Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: MORE MISCELLANEOUS
Message-ID: <1609@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Jan-84 19:37:32 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1609
Posted: Sun Jan 22 19:37:32 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jan-84 04:42:25 EST
References: <503@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 41

> No question that incest may hurt children terribly.  But with a
> responsible parent, and within a responsible society, I see no
> reason why a bit of healthy sexual expression between mother and
> child, father and child, or between siblings, should be any problem
> whatsoever.

> Such expressions are common in a variety of cultures worldwide
> (refs available upon request).

References, please.  Maybe it's being reported in a distorted fashion (though
I doubt it), but most of the incest that occurs in our society seems to be
*very* damaging to the children.

How do you propose to make sure that the parents *are* responsible (or, for
that matter, that society is responsible)?  One needs to define categories
of "responsible" and "irresponsible" behavior, must make laws which
provide criteria for distinguishing these kinds of behavior, and must provide
sanctions for those who aren't responsible.  Such laws will *always* screw
somebody, as one can argue almost anything into a judgement call.  Abolishing
the laws because they aren't fair and correct in all cases isn't a solution.

> We want to give any two-year-olds who are capable of making it to
> the polls the right to vote.  Age should not be a qualification.
> Day-old babies must have the right to move out of the house.

> NAMBLA does not intend to lower the age of consent.  NAMBLA proposes
> to *abolish* the age of consent.

Day-old babies' brains are still developing.  What does "move out of the house"
mean?  Obviously, if an infant crawls out of the house into the street, the
parents must have the right to grab it and pull it away from the traffic.

This strikes me as a case of taking a principle as far as it can stretch,
common sense be damned.  This is certainly logical if one takes the principle
as being inviolate, but it would probably fail the practical test of leading
to harm befalling children who *aren't* mature enough to be given the rights
of adults.  A philosophical model which doesn't work in the real world, no
matter how "logically correct", isn't worth a tinker's dam.

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy