In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:


> > <laugh> Would be my pleasure. I happen to like children.

> > Yep, you've made that pretty clear. However, if your Mom had felt the
> > same way, you wouldn't be here, now would you?
>
> That has nothing to do with this topic. My parents wanted more children
> but were unable to have more. Had they had more, I'm quite sure they would
> have been as well disciplined as I was and no "mother with children" spaces
> would be required, nor would other shoppers have a problem with their or my
> presence.
>
> There is serious parental negligence in discipline and training today, and
> for that, everone else suffers. It's hardly my fault if they cannot
> control their kids. If I misbehaved in public, I was quickly whisked away
> and displined in one way or another. I can assure you it rarely happened.
> I had great parents and they knew what they were doing.

I think you just don't remember, Wayne. Very few people have memories
of when they were really little. All normal children go through a phase
called the "terrible twos". If they don't, they simply aren't normal
children. They are learning that they can exert control over the
outside world. They try different techniques. One is the all out
temper tantrum, with screaming and flailing of arms and legs. It is the
job of the parents to make sure that last technique simply doesn't work.
But reasoning with a two year old doesn't work well. They don't have
the understanding and attention span to do a lot of things. With a one
year old, you have the ultimate control. They haven't learned how to
walk yet. When they are five and older, you can reason with them. They
understand about the future (like later that afternoon).

> I'm quite sure that I'm in the minority and don't mind admitting it. At
> the same time, I think you may be missing my point. I have nothing against
> a pregnant woman parking close to the store, and I would consider their
> pregnancy to be a temporary disability. I suggest that that they should
> obtain a temporary disability placard and vie for the legal legitimate
> disability spaces like anyone else that's disabled. I still see absolutely
> no reason for specificd spaces dedicated for this purpose.

I understand your point. I don't agree with it, but it is reasonable.
Hopefully there are few of these spots, especially in a retirement area.
Women usually just don't spend that much of their time being pregnant,
especially those later, difficult months. Some women, especially those
pregnant with their first child, may not even use those spots.

> I become dismayed when I see people on walkers or crutches having to park
> beyond the distance of the pregnancy spaces and struggle to get to the
> store, when if they were all designated as disability spaces, everyone
> needing them would have equal opportunity.

It sounds like you have a solution looking for a problem. If more
handicapped spots are needed, then there should be more handicapped
spots. That seems pretty simple. If there are enough spots, then the
store will lose business.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA