Re: DSM: [SVS Discussion Board] Re: Child Safety


Tina (tls@ziplink.net)
Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:54:07 -0400


At 04:03 PM 4/13/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/13/00 12:06:39 AM, tls@ziplink.net writes:
>
><< This is, unfortunately, an area where you really can't equate children and
>adults. Children tend to be "preyed" upon by a certain segment of society
>simply because they are children. The elderly and the handicapped have the
>same problem. >>
>
>Do you think the elderly and handicapped should make their own choices about
>where to go, or should less vulnerable people choose for them?
>
><< Further, they are physically smaller and weaker than the
>average adult (I'm referring mostly to the younger child here); even if
>they had the experience and wisdom to deal with these situations, they are
>simply not physically equipped to outrun or overpower an adult. >>
>
>Yes, and unarmed adults generally are not equipped to overpower someone with
>a gun. People who are out of shape can't outrun people who are in better
>shape...

Both of these cases require an individual case-by-case basis. How
vulnerable? Is someone else responsible for them? Should they be? Young
children can be treated as a group in this case as they are - without
exception - unable to physically best the average adult. You can always
try and even out the comparison by upping the ante - I've got a knife,
you've got a gun, and this guy has a nuclear device - but a young child is
more vulnerable across the board.

>Of course there are different risks and dangerous things, and children should
>certainly be informed about them, but the choice is theirs.

I couldn't disagree with you more in this case. The whole object of
childhood in general and the child-parent relationship in particular, is to
allow the child to move from totally dependent to independent. It would be
a horrible lapse in my responsibility as a parent if I let my young child
do something dangerous simply because he wanted to. And if I had done
that, we wouldn't be having this discussion because my little angel would
have been dead by the age of two. If he were lucky.

T.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Sep 26 2000 - 14:58:32 EDT