, even if I think the distinction is vital. There's certainly a special legally considered (if varying and sometimes vague) relationship/responsibility there, but I just can't equate it to property despite possible parallels/overlap.

Trivia: I just learned that in Wisconsin, children are considered an extension of the "person" of their parents, so a crime committed against a minor is the same as a crime against its parents.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 06 March 2013 - 06:54 PM

[Terez]

worrywort, on 06 March 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Well I think it does matter what you call it...

Kind of like Separate But Equal and Clear Skies, eh? War is Peace, Freedom is Tyranny. But I get it; like I said to Obdi earlier, as a society, we are far from grasping the concept.

[worry]

Haha! Less like that, and more just a recognition that the law lives and dies with the specificity of the jargon, for better and worse.

[Terez]

Did anyone else watch the 47% guy? I plugged in my cable just for that. (I think it's been a few months since I watched TV, though I catch shows online sometimes.)

[worry]

Oh crap I forgot. I don't know when the Ed Show is actually on.