Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood posting Message-ID: <1549@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 19:59:17 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1549 Posted: Mon Aug 19 19:59:17 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 19:56:25 EDT References: <639@ttidcc.UUCP> <10929@rochester.UUCP> <1473@pyuxd.UUCP> <11043@rochester.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 96 >>> Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex. >>Any sensible American child would definitely ignore that "responsible" (and >>I most certainly question the use of the word) parent. Which is precisely >>why real information should be passed on to kids, precisely because of >>parents whose sex education for their child consists of that responsible >>statement "Thou shalt not have sex". > I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Rich concering parents. He is having > a great deal of trouble remaining objective. [RAY] Where do you see that? What's non-objective about it? The fact that it's at odds with your opinion? > Why would a sensible American child or any child for that matter ignore his > parents? Because the parents are incompetent, or teaching them poorly. Such as parents who teach hypocrisy to their children as a way of life ("Tell them you're only two years old."). Some kids are smart enough to realize what dolts their parents are. Mind you, this surely doesn't apply to all parents. Just to those who make "responsible" statements like the one Ray made above. > So you want to pass on "real information to kids"? Who are you going to elect > to do this? At what age are they going to receive this information? > Let's see, we can start with Santa Clause. People can come around the home > and convince 3 year olds that Santa doesn't exist. To hell with the joys of > Christmas and the wonderful imagination of a child. How about pictures > graphically depicting death camps during WW2. Why should a child be told that > the the world is a pretty and safe place to be alive. C'mon folks let's here > it for 'real information'. The fact that you choose deliberately to hide such real information from children clues me in on the fact that you wouldn't make a very good parent. I knew about the non-existence of Santa Claus at a rather early age. I also knew about death camps around the same time. So did most people in my peer group. So do most of my friends' kids. What are you trying to hide from your kids? And why? Real information about the real world teaches you to be a realist. Maybe you just wouldn't want your kids to be realists. That might get them thinking. > To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing > to buffer their children from the horrors of the real world till their old > enough to understand. Hear, hear! (Oh, you meant this sarcastically?) I think your version of "old enough to understand" is roughly equivalent to "too late to understand". Would you delay sex education the same way? Is puberty "old enough"? No? Guess what? You're already five or six years too late!!! > I will agree that some parents are only that in name alone, and don't deserve > the responsibility of raising kids and perhaps are not capable of properly > raising children. Let's face it, almost anyone can be a parent, it doesn't > take any special education or intelligence, just doing what comes natural > causes parents to exist fortunately or unfortunately depending on how their > children affect society. Sad but true. > But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents, it > has always worked just fine that way. If, as of late, it is not working out > so well, then not only are some parents to blame, but also the interference > outside the home. It hasn't always worked just fine that way for the very reasons you mention. It's too bad there is no parenting education required before becoming a parent. If a parent hasn't taught the child how to relate to and understand the world "outside the home" ("We'll wait till she's old enough to understand..."), then indeed the parents are very much to "blame", for not teaching their kids how to cope. That's their job. > Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The way > to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the family." > I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks, I can tell. > but I personally believe that this very erosion is going on all around us > all the time right now. Nothing could make us weaker than 250 million > alienated estranged Americans. The erosion of the family isn't coming from outside, it's coming from within: from parents who fail to take responsibility for the proper raising of their children to think for themselves and become adults, by being so strict as to restrict independent thought processes, making them dependent on sticking to established conventions rather than seeking their own way. By sheltering their children from the real world because they think it's best for them, only to find that the kids can't cope once they get out there with real people (and real influences, bad and good). By leaving a television set in charge of the kids as their babysitters, and then wondering where they got all these strange ideas from. This has nothing to do with abortion, Ray. Offline, please. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr