Parental rights

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Parental rights

She'll correct me if I'm wrong (I hope) but I took it as vocally pro-life and behaviorally reprehensible, so that dumping that contradicting world of confusion, pain and misery (as applied to children) for a world where kids were prized for the gifts they are. And not chattel.

Not so much what pro-life represents but the bastardized manipulation of the ideal, to incorporate such things as child abuse and neglect.



EDIT: Or, to be frank, this world is f***ed up.

Yes.........

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

I must admit, I was rather surprised by what I read in this thread in the way of people's responses.

I was surprised because of what this place is, a forum for people seeking to avoid being perscuted and judged for their beliefs...

Whilst at the same time the general overall consensus, with slight exception, is that regardless of one's beliefs they should be FORCED to adhere to what the majority feels is correct, when someone's life is on the line.

So... do we value our liberty and freedom, or don't we? You see, none of this applies 'sometimes'. It either applies ALL OF THE TIME, or not at all. You can't pick and choose when to apply it and when not to apply it based upon what you agree with and don't agree with.

This, in a word, is called hypocrisy. We don't want our rights and beliefs stomped upon, but we seem to have no problem stomping upon other's rights and beliefs if they run contrary to ours on a hot button topic.

I don't mean this offensively, but rather reflectively. Think upon it, don't try to fire back a denial. It's all over this thread.

We're entering the proverbial 'very slippery slope' of tyranny here when we want to force people to adhere to what WE think is best for them.

We have no right whatsoever to tell any parent what is 'best' for THEIR child. It's the product of the parents which spawned it, and not the property of the state or the public.

We can inform them, as best we can, to help them make what we feel are responsible and informed decisions. But to actually, physically, FORCE them to adhere to our will, collective or otherwise, is a tyranny of the minority by the majority.

I've noticed people paying lip service to, say, religious freedom, supporting it whole heartedly, and then in the very next sentence saying essentially that when it comes to a child, if you aren't making the right decisions, then some one else should be making those decisions FOR you. At gunpoint. Because that's the only way any such 'enforcement' happens is through violence at the point of the gun. That's the only way ANY law is ultimately enforced. Someone shoves a gun in your face and says, essentially, do this or ELSE.

Is this really the road that folks want to go down? Is this really what they think should happen?

Or are perhaps some folks with what I lovingly call 'fluffybunny' tendencies letting the cart run over the horse because they simply don't agree with a certain aspect of what is certainly a hot button topic?

Much to think upon here.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parental rights

Not all of us come here to avoid persecution. I for one do not feel persecuted where I am, at all, ever.

Like I said before. Religious freedom has limits. Those limits are when beliefs harm another person. In the case of this child, harm was caused. Therefore, religious freedom shouldn't extend that far.

- - - Updated - - -

The parent is responsible for the child, because the child does not have the mental capacity to understand consequences etc. When the parent is failing miserably and also unable to understand consequences, then someone must step in.

This. Exactly.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

Harm was NOT 'caused' by the parents. You are mistaking lack of a certain action for causality.

Depending on whether it was type I or type II diabetes, it may even been USDA food pyramid recommendations that 'caused' the child's condition, if it was type II. (High carb low fat diets = higher incidence of type II diabetes, especially in children.)

The parents loved their child. The intent has to be looked at, not the end result. Did they try to harm their child? No, absolutely not. Had the parents opted for the medical route, would the child still be alive? Most likely, yes, but this article is meant to be extreme in order to garner support for 'enforcement' actions in such arenas. In other words it's MEANT to look 'over the top' in order to generate public support for running ramshod over parent's rights.

This article also has been 'cherry picked' for publication. It's an 'easy' association for most people with something so simple as diabetes, and the run of the mill very common treatment for such. In other words, everyone knows that the girl would have been 'saved' had she been diagnosed properly. What about something that isn't so cut and dry, like the times when a child who has cancer, has chemo, and dies anyway.

Did the cancer kill them, or did the chemotherapy? Chemo is so toxic that it's oft worse than the cancer. My wife's aunt is one of the people who pioneered the field of Oncology. I asked her once if she'd take chemotherapy if she got cancer. Her response? Hands down, NO, never. Why? Because it's absolutely toxic. The 'cure' is worse than the disease most of the time. When people who pioneered chemotherapy won't even take it themselves, you know something is awry.

Also no one bats an eyelash when the local Amish are allowed to do the exact same thing, deny medical services to their child, for a common mainstream illness, which typically results in the death of the child. What makes them special class citizens where they are allowed to get away with this, but you or I would not? What's with the special rules for special people? Where's all the news articles and outcry over that? Oh, yea, that's right... there isn't any. Because special groups have special rights, and everyone just sits back and lets them do their thing. It's only apparently newsworthy if it happens to a mainstream 'modern' couple.

So, do I think the parents did the right thing? No, I don't. But I also don't think that's for you or I to decide. Unless of course we want the loving hand of the government to be the nanny for the entire country. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Parental rights

I'm fleeing persecution? News to me.

I'm here because it entertains me to be here and because over the past couple years, I've come to give a damn about a handful of people here.

Regarding life vs liberty, minors aren't property. They are sapient life forms with all incumbent protections. Their parents are entrusted with their care until such a time as society deems them fit to care for themselves. Parents who overly abuse that trust, lose said trust and all rights and responsibilities that come with it. That principle is why the decision to rape or torture one's child can
1) lose you custody of the child and
2) earn you three hots and a cot in a 8x10 cell.

Society's has held the option of forcibly intervening to protect a child for quite some time. The only question is whether the decision not to provide necessary care should be considered morally and legally equivalent to direct agression against the minor that is dependent.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

I'm fleeing persecution? News to me.

Ye and the prior poster who made comment on this couldn't have missed the point I was making any further if ye tried. :P Not only did ye miss the point entirely, yer like on the next planet over.

I originally said

I was surprised because of what this place is, a forum for people seeking to avoid being perscuted and judged for their beliefs...

I was referring to Pagans in general, and how they've been persecuted throughout the ages. And how this was a place for such people to find refuge, companionship, and friendship. I wasn't referring specifically to YOU or any other individual member who may or may not feel 'persecuted'. If you aren't being persecuted, then feel blessed. Try wearing a Pagan themed t-shirt in the south in any major city and see how long it takes for someone to walk up to you and say something.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Parental rights

I once saw a group (I don't remember which religion) of people on a tv show saying they eschewed all facets of modern medicine, etc. Some of them were wearing eyeglasses. I laughed.

All of this is a tough line to draw - it's like the homeschooling debate in a way. Parental rights vs. the child's eventual opportunities.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parental rights

Ye and the prior poster who made comment on this couldn't have missed the point I was making any further if ye tried. :P Not only did ye miss the point entirely, yer like on the next planet over.

I originally said

I was referring to Pagans in general, and how they've been persecuted throughout the ages. And how this was a place for such people to find refuge, companionship, and friendship. I wasn't referring specifically to YOU or any other individual member who may or may not feel 'persecuted'. If you aren't being persecuted, then feel blessed. Try wearing a Pagan themed t-shirt in the south in any major city and see how long it takes for someone to walk up to you and say something.

I know that you weren't specifically referring to anyone, but not everyone takes past persecutions that seriously or comes here to find religious acceptance. Some just want to talk shop and ask a few questions.

I don't think it's persecution if you hold the same beliefs for ALL people. I for one think that neglect to provide life-saving medical care to your child should be illegal for everyone, regardless of what their beliefs are. This includes if you give your kid a non-tested, non-founded herbal remedy and your kid dies. I might believe herbal remedies are better in some cases, but I also don't think it's a good idea to rely on them when it comes to life and death, and to do so with my child. I don't think anyone else should either.

I may be biased based on the fact that I'm not from the US....people tend to see personal rights very differently here and in Canada (where I grew up). In Canada parents do have the right to decide medical care, based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, this can be overruled in cases of life or death in the name of child welfare. Children in Canada also have the right and ability to see doctors and get prescriptions on their own without a parent or guardian present. In these cases, the doctor makes the call and decides if the child understands risks and consequences of medication and treatments.

