View Poll Results: PLease read the first post and vote accordingly for all that apply.

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Child is beaten repeatedly to the point of needing medical atttention

    25 92.59%
  • The child is beaten, but not severely enough to warrant medical attention.

    15 55.56%
  • The parents deal drugs out of the house the children live in

    19 70.37%
  • The parents do drugs frequently(every day at least) and while their children are in their care.

    15 55.56%
  • The child has a life threatening medical condition and the parent will not let a doctor treat it

    21 77.78%
  • The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life significantly that the...

    18 66.67%
  • The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life somewhat, for reasons...

    6 22.22%
  • The parent frequently leaves very young(say under 7) children home alone for hours at a time.

    17 62.96%
  • The parents do not feed the child enough to the point of being very undernourished.

    25 92.59%
  • None of those situations.

    1 3.70%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    I put yes to all but #3, since that isn't a direct danger to the child, although such parents should be imprisoned, and their children would then need to be given foster care.

    It seems pretty simple to me, if the children are in danger, their safety supersedes the parent's rights.

    Of course, it should be no surprise that CPS view parental rights as superseding child safety when you have a SCOTUS that say that mothers have a right to have their children murdered before a certain age. Why would such a government have any real respect for the lives of older children?

  2. #22
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    For those that voted yes on 5, 6, and 7

    why do you feel religious rights take a back seat in this case?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #23
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    I used to work in CPS and the poll oversimplifies what exactly CPS does. For instance, there are many children who receive an adequate number of calories each day, but their food is not nutrient dense so they would still be considered starving/malnourished. If we visited a home where the children were otherwise okay, but all they were being fed was pasta with sauce and poptarts in the morning, we would intervene... usually when a teacher or community member speaks to the child and finds out they are not being fed well. However, such parents are not intentionally abusing or neglecting their children, so in those cases some parenting classes might be ordered to straighten things out.

    In every one of the poll choices we would have to determine if it's intentional abuse or neglect, or just total ignorance that is the problem. Things like selling drugs in the home, doing drugs around children (which drug? state laws vary), beating them maliciously, letting them live in filthy environments unattended to... those are emergent situations and we would show up to the house with police to take the kids out and ask questions later.

    As for medicine, that also depends. State laws vary, and people do have Federal protections. For instance, in most states it's not legal to treat a child's leukemia with anything other than chemo, radiation, or surgery. If you try to do that, you could be charged with child neglect. On the other hand, vaccinations, treating infections (even serious ones) have more leeway because there is evidence that many alternative approaches to disease have positive impacts. In a nutshell, if your child's condition is so bad that they need the ER (or might need it if action is not taken soon) and you don't take the necessary steps to ensure that it does not become dire, you could be charged with neglect.

    Re: beatings and various kinds of abuse. Sometimes it is only one individual in the household committing these actions. That person can be charged and removed while the child remains in the custody of whoever is left, or placed with another family member outside the household. If there is evidence that other members in the household were knowingly complicit while a child was being abused in the home, then the child could be removed altogether.

    I remember one case where a school called us to say that they noticed one of their students was losing weight rapidly and also had strange bruises on his body. When we contacted the family they said they were in the process of moving to a new home and couldn't accommodate a home visit, so we called the parents to our office for an interview. They were nice as pie, dressed really affluently, and spoke similarly. They said that recently their child had been clumsy while he had the flu and was falling all over the place, which explained the weight loss and bruising. You just know that when they have the perfect excuse that it's too perfect... so I was sent to their current house for a surprise visit during the day. There were no parents home, and a 5 year old who wasn't at school because he was taking care of a 14 month old infant. There were garbage bags everywhere, and on the counter top were rotting plates and dishes heaped high, with used diapers that had maggots in them and flies. The floors had obviously not been cleaned in ages, and the back door of the house was wide open because the door handle was broken. We took those kids then and there, and those parents went to jail.

    It's always case by case. There is no formula of "yes" or "no", like the poll implies. Libertarians hate CPS because they only follow the controversial media stories, but every day there is real child abuse and neglect happening and if CPS didn't exist those children would be maimed or killed, either from willful violence or total stupidity.
    What CPS actually does has nothing to do with the poll. The poll is hypothetical only. I realize what actually happens is far more complex.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #24
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Well, I answered your questions within a model where costs/benefits are weighed. I couldn't ignore what awaited the child on the other side of the removal from their home. All of the examples you cited are bad or not ideal and it would be great if we could, as a society, fix them, but I didn't really see child extraction, by itself, as a total remedy.

    If you get two types of people responding to your poll, those who weigh the costs and those who don't, then we're all not judging the same scenario. Just something to be aware of.
    For the purposes of the poll, let's assume that the children would magically be in a better situation. The issue is individual rights vs the state. This does bring up an interesting question though. You say you made your determination by comparing the cost/benefit. Where and how does rights weigh into it? A parent has some level of right to determine how a child is raised. When does that right become null and void in defense of the child?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #25
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    You left off that parents are unable to pay the medical bills of a child but take the child to ER and receive medical care anyway. That now is a reason to terminate parental rights and put the child in a government institution. You left off that the parents can not afford medical care but obtain it anyway at government expense. Why did you leave that one off?
    Because it has nothing to do with the topic I am trying to create a discussion on.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    For those that voted yes on 5, 6, and 7

    why do you feel religious rights take a back seat in this case?
    The liberties of a person to act based on error, is subordinate to the objective rights of a person. If someone believes that it's justifiable to deny basic medical car to their kid, then they need to have their children protected from them.

