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 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 60

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

  1. #31
    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
    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?
    Ya, if you're (the general you) idiocy endangers the lives of your children, then they need to be protected from you, and you need to be punished if you cause harm to them.

  2. #32
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 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
    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...

    Granted, spouting platitudes demanding they be totally devoid of reality is your thing - and ultimately to some partisan or loyalty to authoritarianism decrees about yourself you want to make. But not everyone can't deal with reality and always instead just uses messages to declare loyalty as their ideological chanting. You may want the topic to be your rambling and pouting pointless platitudes. No reason for me to agree to that pointlessness. You certainly can limit yourself to meaningless hypotheticals with no relation to reality or current actual issues on the topic if that is the limit of your capabilities or interests.

  3. #33
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Ya, if you're (the general you) idiocy endangers the lives of your children, then they need to be protected from you, and you need to be punished if you cause harm to them.
    again who decides this?
    what level of danger do you swoop in?

    like i said 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?
    Last edited by AGENT J; 02-23-14 at 01:41 AM.
    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

  4. #34
    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 joko104 View Post
    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.
    You are being intellectually dishonest. The government ordering children murdered is different from the government ordering children medically treated.

  5. #35
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    You are being intellectually dishonest. The government ordering children murdered is different from the government ordering children medically treated.
    I am not being "intellectually dishonest" at all, since that was an actual case.

    These simplistic polls do not deal in reality. They assume the doctor in question is 100% right and the parent 100% wrong - then ask "do parents have rights in that situation?"

    In the case I cited, the UK court ordered a child "medically treated" and that child lived, where they claimed otherwise soon will die. However, they had to kill the other child for one of them to have a full life time. It is ON POINT. You just don't like the questions it raises.

    Yet rarely is it that simple. Many medical procedures have negative side effects, are a gamble, and some have known long term devastating effects for which the idea is live today - but then certain to die tomorrow - medical practice.

  6. #36
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,966

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    Well don't I feel dumb...

  7. #37
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    There are not just hypothetical issues. Some people want it so because they have an authoritarian pro-government ideological agenda.

    In fact, this issue in terms of medical care most often now comes up concerning the trillion dollar per year for-profit cancer industry on the topic of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. On this topic, the government treats children not only worse than adults, but worse than dogs. A person may refuse chemotherapy and radiation therapy. A dog has an owner who might. But the child had no rights. In fact, the government will declare the child's opinion - even if an older teenager - is irrelevant.

    The reason some want this ONLY a hypothetical question is because in that they assert the doctor the government sides with is 100% right and everyone else 100% wrong (even if other doctors) and everyone else including the child and parent irrelevant.

    Yet it is not such an absolute. When a poll was done of AMA licensed MD cancer specialists of whether they would have their own family members undergo chemotherapy, over 2/3rds said absolutely not for nearly any form of cancer. Legitimate, highly respected medical organizations, specialists and bio-medical experts have condemned chemotherapy, even declaring it is more deadly than the cancers it is used against. Even in application, usually the promise of chemotherapy is that maybe you won't die quite as quickly, and instead will die terribly a bit slower.

    It is not as simplistic as some want to make it.

  8. #38
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    It is sad that often - whether custody disputes in court, issues of child abuse or neglect, medical issues and so forth can be so difficult, so unique to each case, and often there is no good solutions, only a question of which option is worse.

  9. #39
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,326
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    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.
    Has jack **** to do with the topic Please stick to the topic.
    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. #40
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,326
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Granted, spouting platitudes demanding they be totally devoid of reality is your thing - and ultimately to some partisan or loyalty to authoritarianism decrees about yourself you want to make. But not everyone can't deal with reality and always instead just uses messages to declare loyalty as their ideological chanting. You may want the topic to be your rambling and pouting pointless platitudes. No reason for me to agree to that pointlessness. You certainly can limit yourself to meaningless hypotheticals with no relation to reality or current actual issues on the topic if that is the limit of your capabilities or interests.
    Has jack **** to do with the topic. Please stick to talking about the topic.
    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.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •