User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 12:56:25 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would depend on the circumstances. The idea being promoted in this thread is that since the government might possibly overstep its authority, then it should have NO authority. Which is not in keeping with common sense. If the parents are seriously fucked up people, the community has a moral obligation to protect children. Because they cannot protect themselves. If the parents really really believe in the goodness of hurting children, are the children still being hurt? Yes indeed they are. Some hillbilly sharia law version of religion doesn't void your moral obligation to stop child abuse. Obviously, there are many clear cut situations where withholding medical care might kill or seriously injure a child. What about those cases? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where do you draw the line? If you take your kid to the doctor, are you bound by the advice he gives? In the OP example, should you be legally compelled to submit your child to open heart surgery if the doctor says so? It would depend on the circumstances. The idea being promoted in this thread is that since the government might possibly overstep its authority, then it should have NO authority. Which is not in keeping with common sense. If the parents are seriously fucked up people, the community has a moral obligation to protect children. Because they cannot protect themselves. If the parents really really believe in the goodness of hurting children, are the children still being hurt? Yes indeed they are. Some hillbilly sharia law version of religion doesn't void your moral obligation to stop child abuse. Obviously, there are many clear cut situations where withholding medical care might kill or seriously injure a child. What about those cases? I agree with you in principle, but the government WILL overstep it's authority. Look at child services now. We pass laws to protect children from abuse, and now you can't even spank your own kid without risking getting charged, and having them taken and put into foster care. What was meant to protect children has pretty much ruined them, and our culture. Common sense went out the window a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 1:13:04 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm torn on this. Yes, I think her parents should have allowed her to receive modern medicine. OTOH, I don't think the government should be able to force parents to do this. I've worked in healthcare for 20 years, and there are tons of little Hitlers who want to force all kinds of things on people for the sake of the public good. Don't want to play along? Well, that's neglect. We're taking your kids and enjoy your re-education camp. People are salivating over the idea. I work with kids who have been "protected" by the govt. This is rarely a good idea |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 8:27:21 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with being rigidly "ideological" is that ideologies often are often so simplistic and dogmatic that they wipe out common sense. Here on arfcom, the rigid ideology is that everyone should be free from government interference in their life in all circumstances. If you box a zealot in with logic, sooner or later he'll wind up defending some completely absurd position. This thread is a perfect example, we have people insisting that parents should be free to abuse and neglect their kids because of "freedom." It's such an extreme and absurd position that it's a waste of time arguing it. Anyone who needs this common sense topic explained to them wouldn't listen to the explanation anyway. You guys should just hope you never have me on a jury. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The parents should be free to raise their child as they want. The child, when they turn 18, should be free to sue and recover for negligence the parents decided to commit during that upbringing. The problem with being rigidly "ideological" is that ideologies often are often so simplistic and dogmatic that they wipe out common sense. Here on arfcom, the rigid ideology is that everyone should be free from government interference in their life in all circumstances. If you box a zealot in with logic, sooner or later he'll wind up defending some completely absurd position. This thread is a perfect example, we have people insisting that parents should be free to abuse and neglect their kids because of "freedom." It's such an extreme and absurd position that it's a waste of time arguing it. Anyone who needs this common sense topic explained to them wouldn't listen to the explanation anyway. You guys should just hope you never have me on a jury. Perfectly said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 8:30:28 AM EDT
[#4]
Her parents kinda remind me of anti-vaxxers now.
Some kid's gonna get polio and end up crippled for life because of his/her stupid parents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 8:34:44 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Normally I don't like to support "banning" things or overreaching on a parent's right to raise their child, but there is a line that's crossed when parents actively harm their kids by not even trying to get them the treatment they needed. It's negligence at the very least. I agree. I've seen it firsthand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 8:43:24 AM EDT
[#6]
The religious right argues vigorously against abortion, but is perfectly ok allowing children to die due to neglect in the name of religious freedom. Quite ironic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 8:50:52 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perfectly said. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The parents should be free to raise their child as they want. The child, when they turn 18, should be free to sue and recover for negligence the parents decided to commit during that upbringing. The problem with being rigidly "ideological" is that ideologies often are often so simplistic and dogmatic that they wipe out common sense. Here on arfcom, the rigid ideology is that everyone should be free from government interference in their life in all circumstances. If you box a zealot in with logic, sooner or later he'll wind up defending some completely absurd position. This thread is a perfect example, we have people insisting that parents should be free to abuse and neglect their kids because of "freedom." It's such an extreme and absurd position that it's a waste of time arguing it. Anyone who needs this common sense topic explained to them wouldn't listen to the explanation anyway. You guys should just hope you never have me on a jury. Perfectly said. Agreed. Even though it's wrong, he said it perfectly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 8:56:07 AM EDT
[#8]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:02:45 AM EDT
[#9]
It is truly baffling there are people arguing that parents should be able to neglect their children.