  7. #27
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    The liberties of a person to act based on error, is subordinate to the objective rights of a person. If someone believes that it's justifiable to deny basic medical car to their kid, then they need to have their children protected from them.
    so if my religion said that doctors are wrong and medicine is sin you would take my kid from me?
    If my religion believed doctors are playing god and thats a sin therefore i dont see doctors you again would take my kid from me?

    hmmm very interesting

    who gets to decided when this is right or the child is at risk?

    5, 6 and 7 have very different levels you are applying this to all of them?

    Heck 7 is just about eye glasses or something like braces. Why have any religious freedom at all then for parental/child relationships?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #28
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Because it has nothing to do with the topic I am trying to create a discussion on.
    I won't go further down that particular topic.

    I intensely am intolerant of children being abused. The problem with the topic you raise comes at the next level - who decides? Courts tend to be rubber stamps for agencies such as CPS.

    There also are other areas of child abuse that are rarely discussed, such as child neglect, ie not supervising and training a child.

    The actually controverted instances are when parents do not agree the treatment is best for the child or thinks one doctor and not another is right, when the one don't agree with has more clout or pull or is more conventional. That is different than "pray the illness away" - though people will try to define it that way if they learn the parents are religious people.

    This history of the advancement of modern medicine is also the history of learning that prior conventional medicine was wrong, or even destructive. I could go on for lists of what was conventional medical care seen as not possibly harmful or claimed beneficial when it wasn't. Today's truisms are next years terrible mistakes. Simply, I don't think it is a clear cut black and white as your poll would tend to indicate.

    Personally, I despise physical violence against children at any level, OTHER than I could see in extreme cases it coming to that involve a male teen if he becomes physically resistant or violent. I have really given much thought as to what age a child should left alone, for how long, or when allowed to be away from the home on their own about the neighborhood.

    Where it more complicated is medical care issues. For example, there is no limit to how much medical care we would obtain for our children - but in many if not most circumstances we would decline/refuse "chemotherapy" and "radiation treatment" as we would for ourselves - and we could cite among the most respected medical studies, research facilities and licensed medical experts to back that up. And therein is where your poll runs into problems because medical facilities that make tens of millions a year on such treatment and doctors who make hundreds of thousands will furiously declare those are the only treatments to use. It is, literally, a trillion dollar money issue and money usually wins with government and courts.

    Some of your questions call upon people making a decision upon generic platitudes and in some areas it isn't really either - or. Rather, it is who decides? When it comes to the medical question, who decides now is whoever has the most money in the game and at stake. That means parents lose.

  9. #29
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    I won't go further down that particular topic.

    I intensely am intolerant of children being abused. The problem with the topic you raise comes at the next level - who decides? Courts tend to be rubber stamps for agencies such as CPS.

    There also are other areas of child abuse that are rarely discussed, such as child neglect, ie not supervising and training a child.

    The actually controverted instances are when parents do not agree the treatment is best for the child or thinks one doctor and not another is right, when the one don't agree with has more clout or pull or is more conventional. That is different than "pray the illness away" - though people will try to define it that way if they learn the parents are religious people.

    This history of the advancement of modern medicine is also the history of learning that prior conventional medicine was wrong, or even destructive. I could go on for lists of what was conventional medical care seen as not possibly harmful or claimed beneficial when it wasn't. Today's truisms are next years terrible mistakes. Simply, I don't think it is a clear cut black and white as your poll would tend to indicate.

    Personally, I despise physical violence against children at any level, OTHER than I could see in extreme cases it coming to that involve a male teen if he becomes physically resistant or violent. I have really given much thought as to what age a child should left alone, for how long, or when allowed to be away from the home on their own about the neighborhood.

    Where it more complicated is medical care issues. For example, there is no limit to how much medical care we would obtain for our children - but in many if not most circumstances we would decline/refuse "chemotherapy" and "radiation treatment" as we would for ourselves - and we could cite among the most respected medical studies, research facilities and licensed medical experts to back that up. And therein is where your poll runs into problems because medical facilities that make tens of millions a year on such treatment and doctors who make hundreds of thousands will furiously declare those are the only treatments to use. It is, literally, a trillion dollar money issue and money usually wins with government and courts.

    Some of your questions call upon people making a decision upon generic platitudes and in some areas it isn't really either - or. Rather, it is who decides?
    The topic is about rights. It is entirely hypothetical. Let's try and keep it to that topic and not your usual ramblings on whatever...
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #30
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    There was a case in the UK of two co-joined twins. If not separated, they claimed both would be dead within a few years. But to separate them required killing one of them.

    The mother's opposed that. In her view both should be allowed to live as long as they could, plus it not impossible before then new procedures could be learned - plus it is true that often doctors declare children or others can only live so long - and years and years later the person is instead still alive.

    The UK court, however, took custody of both and ordered 1 child killed to save the other - so one child was killed.

    I bring this up as this was a "medical" decision taken from the parent because the government decided it was morally superior and therefore had a superior power to impose its will to the point of killing her child for their morality.

    Another example would be that IF a state declares a ZEF is "a child," defacto then that government could not only ban abortions but also could take total control of any pregnant woman even confinement and total control.

    Giving the government POWER over parents won't necessarily go the way people think it will years or decades down the road. The government uses extreme cases to get laws they want giving it more power - and then apply that increasingly in every direction.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •