From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 22:03:52 MDT
I strongly disagree with your point of view re child abuse laws.
Having the sheetrock broken in several rooms of the house by
my body that was slammed into it because my father was pissed at
the world in general and he was sure that somehow I was up to no
good is not at all what I would consider ambiguously termed
"abuse". Being hit on the head when you are 8 years old with a
hammer (thankfully lightly enough not to do really serious
damage although I did see stars and hear ringing in my ears)
just because you look a bit sullen after being yelled at for not
hand mowing the yard fast enough and being ordered to clean
Dad's muddy work boots as punishment is nothing other than
abuse and a clear and present danger to the child. Being told
several times a week that you are utterly worthless and need to
have your will totally destroyed to ammont to anything at all,
is pretty damn abusive in my book. Is it ambiguous when watching
your younger siblings get physically and emotionally scarred up
year after year and being old enough to understand what is
happening to them and even why your father is like he is to some
degree. Law is a very important tool for the safety of children
in such cases. I also deeply loved my father. He didn't have
all bad qualities. He had some very good ones. But that didn't
make him any less monstrous or dangerous. I first ran away when
I was 9 because frankly I was afraid he was going to kill me the
way he was going. I left for good at 16 or barely 17. A society
that offers no protection and no recourse from such abuse is not
at all civil in my book.
In "the long run" I could easily have been dead or brain
damaged. As it is I have a deviated septum from a punch that
landed (I was generally a fast ducker and a good blocker), a
somewhat skewed left shoulder and slightly trick left wrist and
hand because of an accident in school that my father, insisting
I was faking, never took me to a doctor for. It could easily
have been much worse. When I got away my best friends family
took me in because they do were afraid that my father would
seriously harm me. It was by no means ambiguous.
You'll get no support from me for theoretical arguments that
child abuse laws are inherently wrong. I will agree that some
of them go much too far and the practices of the authorities in
such matters today is sometimes disgraceful when it resembles a
witch hunt.
- samantha
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
>
>
>>>But questions concerning children or animals are tougher yet:
>>>just what do reasonable people actually do when seeing some
>>>parent beating a child in public? You definitely have to "be
>>>there" before you even have the first clue. For societies to
>>>attempt to write laws about that, it's true, does keep a lot
>>>of dangerous bureaucrats sidelined who would otherwise do far
>>>greater damage when directing their omnivorous gaze at economic
>>>issues, say, but cannot otherwise said to be accomplishing any
>>>good.
>>>
>>What? My father was extremely physically and emotionally
>>abusive. Are you telling me that laws against treating children
>>that way are unjustified and accomplish nothing?
>>
>
> I don't think that they accomplish anything that is
> good in the long run. I disagree, as I've said, that
> there should be such laws. For more details, read my
> previous posts, but basically (i) abuse is too hard to
> define and too hard to stop (ii) families form a
> cohesive unit that to a great degree makes it possible
> for everyone else to butt out, especially the authorities.
>
> Lee
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:52 MST