> What about letting kids eat ice cream and play PS2 all day? What > about childhood sports where there is a high degree of injury, some of > it fatal? How about childhood TV stars? They ALWAYS turn out bad. > Doesn't that also endanger the child?
The same argument by your statement could be made for allowing parents to decide whether their kids can smoke cigarettes and drink booze before the age of 19 (21 in the US). Why shouldn't a child be able to smoke and booze it up if the parents choose to allow it? The reason is because a child is not mentally mature enough to understand the long term effects of his or her actions and choices. > Is your point that parents shouldn't really make parental decisions? > That the government should define it and is really everyone's parent? > And so if parents don't conform to the government's parental SOP then > it's time for the government to raise kids? That is no where even close to the point I was arguing. My argument was in the case where a child has a life threatening condition, then the child's welfare is more important than the parental choice. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:5/messageid:211084 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
