quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

funny I didnt say property.

No, you didn't. But...if you own something, is it not your property?

Peon:
Is the more common view that children are their parents' property, then? Seems peculiar to me.


Lucy:
its only ok to own your children if you are strict christian, married heterosexual, middle class working parents

I was a Christian (not strict), heterosexual, middle-class, working parent. I never felt I "owned" my kids but...they were mine. Mine to love, raise, discipline, provide food, clothing and shelter for. I taught them. They weren't my property but they were my responsibility and my pride. Not the city's, the state's or anyone else's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.

quote:



Kahlil Gibran

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.

Perhaps if Hitler and Stalin were taken from their abusive parents and raised in more loving and nurturing environments, they wouldn't have become so twisted and evil.

In fact, when you think about every evil miscreant or criminal out there, the one common thread that keeps showing up is an abusive, unstable upbringing. It's something their parents did to them to make them that way. Bad parents account for more evil and murder in this world than the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Red China combined.

And the belief that children belong to the state is a hallmark of totalitarianism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
They are neither yours, nor the government's property.

That is, unless you are going to claim that humanity doesn't happen until a certain age.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.

Perhaps if Hitler and Stalin were taken from their abusive parents and raised in more loving and nurturing environments, they wouldn't have become so twisted and evil.

In fact, when you think about every evil miscreant or criminal out there, the one common thread that keeps showing up is an abusive, unstable upbringing. It's something their parents did to them to make them that way. Bad parents account for more evil and murder in this world than the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Red China combined.

And the belief that children belong to the state is a hallmark of totalitarianism.

An yet, the belief that children belong to the state can be found in Democracy, The Republic, Feudalism, The Corporation, an even Anarchy!

One would thin anarchy would the the opposite or lack of government body/laws; yet, its not. Since Anarchy usually folks right into a dictorship in which the 'ruler' can claim your child is their bride.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Anarchist don't believe the state should exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/07/16/msnbc-video-we-have-to-break-through-the-idea-that-kids-belong-to-their-parents/

Shades of the Clinton it takes a village. Take the responsibility of parenting a child and give it to government. Government is always right and parents are just wrong.

The Tea Party has its own 'news' agency now? What? Is FOX 'news' not enough?

This idea has been 'out in the airwaves' for over a year. In fact, if you study this lady's material, it goes father back. Why is it a 'news' story today? Did it take the author a full year to think up a half-witted argument?

I get a chuckle at the 'Obamapool Reflections', which is created by ANOTHER person from tpnn, Not, Melissa Harris-Perry. So you just know that 'poem' is full of shit, half baked truths, and devoid of anything really honest. Just like the Tea Party it serves....

So let's discussion this tpnn's author's ideas seriously....

"It takes a village to raise a child", is a title of a book from Mrs. Clinton. Its also an African proverb. Could even be argued the concept is far older. Many Native American tribes would collective teach children of the tribe as their own. Many cultures hold to it, that children needed to be nurtured to help the community when they were of age.

But we are not discussing ancient era concepts of humanity, but a modern political debate, by individuals belonging to a 'news' organization that have a poligical agenda (i.e. no integrity). While a child is the 'property' of their parents, they are not full property. If mishandled, mistreated, or abused, said child can and often is taken from the parent(s) by the state (i.e. the community). That most children are not home schooled (i.e. brainwashed), and thus, using community dollars (i.e. tax payer dollars), does imply a certain degree by which ownership of any individual child could be that of the community at large.

With the 14th, the technical concept of owning people as property straight out, was outlawed. However, if someone commits a criminal action, found guilty and placed in prison; are they not property of the state? If a child kills, found guilty and placed in a prison, are they too not property of the state?

Turning times of emergency, could it be said that teenagers might be drafted to help a community against an impending doom? Like rescuing a dam before it breaks during a massive flood that could wipe out the town they live in? Before Clinton was born, this was 'ok' by many communities across the nation. Who wouldn't want one more body whom can shovel dirt/sand into a bag, carry it to a spot, or help place it with thousands of others to keep flood waters at bay?

Of course, the tpnn being a political organization, will try to slam Hillary Clinton, because none of their canidates have a prayer in Heaven or Hell of winning against her in a straight up duel. Which is fairly typical of right wing organizations. This 'issue', they try to push as communism. Therefore, Hilly has to be a communist. Is tpnn aware this is 2015 and not the 'Era of McCarthy'? It does. Its audience however, is not!

For tpnn to be correct, that it does not take many people to educated, grow, and teach one child to be a good adult in life; then present me two parents with children that can become Ph.Ds without attending any sort of schooling system (be it public or private). You'll find only token and extreme examples that are possible. Making the concept mainstream, would be like making everyone a multi-billionaire and then declaring an end to poverty. In both cases, reality is ignored.

To bad tpnn can't bring up anything useful for Americans. Just another hate-filled, low information voter, 'news' site. Trying to dumb down Americans. Since an idiot is much easier to manipulate and control than a well informed, studied, learned, adult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Actually, owning people is not completely outlawed by the 14th amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.

Perhaps if Hitler and Stalin were taken from their abusive parents and raised in more loving and nurturing environments, they wouldn't have become so twisted and evil.

In fact, when you think about every evil miscreant or criminal out there, the one common thread that keeps showing up is an abusive, unstable upbringing. It's something their parents did to them to make them that way. Bad parents account for more evil and murder in this world than the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Red China combined.

And the belief that children belong to the state is a hallmark of totalitarianism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Is the more common view that children are their parents' property, then? Seems peculiar to me.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Is the more common view that children are their parents' property, then? Seems peculiar to me.

It's a peculiar thing, though. Kids aren't "property" like a car, or some inanimate thing. But, they are "property" in that the parent (or legal guardian) is the one that had authority over the child. A parent can choose to homeschool rather than send the child to public schools, for instance. Sure, there are rules and requirements made by government, but the manner in how the academic standards are reached are pretty much open to the parent.

Children do have rights, and government is still in the business of protecting a citizen's rights (especially when it's to the government's benefit), so kids aren't slaves to their parents/guardians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.

Sure, once again our resident conspiracy theorists are paranoid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Is the more common view that children are their parents' property, then? Seems peculiar to me.

It's a peculiar thing, though. Kids aren't "property" like a car, or some inanimate thing. But, they are "property" in that the parent (or legal guardian) is the one that had authority over the child. A parent can choose to homeschool rather than send the child to public schools, for instance. Sure, there are rules and requirements made by government, but the manner in how the academic standards are reached are pretty much open to the parent.

Children do have rights, and government is still in the business of protecting a citizen's rights (especially when it's to the government's benefit), so kids aren't slaves to their parents/guardians.