@firefly,
firefly wrote:Just because someone doesn't have, or want, or even like, children, doesn't necessarily make their positions automatically untenable.
Someone can chose not to have children, but still understand and know that parents, those people who do have children, are bound by certain legal obligations to those children. David's positions are untenable because he is advocating disregard of child welfare/protection laws. He is, therefore, advocating child abuse and neglect. That is not a morally, or legally, defensible position.
---------------------------------------------
Thank you, sozobe
Generally speaking, for the most part, I
like children,
depending on their personalities and personal conduct, if thay r reasonably decent.
I do not
like nor
dislike anyone merely for being below
nor above a certain age.
I have seen some very unlikable children,
e.g. the child of a former girlfriend of mine
who was chronically, very persistently,
extremely rude and hurtful to her mother,
and to a lesser extent to others, to whom she became a pariah.
I did not like that girl (tho I gave her jewelry anyway [financed it], just for the hell of it).
As to your comments qua legal requirements,
I object that any such statute is subject to and
subordinate to, the
Constitutional Right of self-defense.
The Hansen girls were in danger of getting burned up.
By the way, Firefly: u have a
very beautiful NAME.
Here in NY, we call them Lightning Bugs.
Thay are always very, very welcome here.
It is always a
great delight to see them arrive in the Summer.
David
