"A society should value its children above all else..."

[Robb]

From TSA searches to restaurants and airline seats, it seems the common element in these discussions is how much leeway should be given to children and their parents -- versus how inconveniencing everyone else can find them.

I feel there is likely a balance to be struck; but how should public policy reflect it?

"A society should value its children above all else..." ...to what extent do you agree with this statement? And how would you shape the world were you given the proverbial wand?

[woo me with science]

1. TSA naked scans and genital touching have nothing to do with children.

They are a violation of privacy, dignity, and liberty.

They are a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights.

They are wrong NOT ONLY for children. Not only for abuse survivors. Not only for the elderly. Not only for cancer patients.

They are wrong for EVERYONE.

Battles about restaurant seats and behavior in airlines also have absolutely nothing to do with society "valuing its children." Children are permitted in these venues.

[PassingFair]

2. Of COURSE it should.

Children are our future.

[Hawkowl]

3. Nonsense

The elderly, the working adults, just as important as children. Besides, our society may blather on about the importance of children, but if you view the dollar expenditures in total of our government, clearly our priorities are war, followed by interest to bondholders.

[rucky]

4. This is pretty abstract

I don't think I really understand the question.

Could you give an example of what you mean?

[dkf]

5. We spend 4x more on the elderly than we do our kids.

So that is obviously untrue.

[LanternWaste]

14. American society spends that much more on the elderly...?

American society spends that much more on the elderly, or are you alluding to only government-specific expenditures?

[Bluenorthwest]

6. What does 'value' mean? And you add 'and their parents'. Why?

What does 'valuing' them look like in a restaurant?
I think humans are equal, no group is 'above all else'. None.

[Demeter]

7. Value ALL Children, Whatever Their Ages

and any other characteristic.

[mrmpa]

8. value children yes.................

above all else....No

[WatsonT]

9. Yes with the caveat that valuing them does not mean spoiling them at every term

and basing society around catering to their whims.

Occasionally letting a kid burn his hand is a valuable lesson for him. But many would consider that cruelty. So there is some debate over the word "value" in this scenario.

[HappyMe]

10. Yes, kids should be valued. But not above

all else.

All generations should be valued.

[seabeyond]

11. it is not about valuing them above all else. it is they are a part of this world

they have to be acoomodated for along with our elderly, handicapped, poor and anyone else we may not want to participate with in our own human experience.

on edit... i used handicapped, elderly adn poor because there are special accomodations for them, along with children, for things like .... referring to tsa search

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

12. As a childless not by choice woman, one of my biggest pet peeves

is valuing people based on whether they are parents and the number of children they have. For instance, a lot of news stories describe people as 'a mother of 3' or a 'father of 4' as if the fact that the person copulated and had children somehow bestows virtue and better societal placement than someone who either cannot or does not want to have children.

In many ways, society makes those who are without children feel as if they are less complete, less 'whole.' I hear it all the time... you can't understand because you're not a parent or the famous 'children are a gift.'

I think all people, regardless of their age and ability to procreate, need to be valued. I am kinda tired that so much around us is for the sake of children - or appears to be. I actually think a lot of the child proofing we do in society is not necessarily for the children, but for the idiot parents (and there are too many of them) who can't discipline or raise their children properly.

Even in the workplace, those with children are treated differently than those without. If they have to take off early for their precious child's recital, they don't have to request time off. If I have to take off early to take my 'children' to the vet, I better have the paperwork filled out.

A society does well by valuing its children, for sure, but it should not over-value them to such an extent that being childless is considered an inferiority or a weakness.

[Rowdyboy]

13. I know I'll regret saying this but I truly believe things were better in the days before we became

a "child-centered" society. As a child, I was not the center of my parents universe, nor were my younger brothers and sisters. Yes, they loved us, but we were second to the marriage. We were also expected to eat what we were given without complaint because it was what we had. Teachers and adults were to be respected and you were expected to do the best you could.

Yes, I know, its "Leave it to Beaver" maudlin, sickeningly sweet and unrealistic in that not everyone can be lucky enough to have a two parent family. Nevertheless, the educational system of that era was, IMHO, far more successfull than today's, and the children were far less self-absorbed and obtrusive.

And yes, I agree its a VERY good thing neither I nor my partner ever had any children. Dogs do quite nicely to fill any void in our lives.

[Codeine]

16. + fucking 1.

I cannot agree with you more.

[Codeine]

15. Wholly disagree.

Veneration and worship of the child is absolutely destructive to the psychological health of said children.