Germany is a different matter all together. The state frequently makes calls on health care issues with little regard to anyone's religious beliefs. They've pissed off most groups in recent years, and they don't really care.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

Germany is a different matter all together. The state frequently makes calls on health care issues with little regard to anyone's religious beliefs. They've pissed off most groups in recent years, and they don't really care.

I wouldn't exactly be using historical precedence of what the state does and does not do as justification or a clarion call for anything, especially since it's Germany. Most atrocities are state sanctioned. And historically when a state doesn't give a rip about anyone's religious beliefs leads to all kinds of unfun things. Russia and Germany should be the first to remember that.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parental rights

Just because Germany did sh*tty things in the past doesn't mean it has to let everyone do anything they want at the expense of other citizens and residents in the country.

The point is, lines have to be drawn. Personal freedom shouldn't come at the expense of other people, even if those people are your own children. The law needs to create a balance between personal freedoms and the collective freedoms of everyone else in society. Religion is part of that just like everything else. Religion doesn't give you a free pass to take away other people's rights, especially the right to live.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

I can tell this is a very hotbutton issue for ye. What exactly 'is' a right, anyway? And what creates a right? Nature? The divine? Both? Neither? Man?

You say people have a right to live. What about an animal, does it have a right to live? Or does that 'right' exist only until YOU decide to eat it? What about a plant, does it have a right to live? Or does that 'right' exist only until YOU decide to eat it/mow it down? Do only people have a right to live, and if so, what makes us so goram special and the rest of all existence not so special?

These are things that deserve contemplation... and usually such contemplation is best done without the knee jerk emotional responses that seem to run most people's lives.

In order to protect the majority, we must first protect the smallest minority. And that is the minority of one. And protect does not mean violate things because WE think that WE know better.

I certainly don't have all the answers, nor have I claimed thus. But what I do know is that claiming that the state needs to stomp over the religions of people to 'do what's right' is definitely not a path that I'd support. The concept that the state knows what's 'best', is what has led to atrocities. People with zero knowledge of, or reverence for, history will tend to make that mistake again... and again... and again...

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

So... do we value our liberty and freedom, or don't we? You see, none of this applies 'sometimes'. It either applies ALL OF THE TIME, or not at all. You can't pick and choose when to apply it and when not to apply it based upon what you agree with and don't agree with.

This, in a word, is called hypocrisy. We don't want our rights and beliefs stomped upon, but we seem to have no problem stomping upon other's rights and beliefs if they run contrary to ours on a hot button topic.

I don't mean this offensively, but rather reflectively. Think upon it, don't try to fire back a denial. It's all over this thread.

So it's either black or white, with nothing in the middle? If don't people have freedom to kill their children, then freedom is impossible? Wanting to jail someone for killing their child makes me a hypocrit? In what way?

Strange land you inhabit...

We have no right whatsoever to tell any parent what is 'best' for THEIR child. It's the product of the parents which spawned it, and not the property of the state or the public.

OK, you may be your parent's chattel, but my children own themselves. I (and they) prefer it that way.

I've noticed people paying lip service to, say, religious freedom, supporting it whole heartedly, and then in the very next sentence saying essentially that when it comes to a child, if you aren't making the right decisions, then some one else should be making those decisions FOR you. At gunpoint. Because that's the only way any such 'enforcement' happens is through violence at the point of the gun. That's the only way ANY law is ultimately enforced. Someone shoves a gun in your face and says, essentially, do this or ELSE.

Is this really the road that folks want to go down? Is this really what they think should happen?

The decision here involves life and death, not whether to eat string beans or not. And yes, all the laws our (my?) society uses to prevent one person from killing another work that way. I'm all for it. Laws without consequences don't amount to much...

Does that make me a fluffy bunny?

Oh, goody goody.

[Thothur]

Re: Parental rights

So it's either black or white, with nothing in the middle? If don't people have freedom to kill their children, then freedom is impossible?

When you take the middle of the road, you tend to get hit by cars going both ways.

I said nothing about people having the freedom to kill their children. You seem to want the freedom to obliterate people's rights based upon what YOU think is best. That's a dangerous road to walk down. Your post, and others, are filled with quite a few false assumptions. No one is killing anyone. You are going about this the entirely incorrect way because you seem to be emotionally involved in it somehow.

Wanting to jail someone for killing their child makes me a hypocrit? In what way?

I said:

So... do we value our liberty and freedom, or don't we? You see, none of this applies 'sometimes'. It either applies ALL OF THE TIME, or not at all. You can't pick and choose when to apply it and when not to apply it based upon what you agree with and don't agree with.

This, in a word, is called hypocrisy. We don't want our rights and beliefs stomped upon, but we seem to have no problem stomping upon other's rights and beliefs if they run contrary to ours on a hot button topic.

I think that was pretty clear and straighforward. If not, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite definition 1.

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

By the way, I hadn't targeted you in any way B. It was a generalized statement based upon what I read in the thread. Some people would state something in one sentence and completely contradict themselves the next. But I didn't target anyone, and I didn't name names. Ye feeling a bit, oh I dunno... guilty?

Strange land you inhabit...

I could say the same thing, were I so inclined. Legend in your own mind much there, B? Sorry, I don't mean that offensively. But you seem to think that you know what's best for everyone, and are willing to put people at gunpoint to have your beliefs enforced. But it's by proxy. You and people like you don't even have the huevos to do it yourself. You'll just get servants of the state to do it FOR you, and enforce what you feel is right. You'll make sure your beliefs get passed into so called 'law', and cheer when others are enforced upon. That's the worst kind of tyranny. When you don't even have the conviction of your beliefs to be able to make them stick, but rather rely on others to strongarm people into submission by proxy. In essence, that is the very definition of cowardice. And intellectual cowardice is far worse than turning tail on the battlefield. I can understand that. The fear that grips someone when the bullets are flying... the shell shock. That, I can accept. But passing socialistic measures to have hired goons put guns in peoples faces to enforce YOUR beliefs? That's just plain yellow...

OK, you may be your parent's chattel, but my children own themselves. I (and they) prefer it that way.

Well, that was unnecessarily uncouth and highly presumptive. But then again that's typically what happens when people operate from a point of emotion. There is no real debate when something is a hot button for someone, just endless back and forth swordplay. (Cut, thrust, parry, riposte, repeat...) I suspect that you are somewhat used to strongarming people with your pseudo-intellect. I'm also sorry to report that it won't work here.

Also I'd like to point out that if your children truly did 'own themselves', then neither the state nor society can possibly own them. What this means, is that in short, other folks like you can't pass so called (color of) laws to say "Gee, we don't like the way Mr. Corbin raises his kids... I think we'll just step in and decide FOR them what WE think is best!" They either own themselves, or they don't. The reality of it is that if YOU don't own them until they are 18, then the STATE will. You may think they own themselves. THEY may think they own themselves, but that doesn't make it so.

Oh wait, you just effectively obliterated your own arguement entirely, didn't you...

Whenever you decide that you'd actually like to debate this issue with facts, and not just engage in endless emotional mental masterbation, I'll be here.

The decision here involves life and death, not whether to eat string beans or not. And yes, all the laws our (my?) society uses to prevent one person from killing another work that way. I'm all for it. Laws without consequences don't amount to much...

There is a very large difference between a law that is enacted for the good of society, such as a law which prohibits murder, and a law enacted to protect someone from themselves, which is the nanny state at it's finest.

And no, withholding a certain service that YOU, in your infinite wisdom think is necessary, but which a family due to it's religious beliefs does not want, is not murder. Driving a stake through someone's skull, that's murder.

Does that make me a fluffy bunny? Oh, goody goody.

No, it makes you extremely socialistic, highly disconnected from what's known as 'reality' and also a petty tyrant. You asked.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Parental rights

When you take the middle of the road, you tend to get hit by cars going both ways.

Not to make light of any part of this thread, but this made me remember something someone said once - "If you sit on the fence, eventually you're gonna get a fencepost up your a#$." LOL

[Monster]

Re: Parental rights

For any of you history buffs, do you remember what Stalin said about "useful idiots?" If not, you need to do a little research and let it sink in real good before you put forth the idea that the *State* knows better and can make decisions better than individuals.