There are too many people completely fucked in the head on this site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:21:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is truly baffling there are people arguing that parents should be able to neglect their children. There are too many people completely fucked in the head on this site. The argument isn't that people should be able to neglect their child. The laws that protect them based on religious freedom are wrong. They should absolutely be held accountable, just like anyone else. Should it be law that you must have your kids vaccinated? Should it be law that they have a checkup twice a year? Should it be law that overweight children be placed on a diet, and a fitness program? What about bedtime? Kids need their sleep to be healthy. I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's the way it is. We live in a nanny state that wants government to control everything, and they are masters of incrementalism. I used the example of spanking earlier. It's almost illegal now, because of laws that were meant to prevent abuse. Is spanking abuse? I personally believe that not administering a needed spanking is abuse, but my opinion no longer matters. We've allowed someone else to decide that for us, for the rest of time. These are one-way changes. How many children are actually at risk by this? Damn few. If there was a law that could be enacted to help them without having far reaching consequences, I'd be all in. I know better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 11:13:45 AM EDT
[#11]
Faith healers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 12:19:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Suppose parents choose Doctor B and his treatment protocol instead of Doctor A and his protocol, and the child dies. Does the same issue, do the same claims of neglect and lunacy arise?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 12:25:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As the article said, her parents don't follow mainstream Mormon beliefs. I am Mormon. My wife has an auto-immune disorder that was causing problems with her gall bladder, pancreas, and liver. We didn't know what it was at first, and several doctors were unable to diagnose it, but after a lot of prayer, God helped us find a good doctor who was able to diagnose her and get her treated. Part of that treatment included a prescription for 12 oz. of coffee a day. Turns out, coffee is medically proven to stop and reverse the damage to the liver caused by her disease. So my wife is better now thanks to modern medicine, and I am grateful to God for helping us get her to where she is. In the eyes of the parents of the girl in article, someone like me clearly doesn't have enough faith. Yet I can't help but think, how many doctors did God send their way as they were praying for their daughter's health? ETA - Tough call to prosecute the parents. Denying a child medical care based on religious beliefs is child abuse IMO. I can see how this would quickly become a slippery slope however as a more progressive society defines what is "necessary" for the child. Do they then prosecute parents for refusing to reassign gender of their child because a teacher at school reports that the child self identifies as something else? Reminds of the joke about the girl praying to win the lottery...finally God screams "Help me out! Buy a fucking ticket!" They fail to see that, all their prayer really just might be bringing the right doctor into their lives to answer their prayers...  There's religiously faithful and then there's lunatic. That line can be pretty thin sometimes... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 12:25:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 12:27:43 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppose parents choose Doctor B and his treatment protocol instead of Doctor A and his protocol, and the child dies. Does the same issue, do the same claims of neglect and lunacy arise? How could they not, unless you specifically bring religion in as a qualifier? According to the article, it already is on the other side of the argument, protecting the parents if they rely on Jesus. Therein lies the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 1:40:34 PM EDT
[#16]
Good. Those fucktards need to face consequence for their actions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 2:17:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The religious right argues vigorously against abortion, but is perfectly ok allowing children to die due to neglect in the name of religious freedom. Quite ironic. I worked with a girl who was dead set against In vitro fertilization as it went against God's will. (Some people shouldn't have kids in God's eyes). I asked her she felt the same way about cancer treatments for her Grandmother and going against "God's will". She didn't talk to me much after that, and went on to join the sister hood.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
