|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 2:43:19 PM
|
|
|
ncgrlnhisgrip
Posts: 44
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Nowhere, turn left
Status: offline
|
quote:
The government does ITS JOB.
This is productive- WHAT, exactly and as specifically as possible, IS the government's job?
_____________________________
--Dana--
If I'm here, its only a mirage... keep watching, I'll disappear again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 2:43:27 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 1795
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TwinCityGirl
But in my state, as in 19 other states, it's not a LAW to go without a helmet. So I'm not teaching my child to break a law. There is no law. 40% of the states currently leave it up to the families to decide.
Unfortunately my current state and my home state are not among those 19 states.
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
Capitalism is the Marxist term for Christian Society. -David Chilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 2:45:31 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3233
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
The government as an entity? No I don't think it cares per se... but one of it's jobs is to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves, and children are the weakest members of society. While, you Jeanie are a dedicated mom who would do anything to protect her child, many moms are not like you.
There are some children who need to be protected from their own parents; not all parents are good parents. And I'm sorry, but not taking proper safety measures like using seatbelts and helmets equates to not being a good parent!
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 2:46:55 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 1795
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
quote:
No I don't think it cares per se... but one of it's jobs is to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves, and children are the weakest members of society.
Then you'd figure that your man Obama would care more about the weakest members of our society and not be trying to overturn the partial birth abortion laws, right?
quote:
There are some children who need to be protected from their own parents; not all parents are good parents. And I'm sorry, but not taking proper safety measures like using seatbelts and helmets equates to not being a good parent!
Seatbelts, yes...helmets, not so much, imo.
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
Capitalism is the Marxist term for Christian Society. -David Chilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 2:49:51 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3233
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: clag4christ
quote:
No I don't think it cares per se... but one of it's jobs is to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves, and children are the weakest members of society.
Then you'd figure that your man Obama would care more about the weakest members of our society and not be trying to overturn the partial birth abortion laws, right?
Kim, we've got a few topics going on here, so let's stay on track shall we? I've already stated many times that I don't agree with Obama on the abortion issue.
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 2:53:51 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 1795
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
quote:
ORIGINAL: clag4christ
quote:
No I don't think it cares per se... but one of it's jobs is to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves, and children are the weakest members of society.
Then you'd figure that your man Obama would care more about the weakest members of our society and not be trying to overturn the partial birth abortion laws, right?
Kim, we've got a few topics going on here, so let's stay on track shall we? I've already stated many times that I don't agree with Obama on the abortion issue.
I know you don't...my point was that the government really doesn't look out for the weakest members of society...and while I am not completely against bike helmets for kids, especially when they're learning how to ride, I do not think it should be mandated by LAW for my kids or anyone elses to actually have to use them.
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
Capitalism is the Marxist term for Christian Society. -David Chilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 2:55:32 PM
|
|
|
TwinCityGirl
Posts: 777
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
The government as an entity? No I don't think it cares per se... but one of it's jobs is to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves, and children are the weakest members of society. While, you Jeanie are a dedicated mom who would do anything to protect her child, many moms are not like you.
There are some children who need to be protected from their own parents; not all parents are good parents. And I'm sorry, but not taking proper safety measures like using seatbelts and helmets equates to not being a good parent!
Ruth, I know that nobody is calling me a bad parent. I don't think that, and even if someone came out and said it wouldn't make me flinch: I know what I am as a parent. So let me make sure to make that clear.
And maybe I'll just never let my kid ride a bike. Then I'll show all of you Helmet Crusaders.  When he says "But mom, I want to ride a bike!" I'll just say, "No, honey. Bike are for Helmet People."
Absolutely there are terrible parents out there but are the non-bike-helmet people the ones to go after? Agapetos wants them prosecuted. PROSECUTED!
So you can have a cigarette in your car with your 4-week-old penned up in the backseat but that poor schmuck of a mom who let her 5-year-old ride up and down the driveway on the bike -- ooops -- no no no! (Do bike helmet laws include trikes, too? Should they?)
I read an article years ago (no idea where it was, sorry, or I would link to it) about a couple who literally had to flee their state with their (something like) 12-year-old son. The son something like cancer, and there were multiple routes to treat it, one being the most aggressive route but also the most risky route. They refused this treatment given that the treatment alone could cause the son to lose his life.
Then they were threatened with jail time for ENDANGERING the child. So they fled the state.
Again, who does that child belong to?
I have very close friends who had a horrendous choice like that to make with one of their children. They had two options, both were horrible. The aggressive option could have possibly killed her. That is what they told my friends: Do nothing and the situation will worsen and her skull could collapse onto her spinal cord, killing her. OR we can give her this incredibly aggressive, high-dose chemo. The treatment might kill her but it COULD slow down the progression of the disease.
Thank goodness nobody took them to court over that one. (And the little one is still alive thanks to God's hands -- they chose to treat it and take the risk.)
But seriously, you ladies, this is where things are going if people keep handing over their decision-making powers. It's going to get to the point that you don't have an option to ride out chicken pox with your child -- they MUST be vaccinated.
