toldailytopic: Is it irresponsible as a parent to allow your child to attempt to sail

[Todah]

It sounds to me like it involved a lot of pride. The brother held the record. The sister wants to beat her brother, and prove something for her sex as well, I suppose. The parents want to have two children that they can be ever so proud of.

Was it irresponsible, yes and no. It was pride, overriding common sense, and responsibility.

Sail around the world, not for pride and for kicks, but for someone else, or some cause beyond yourself, that is truly worthwhile, and you have my respect and admiration.

 

[Son of Jack]

Ah. We have the same in the UK. To be honest I can see the logic behind it, although I think I would have reversed it to 'texting while driving'....

You obviously haven't seen how much some people text.:chuckle:

 

[fool]

Sixteen year olds can drive a car, get married in some states, and get emancipated by a judge if they petetion.
What's more dangerous; driving a car around the city or driving a motor home down the freeway?
The Ocean is a freeway with lanes as big as....the Ocean.
Cars kill way more 16 year olds than boats.
The whole time she was on that boat she didn't;
1 have sex
2 get raped
3 try drugs
4 get in a car accident
the list goes on....

"safe" is relative, relative to what is what we should be asking ourselves.

 

[fool]

You obviously haven't seen how much some people text.:chuckle:

But what if your phone IS your GPS?

 

[WizardofOz]

Have any of you been on the roadways of the United States of America where just about anybody can get licensed to drive and plenty of people putter about without one with how much actual training?:think:

Is a parent of a child who drives at the same age, solo irresponsible?

Great point. If you let your 16 year old take your car out are you being irresponsible?

If you are confident enough that the trip will not end in the death of your child, then I guess it's only irresponsible if they actually die.

If they've had the necessary training, etc then there should be a confidence that a 16 year old would be OK. Boating around the world or scaling Everest are not as daunting a feat as they used to be.

 

[zippy2006]

We have no evidence that she made light of the risks involved. Indeed, she had a plan in place for what to do if her boat became disabled and she lost communication. She followed that plan and is now safe because of it.




There are several races with sail boats in the ocean that range from time trials such as the Americas Cup to intercontinental single man races that are repeatedly completed safely. The fact that a person could die while sailing in the ocean does not mean that they will die. Proper training reduces risks to manageable levels. Not eliminate risk, manage risk. Which is why you should get out of a house that is on fire and let the fire department put it out. They are properly trained and equipped to deal with the risk, you are not (assuming you are not a fire fighter. And even then you should get out if you don't have your equipment!)

I do not know how many marriages end in death. But the fact that any marriage resulted in a death means that marriage is not free of fatal risks.

This girl had enough training and experience to feel equal to the challenge. The facts in evidence right now support that she was equal to the challenge. You will have to ask her how she prepared to be isolated. It may be just as simple as her personality allowed her to be perfectly comfortable in relative isolation.



You fail to see the subtitles in each of these situations. In one case, she has to deal with only herself. In the other case she be able to deal with another person. My experience has taught me that a person can be ready for monumental physical accomplishments at a relatively young age while the maturity to deal with another person in the deeply personal and intimate way that marriage requires takes several more years to develop. As a parent, it is my job to help my children learn and understand the differences.

Great points all around CM, you are making far too much sense :thumb:

It would have been irresponsible for my parents to allow me to try to circumnavigate the globe alone when I was 16 (even though I'd spent a whole lot of time on sailboats). But I don't know if it was irresponsible for Abby Sunderland's parents to allow her to. Obviously, she's an extraordinary sailor. I'm inclined to say that it's not necessarily irresponsible, though in most cases it would be.

I agree :e4e:

 

[zoo22]

We let kids at 16 live on their own. A parent can okay a marriage at that age.

A seafaring family (with a member who's already done similar, and IMO, thus showed that anyone in their family not only knows their way around a boat, but also knows the genuine risks of an attempt like this...) I agree that it's odd, but I just don't think that Abby Sunderland was put in a situation she wasn't able to handle, (at least as much as an adult in an equivalent situation).

It would be extremely irresponsible for my fiance to allow me try to circumnavigate the globe alone on a ship. I'm an well-grown adult. Unless there was some kind of step-in, I would surely die. Abby Sunderland? I think she's likely a better sailor than plenty sailors through modern history who have tried to circumnavigate the globe.

I simply don't know, but I'm inclined to think that in this case, it was not irresponsible.

 

[CRASH]

I think it was fine in this situation. Gutsy girl too.

 

[nicholsmom]

Pirates.
Did the parents not think of pirates? They've been in the news even recently. It's like sending your teen into an inner city where the cops are having trouble bringing in a gang of rapists/murderers - and having the evening news report when and where she'll be :shocked:

That's beside all the other deadly dangers of the open sea. Deadly danger every day for how long? Why not send her to the jungles of South America to evangelize the natives? At least that way she'd have a decent goal, and if she was called to it by God, His assurance that nothing would get to her that He didn't allow.

How is it that breaking records has become a goal of its own? Oughtn't that to be a secondary benefit of doing well in your area of expertise? :idunno:

Yes. It is irresponsible of her parents to allow such a thing.

 

[chrysostom]

We let kids at 16 live on their own. A parent can okay a marriage at that age.

A seafaring family (with a member who's already done similar, and IMO, thus showed that anyone in their family not only knows their way around a boat, but also knows the genuine risks of an attempt like this...) I agree that it's odd, but I just don't think that Abby Sunderland was put in a situation she wasn't able to handle, (at least as much as an adult in an equivalent situation).

It would be extremely irresponsible for my fiance to allow me try to circumnavigate the globe alone on a ship. I'm an well-grown adult. Unless there was some kind of step-in, I would surely die. Abby Sunderland? I think she's likely a better sailor than plenty sailors through modern history who have tried to circumnavigate the globe.

I simply don't know, but I'm inclined to think that in this case, it was not irresponsible.

what would your opinion be
if
they never found her or the boat?

 

[nicholsmom]

My experience has taught me that a person can be ready for monumental physical accomplishments at a relatively young age while the maturity to deal with another person in the deeply personal and intimate way that marriage requires takes several more years to develop. As a parent, it is my job to help my children learn and understand the differences.

I would also say "no" to marriage at 16. That you would not let your daughter marry at 16 has nothing whatever to do with allowing her to go to sea alone where dragons be. Especially when it's just for fame and glory.

Are you honestly more impressed by a person who circumnavigates the globe alone as opposed to doing so with a small crew - or at least a single companion? To me, it's a silly goal in this age of travel, so I guess I'm no real judge of the worthiness of the task she has set herself. Seems foolhardy and pointless to me :idunno: That probably colors my opinion of the entire thing.

 

[chrysostom]

getting married at 16 is safer

 

[GuySmiley]

She didn't make the decision by herself. She didn't steel the boat and sneak away. She had discussions with her parents and they all agreed that she could go.

Yes, thats what I'm saying. Its not her decision, its her parents decision, so they bear the responsibility. Basically they are risking her life for a record, a book deal, or a reality TV show. Unlike driving a car. And I'm not saying she shouldn't do it either, I just think some extra caution is needed. Like maybe an escort vessel, or not planning to have her in the Indian Ocean in storm season (assuming those reports of bad planning are true).

 

[Rusha]

And I'm not saying she shouldn't do it either, I just think some extra caution is needed. Like maybe an escort vessel, or not planning to have her in the Indian Ocean in storm season (assuming those reports of bad planning are true).

Now IF that were part of this scenario, atleast this child would have some assistance should something happen.

However, given the fact that the father is trying to make money off her trip, THAT tells me all I need to know about *his* motivations.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'm not talking about the girl here. I'm talking about the responsibility (or lack thereof) regarding her parents. I have no interest in criticising the child at all in this scenario as none of it is her fault. I don't deny that she had skill or training either. Nor am I saying she made light of any risk. But there were plenty of variables where no matter what plan she had followed could have easily resulted in her premature death.

Yes, that is true. It is true of getting up and going to school (Columbine was just the first)
Its true of getting into a car and driving.
Its true of skiing.
Its true of having an operation.
There are ALWAYS variables in ANY activity that can result in premature death.
Its called life.

How many of these races allow children to participate?

I honestly don't know. But the age of the participant doesn't change the inherent risks, does it.

In that case you could never feel comfortable about your daughter marrying then could you? It's a ridiculous comparison CM. Getting out of bed has killed some people down the line.

In point of fact, I do not feel comfortable with the idea of my daughter getting married. There are some scary people out there that appear just as normal as the next guy. You never find out until its to late that they are abusive in the extreme.

Again CM. This is not about what the child thinks. I saw an episode of The Simpsons lately where Bart intends to skateboard across the Springfield gorge. Homer ends up stopping it (with highly amusing consequences to be fair :chuckle so take the cartoon element out of this and would Homer be a responsible parent if he let it continue? In the episode Bart is an accomplished skateboarder so what's the problem? Would you let your teenager do the same?

The Simpsons as a good parenting model?! That's a first! True, some activities do not have acceptable levels of risk. Others do. What is acceptable and unacceptable risk can only be determined on a case by case base. An absolute age for making such determinations is arbitrary method at best.

No I don't. Your child may be highly emotionally mature to take relationship dynamics into account yet you won't respect that. You will however respect her decision to risk her life on a highly dangerous journey where emotional maturity would already play a distinct part in her chances of success/surviving. Double standards.

No, its the same standard. You need to understand that a child that is mature enough at 16 to sail the ocean alone is not saying that that is the most mature that child will ever be. It is the parents job to know how mature their children are and to deal with them accordingly.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I would also say "no" to marriage at 16. That you would not let your daughter marry at 16 has nothing whatever to do with allowing her to go to sea alone where dragons be. Especially when it's just for fame and glory.

Are you honestly more impressed by a person who circumnavigates the globe alone as opposed to doing so with a small crew - or at least a single companion? To me, it's a silly goal in this age of travel, so I guess I'm no real judge of the worthiness of the task she has set herself. Seems foolhardy and pointless to me :idunno: That probably colors my opinion of the entire thing.

Frankly, I don't find it all that impressive since I am not a sailing fan. In general, I think there is far to much pressure on our children to grow up to fast and to b become over performers. That having been said, when the extraordinary comes along that is capable of achieving such a feat, I do not think such a spirit should be restrained because of our own personal fears over the death of a "child". It should be trained and tempered and encouraged.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, thats what I'm saying. Its not her decision, its her parents decision, so they bear the responsibility. Basically they are risking her life for a record, a book deal, or a reality TV show. Unlike driving a car. And I'm not saying she shouldn't do it either, I just think some extra caution is needed. Like maybe an escort vessel, or not planning to have her in the Indian Ocean in storm season (assuming those reports of bad planning are true).

There are some decisions in life that parents should not make unilaterally. My daughter became a horse owner at age 11 because it was her dream. My first inclination was to say no. Horse can be dangerous and being around them has the potential of resulting in life altering injuries and even death. They are expensive (one is spending the night at the vets place with colic tonight) and I know nothing about keeping horses. So instead of saying no I encouraged her to save her money and she bought her horse with her own money. Even with the risk of death, it has been a marvelous decision.

So is letting her own a horse on par with letting a kid sail around the world by herself. Let me ask you this, is a child more dead if they are lost at sea or if they fall of a horse and break their neck?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, that is true. It is true of getting up and going to school (Columbine was just the first)
Its true of getting into a car and driving.
Its true of skiing.
Its true of having an operation.
There are ALWAYS variables in ANY activity that can result in premature death.
Its called life.

Most activities are not tangibly dangerous in themselves. (Operations are hardly activity but necessity) We know that the likelihood of death or serious injury is negligible in the mundane.

I honestly don't know. But the age of the participant doesn't change the inherent risks, does it.

Then why have any laws that prevent children from being involved in the same things as adults? Why do you suppose we have them if the age doesn't matter?

In point of fact, I do not feel comfortable with the idea of my daughter getting married. There are some scary people out there that appear just as normal as the next guy. You never find out until its to late that they are abusive in the extreme.

Well that's the risk of any relationship at any age so 16 or 56 it's all the same CM. There's some scary things in the ocean too like storms, sharks, pirates etc. It's the same double standards.

The Simpsons as a good parenting model?! That's a first! True, some activities do not have acceptable levels of risk. Others do. What is acceptable and unacceptable risk can only be determined on a case by case base. An absolute age for making such determinations is arbitrary method at best.

How about adulthood? Do you think the laws should be scrapped in favour of what the parents decide their child can do?

No, its the same standard. You need to understand that a child that is mature enough at 16 to sail the ocean alone is not saying that that is the most mature that child will ever be. It is the parents job to know how mature their children are and to deal with them accordingly.

I wouldn't give permission for my child to sail the world at 16 or get married.

 

[Rusha]

So is letting her own a horse on par with letting a kid sail around the world by herself. Let me ask you this, is a child more dead if they are lost at sea or if they fall of a horse and break their neck?

A fall from a horse won't necessarily result in her dying. She might end up with a concussion, a few bruises, a broken neck (which people can live through) or die. Also, it is much more likely that she will get medical attention immediately of shortly after.

OTOH, if your child is alone on the open sea and her boat is overturned or goes down, unless she can dog paddle or float on her back for hours, weeks, days, etc. without getting eaten by shark, drowning or dying of thirst, her chances of surviving and being found alive are far less than the kid that falls from a horse.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Most activities are not tangibly dangerous in themselves. (Operations are hardly activity but necessity) We know that the likelihood of death or serious injury is negligible in the mundane.

So we deceive ourselves into believing. Driving a car is mundane in the extreme. We get in our cars and roar off to work, to shop, to shuttle children. How many people are killed in cars every day? So much the mundane being safe.

Then why have any laws that prevent children from being involved in the same things as adults? Why do you suppose we have them if the age doesn't matter?

Because bureaucrats need a well defined rule to work with. Bureaucrats are incapable of dealing with individual situations and must have a law or rule to point to in order to make any decision. A more interesting question is how are the age laws determined? In America you can drive at 16, kill and die for your country at 18 but not drink a beer until 21. Why those ages? What is so magical about them that says a boy who is 17 years and 364 days old is to young for military service but 17 years and 365 days is okay? Arbitrary based on societal perceptions of what is to young and what is not.

Well that's the risk of any relationship at any age so 16 or 56 it's all the same CM. There's some scary things in the ocean too like storms, sharks, pirates etc. It's the same double standards.

Correct. The risks of the ocean can be dealt with at a much younger age than the risks of living with an abusive individual.

How about adulthood? Do you think the laws should be scrapped in favour of what the parents decide their child can do?

Why would I think that? If you think it is okay to teach your child to be a thief it does not change the fact the steeling is illegal. Sailing is not illegal. There will always be people who want what is not theirs or think that killing is a good option to solve a problem. Society has a vested interest in protecting itself from such individuals so laws are needed.

I wouldn't give permission for my child to sail the world at 16 or get married.

Fine. I think that is a great decision for yo and your kids.