And is that really the government's call? For chicken pox?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 2:59:26 PM
|
|
|
TwinCityGirl
Posts: 777
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
The government as an entity? No I don't think it cares per se... but one of it's jobs is to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves, and children are the weakest members of society.
Ruth, (and I'm not picking on you, I swear, you're easy to talk to because you'll answer the hard questions)...
Isn't it the job FIRST AND FOREMOST of the PARENT to protect the child?
So then we slide down the slippery slope of:
Do we need people to prove they are parenthood-worthy before we let them breed?
What if the government imposed an age at which you could consent to parenthood?
Do you want the government stopping by daily (and at the behest of your nosy neighbors) with their big magnifying glass telling you 3 Oreos is too many for a boy Nathan's size?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:01:44 PM
|
|
|
TwinCityGirl
Posts: 777
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: clag4christ
Then you'd figure that your man Obama would care more about the weakest members of our society and not be trying to overturn the partial birth abortion laws, right?
Yep, Kim, you're so right.
There's the new bumper sticker for you:
"Helmets for unborn babies"
Now THAT is something I could go for, given the atrocity of the current practices.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:03:34 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3233
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TwinCityGirl
So you can have a cigarette in your car with your 4-week-old penned up in the backseat
Actually some states are making it illegal to smoke with a child in the car. My inlaws smoked with my dH in the car when he was a child (they no longer smoke or you wouldn't find them within 30 feet of my children), and that's one of the things I have trouble forgiving them for.
quote:
"No, honey. Bike are for Helmet People."
Ah, now that was funny! It made me smile.
I actually agree with you on the vaccine/chicken pox issue. I do see many reasons to leave it in the hands of parents. The 12 year old cancer victim is more tricky. The parents were working toward a cure, but not one the doctors agreed with.
What about parents that don't believe in blood transfusions? Should the doctors allow a child to die because the parents don't want a blood transfusion?
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:03:39 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 1795
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
Per a very interesting book Showdown by Larry Elder...
Researchers say that helmets reduce brain injury by as much as 88%. Therefore, given the number of states passing helmet laws, one would reasonably expect that head trauma injuries should be less than they were a decade ago, right? Wrong.
The number of head injuries sustained while bicycle riding has increased 10% since 1991. Worse, the number of injuries has spiked even as the number of bicycle riders has declined. Thanks to the increase in activities like in-line skating, skateboarding, and the like, overall bike usage has declined about 21% during the same time period. So the rate of head injuries for cyclists has actually increased 51%!
What's going on here? Fewer people riding, more of them wearing helmets, yet one-and-a-half times more injuries sustained than before mandatory laws. Specialists in risk analysis say that wearing a helmet gives the rider an elevated feeling of security, and therefore the rider is inclined to take more risks. Call it "the daredevil effect": the cyclists feel safer so they ride faster and take more chances on riskier maneuvers.
From page 27 of the aforementioned book.
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
Capitalism is the Marxist term for Christian Society. -David Chilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:04:48 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 1795
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TwinCityGirl
quote:
ORIGINAL: clag4christ
Then you'd figure that your man Obama would care more about the weakest members of our society and not be trying to overturn the partial birth abortion laws, right?
Yep, Kim, you're so right.
There's the new bumper sticker for you:
"Helmets for unborn babies"
Now THAT is something I could go for, given the atrocity of the current practices.
Or neck braces...so ick and so disturbing I can't even put it into words... *sigh*
quote:
Isn't it the job FIRST AND FOREMOST of the PARENT to protect the child?
My answer to this question, is yes.
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
Capitalism is the Marxist term for Christian Society. -David Chilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:07:12 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3233
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TwinCityGirl
Isn't it the job FIRST AND FOREMOST of the PARENT to protect the child?
It ought to be. Ideally the government is there to protect children when parents fail to do so (and the definition of failure is what we are debating here).
Yes, I agree there can be a slippery slope, but I also think there's a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by saying the government has no say at all in a child's life if the child may be in danger. Now, how much say the government has is again... up for debate.
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:19:32 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 1795
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
quote:
What about parents that don't believe in blood transfusions? Should the doctors allow a child to die because the parents don't want a blood transfusion?
This doesn't actually equate with the bicycle helmet argument because the child in your above example would surely die without blood...a child going for a ride around the block without a helmet doesn't face the same certanity.
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
Capitalism is the Marxist term for Christian Society. -David Chilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:22:36 PM
|
|
|
TwinCityGirl
Posts: 777
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Statement: I am FOR children being safe.
None of us is promised any certain number of years here. I just read about a little baby girl named Cora who is 11 days older than my son who died of an illness she was diagnosed with in January. They tried everything, she died.
We can hum the mantra all we want "Son, you're going to live a good long life."
Except I have personally lost 4 cousins:
1. Car accident when she was 19. (slid on ice, nobody's fault)
2. Cancer at 42.
3. Heart problem at 28.
4. Aorta pulled away from rest of heart at 42.
And I have almost lost my brother multiple times from damage from his drowning at age 3 (which by the filters of several of you, my parents should have been locked up for EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AN ACCIDENT). Thank You, God, that my brother's accident happened in the 70's and not today because people would have said "What do you mean the toddler was out of your sight for a minute? Book them!"
I also don't believe that "children can be anything they want to be" -- but that's a whole 'nother topic. (If you haven't got the pipes for it, you're not going to be the next Aretha Franklin.) 
What about the parents' responsibility not to take risks themselves when they have children?
In 40% of the states there are no bike helmet laws....so if a father goes out -- NOT BREAKING THE LAW -- and rides his bike without a helmet, and he gets hurt and dies.
Are we saying that no parent, pregnant parent or potential parent should legally ride a bike while helmetless? Or maybe no parents should be allowed to fly in airplanes because as we saw recently one went down in a river (praise God no fatalities). Or cross a bridge -- hey, remember that bridge that fell down in 2007 killing 13 people and the 14th was the unborn baby one of the women was carrying? Should we not drive over bridges?
It concerns me how small people are making their worlds. "Oh, let the government tap my phone, what do I care? Let them trace all my purchases via my debit card -- what do I care?"
Do people not care at all for privacy or just to be left alone anymore?
And is not wearing a helmet or having a cigarette on your back porch with your child standing nearby really along the same lines as those that start their children on fire on purpose and break their bones for fun or sell them sexually for drug money?
I just think you invite trouble when you start legislating every little thing.
Kim, I brought up that same argument (your bike helmet injury info) with the mandatory HPV shot for young girls -- the false sense of security. People no likey -- they like their shots, man.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:23:52 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3233
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: clag4christ
quote:
What about parents that don't believe in blood transfusions? Should the doctors allow a child to die because the parents don't want a blood transfusion?
This doesn't actually equate with the bicycle helmet argument because the child in your above example would surely die without blood...a child going for a ride around the block without a helmet doesn't face the same certanity.
I agree. It goes more towards how much say a parent has in the medical treatment of a child, especially if it conflicts with their religious/philosophical beliefs.
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:24:15 PM
|
|
|
ncgrlnhisgrip
Posts: 44
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Nowhere, turn left
Status: offline
|
Who owns a child?
Who owns a child with "bad" parents? Who SHOULD own that child?
Why owns a child with "good" parents? Who SHOULD own that child?
_____________________________
--Dana--
If I'm here, its only a mirage... keep watching, I'll disappear again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:28:09 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 1795
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Kim, I brought up that same argument (your bike helmet injury info) with the mandatory HPV shot for young girls -- the false sense of security. People no likey -- they like their shots, man.
The same argument can go for STD's in general. If we keep drilling into kids heads (not "save yourself for marriage") "oh just wear this condom it'll keep you safe from *all STD's*" (which is a lie), they're more likely to 1) have premarital sex and 2) do it more often and think that they can't catch a venieral disease (i.e. engaging in risky behavior). *sigh* whatever happened to personal responsibility?
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
Capitalism is the Marxist term for Christian Society. -David Chilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:28:30 PM
|
|
|
myka
Posts: 991
Status: offline
|
I also think that government's job is to provide justice for those who are oppressed (one of the Biblical mandates). However, I think that government can be dumb sometimes and looks out for its own interests -- like most people. Don't get me started on the 'bail-out' 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:28:32 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3233
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TwinCityGirl
It concerns me how small people are making their worlds. "Oh, let the government tap my phone, what do I care? Let them trace all my purchases via my debit card -- what do I care?"
So, you're saying you're not in favor of the Patriot Act? I thought that was a Republican idea?  (Joking)
And no, I don't have my toddler in my sight 24/7, so I do believe that a drowning can be accidental. There are ways to make pools safer, but accidents can still happen.
As far as false sense of security? Well, surely in happens, but again, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wearing a seat belt and having a car equipped with airbags makes me safer in my car, but that doesn't negate my personal responsibility to drive appropriately.
That being said, I still prefer to drive a car that has all the modern safety features and I wear my seat belt. I'm not going to drive a dangerous car just because of the fear of a false sense of security. That analogy, I think, applies to a lot of different situations.
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:28:47 PM
|
|
|
TwinCityGirl
Posts: 777
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
What about parents that don't believe in blood transfusions? Should the doctors allow a child to die because the parents don't want a blood transfusion?
I don't believe the parents should be prosecuted, they should be allowed to grieve.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:30:19 PM
|
|
|
TwinCityGirl
Posts: 777
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: clag4christ
The same argument can go for STD's in general. If we keep drilling into kids heads (not "save yourself for marriage") "oh just wear this condom it'll keep you safe from *all STD's*" (which is a lie), they're more likely to 1) have premarital sex and 2) do it more often and think that they can't catch a venieral disease (i.e. engaging in risky behavior). *sigh* whatever happened to personal responsibility?
They handed it over to the government!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka - #5 - 2/11/2009 3:31:16 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3233
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TwinCityGirl
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
What about parents that don't believe in blood transfusions? Should the doctors allow a child to die because the parents don't want a blood transfusion?
I don't believe the parents should be prosecuted, they should be allowed to grieve.
They shouldn't be prosecuted even though they could've saved their child and didn't?
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
