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 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

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

  1. #51
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    02-26-14 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3

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

    After doing much research, reading reports, reading testimony from many sources, both men and women and parents, and reporting on it myself, I have concluded that the entire national "Child Protective Services" should be abolished, in its entirety. Many state and local politicians and even other bureaucrats have said they have way too much power and are not answerable to anyone. There is widespread cases of "kidnapping" from parents who have committed, absolutely no crimes, widespread scandal of child napping rings, lunatic workers that target parents to take their children, because the agent herself is batty.

    The question comes down to, is the government put in place to protect us or to punish wrongdoers. The answer is obviously, simply to punish wrongdoers. The punishment of wrongdoers is "hoped" to deter other would be wrongdoers from bringing harm to their fellow man.

    When it comes to questions of what is harmful to a child, you get into a slippery slope of what actual humans, agents, feel is harm vs what a parent or an ordinary person perceives as harm. All jokes aside, some of these agents think that feeding your child meat is a "harm". You see how dangerous this is? "I'm vegan, and you're feeding your child meat, I'm taking the child."

    Some parents feel that beating a child, whipping a child, physically chastising a child is to be expected of parenting. Others, who consider themselves modern, see it as barbaric. But, remember, that used to be the thing that people did for thousands of years. Even psychologists / psychiatrists are split on whether corporal punishment is good or bad for a child.

    We have police for a reason. If someone commits a crime, they will be found and locked up. In the end, that's really what this agency is there for. They really aren't "protecting" children before something happens anyway. And, yes, in the past, police did do that service for their communities. So, it is not out of the question that they can still do it.

    All that being said, I return to the original premise. CPS should be abolished. Whatever parents may or may not be doing, an outside agency that actually harms children, violates privacy rights, violates parental rights, has no place in our "free" society and it should be abolished. I have read too many cases to ever side with the agency, no matter what people say parents do.
    "profound Ayn Rand quote goes here" - Ayn Rand

    Now you know I'm super independent and I know how to read. Aren't you impressed... or mad, depending on your own misconceptions of politics.

  2. #52
    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 shakaama View Post
    After doing much research, reading reports, reading testimony from many sources, both men and women and parents, and reporting on it myself, I have concluded that the entire national "Child Protective Services" should be abolished, in its entirety. Many state and local politicians and even other bureaucrats have said they have way too much power and are not answerable to anyone. There is widespread cases of "kidnapping" from parents who have committed, absolutely no crimes, widespread scandal of child napping rings, lunatic workers that target parents to take their children, because the agent herself is batty.

    The question comes down to, is the government put in place to protect us or to punish wrongdoers. The answer is obviously, simply to punish wrongdoers. The punishment of wrongdoers is "hoped" to deter other would be wrongdoers from bringing harm to their fellow man.

    When it comes to questions of what is harmful to a child, you get into a slippery slope of what actual humans, agents, feel is harm vs what a parent or an ordinary person perceives as harm. All jokes aside, some of these agents think that feeding your child meat is a "harm". You see how dangerous this is? "I'm vegan, and you're feeding your child meat, I'm taking the child."

    Some parents feel that beating a child, whipping a child, physically chastising a child is to be expected of parenting. Others, who consider themselves modern, see it as barbaric. But, remember, that used to be the thing that people did for thousands of years. Even psychologists / psychiatrists are split on whether corporal punishment is good or bad for a child.

    We have police for a reason. If someone commits a crime, they will be found and locked up. In the end, that's really what this agency is there for. They really aren't "protecting" children before something happens anyway. And, yes, in the past, police did do that service for their communities. So, it is not out of the question that they can still do it.

    All that being said, I return to the original premise. CPS should be abolished. Whatever parents may or may not be doing, an outside agency that actually harms children, violates privacy rights, violates parental rights, has no place in our "free" society and it should be abolished. I have read too many cases to ever side with the agency, no matter what people say parents do.
    I'm well familiar with idiot CPS agents, however this nonsense about CPS being a racket to kidnap children or what have you, is a big load of bullcrap. The problem is that many of them couldn't recognize a child abuser if one confessed.

    The government's role is to do both.

    When has that ever actually happened, some paranoid rant on the internet from one of the few abusers who's abuse is so utterly flagrant that they couldn't ignore it doesn't count?

    People who beat their children are sick.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,784

    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?
    Prayer, worship, and other benevolent religious practices are protected by religious freedom. Discrimination, parental neglect or abuse, physical violence, etc. are not.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  4. #54
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Prayer, worship, and other benevolent religious practices are protected by religious freedom. Discrimination, parental neglect or abuse, physical violence, etc. are not.
    actually thats NOT true it depends on the circumstances, lets go through them

    discrimination:

    is absolutely allowed in SOME circumstances and i support it 100% within the PROPER realm.

    A church can discriminate how ever they want, this is protected by the constitution
    but st marys hospital can NOT illegally discriminate, once outside the church that freedom ends because it infringe on others

    parent neglect or abuse:
    who decides this?
    some think circumcision is abuse
    some think paddling is abuse
    some think smacking hands with rulers is abuse
    some think exposing minors to religion is abuse in general
    who says its factual neglect to deny medical care or medicines if those people believe thats a sin or the doctor is playing god etc

    who gets to decide? now to be clear im playing devils advocate no pun intended because i think religious freedom is majorly important, probably why its in the constitution and im curious where people think the line is.
    In general i agree but where are the lines.

    physical violence? that doesnt have anything to do with 5, 6, 7 so that doesnt apply here

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

    Heck 7 is just about eye glasses or something like braces.

    if a child can be taken away for that 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

  5. #55
    Sage
    opendebate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,315

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I think we would all agree that parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit. I think we would all agree also that at some point the welfare of the child would supersede those rights of the parent. To use one example, if one or both of the parents are molesting a young child, the state can and should take that child away from the parent for the good of the child. However, many/most situations are not so clear cut. This poll will list out several scenarios and ask if the state should take away the child in that scenario. Assume for the purposes of this poll that in each case the state has investigated in depth, a judge has been consulted and the feeling is that the parent is not going to change whatever it is they are doing. Since some of these scenarios require a bit of explanation I will list them all here with the full explanation. Please vote for any scenario where you feel the state should take the child away from the parents potentially permanently.

    1: The child is beaten frequently to the point of needing at times medical attention. That is broken bones, lost teeth, etc.
    2: The child is beaten, but not severely enough to warrant medical attention. That is, hard enough to leave bruises and similar, but not broken bones etc.
    3: The parents deal drugs out of the house the children live in and while the child is there.
    4: The parents do drugs frequently(every day at least) and while their children are in their care.
    5: The child has a life threatening medical condition and the parent will not let a doctor treat it for religious reasons. Maybe they prefer faith healing, or do not believe in doctors, or whatever.
    6: The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life significantly that the parent will not let a doctor treat for the same reasons as 5. Examples: significant pain, illness with the potential to cause blindness or crippling.
    7: The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life somewhat, for reasons the same as 5. Examples would be treating near/far sightedness, dental work, etc.
    8: The parent frequently leaves very young(say under 7) children home alone for hours at a time.
    9: The parents do not feed the child enough to the point of being very undernourished.
    10: None of those situations.

    Again, please vote for each of those you feel would warrant the state taking the children from the parents potentially permanently. Also please be patient while I type out all the poll options. It will take a couple minutes at least.

    Option 6 was a pain to get down to the character limit...
    If there is any immediate danger to the physical or psychological well-being of the child, the child should be removed from the home. The parents should be provided help and, if they recover, have supervised custody until the parents provide long-term evidence of their recovery.

    If the child is not in immediate danger:
    the condition or well being of the children should be closely monitored while the parents receive whatever assistance they need to get their life together.
    "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway

  6. #56
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,784

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    actually thats NOT true it depends on the circumstances, lets go through them

    discrimination:

    is absolutely allowed in SOME circumstances and i support it 100% within the PROPER realm.

    A church can discriminate how ever they want, this is protected by the constitution
    but st marys hospital can NOT illegally discriminate, once outside the church that freedom ends because it infringe on others

    parent neglect or abuse:
    who decides this?
    some think circumcision is abuse
    some think paddling is abuse
    some think smacking hands with rulers is abuse
    some think exposing minors to religion is abuse in general
    who says its factual neglect to deny medical care or medicines if those people believe thats a sin or the doctor is playing god etc

    who gets to decide? now to be clear im playing devils advocate no pun intended because i think religious freedom is majorly important, probably why its in the constitution and im curious where people think the line is.
    In general i agree but where are the lines.

    physical violence? that doesnt have anything to do with 5, 6, 7 so that doesnt apply here

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

    Heck 7 is just about eye glasses or something like braces.

    if a child can be taken away for that why have any religious freedom at all then for parental/child relationships?
    Oh man. That's a lot to consider. A few initial thoughts...and I may expound on them...

    There exist guidelines in all fifty states as to what constitutes abuse. The exact language may vary, but they essentially all boil down to acts that cause physical or emotional injury to children, with some allowance for intent or lack thereof.

    #5 and 6 are technically not abuse, but neglect, which can and should also disqualify parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit. And there have been actual cases of this that have been prosecuted, thank god. Parents should be given the benefit of the doubt, but this cannot and should not apply to clear-cut cases of abuse or neglect.

    I do agree with your sentiment that this is a tough, and sometimes subjective, issue. The standard in the OP was a pretty high one (and for good reasons, I feel). For instance, that's why--as I already said--that I didn't vote for #7.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  7. #57
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    1.)Oh man. That's a lot to consider. A few initial thoughts...and I may expound on them...

    2.) There exist guidelines in all fifty states as to what constitutes abuse. The exact language may vary, but they essentially all boil down to acts that cause physical or emotional injury to children, with some allowance for intent or lack thereof.

    #5 and 6 are technically not abuse, but neglect, which can and should also disqualify parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit. And there have been actual cases of this that have been prosecuted, thank god. Parents should be given the benefit of the doubt, but this cannot and should not apply to clear-cut cases of abuse or neglect.

    I do agree with your sentiment that this is a tough, and sometimes subjective, issue. The standard in the OP was a pretty high one (and for good reasons, I feel). For instance, that's why--as I already said--that I didn't vote for #7.
    1.) i know i agree its a heavy duty concept IMO

    2.) correct and im a LITTLE familiar with PA laws, a LITTLE and all of it seems to revolve around physical/psychological abuse and neglect

    and it doesn't really talk about religious impacts.
    It just hard for me to imagine the state coming in and talking a kid from its parents because they believe that using meds will deem thier child and or them an afterlife in hell.
    No PERSONALLY i think that would be nutty BUT thats not my call and its such a grey area with me and i wonder where to draw the line.

    and what about the the opposite end, well not really opposite but different religious end

    APA and AAP agree that gay is normal as far as NOT being a mental or physical disorder.

    So how about parents that psychological abuse thier kids for being gay or try to change them because of religious views?
    should thier kids be taken away? the medical community will definitely classify that as abuse.

    what about teaching other religions are evil or people are bad?

    its just such a tricky thing in my mind i dont see how you legislate it.

    I mean clear cut physical abuse is easy but much of the other areas could seem completely normal to some and completely absurd to others

    its VERY tricky, like the circumcision thing many people feel thats abuse, many people think nothing of it and many people do it because it supposed to be more sanitary and many do it because or religion etc


    also the other thing is as an adult i could easily refuse medical treatment or meds on religious grounds what makes that not ok for my children.
    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. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    Some of those questions required more details. For example drug use or dealing doesn't warrant removing children in many cases, but in some cases it would, depending on the risk of violence, type of drugs, amount and type of use, how the drugbs are stored, whether a caregiver remains conscious most of the time. There is a big difference between a pot smoker who sells to a small circle of friends compared to a meth user, maker and seller who uses needles, leaves dangerous chemicals unprotected, has violent felons in the home routinely, has been robbed at gunpoint a few times and crashes out for days at a time, leaving the kids unwatched. I don't consider any physical abuse beyond a brief spanking acceptable and I don't consider any intentional medical neglect acceptable.

    In any situation, I would want other solutions attempted several times before giving up on allowing the familly to remain intact and removing kids from their parents. Kids will be seriously traumatized by being taken from their parents no matter how bad the parents appear.
    Last edited by Hard Truth; 02-23-14 at 11:49 PM.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,784

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) i know i agree its a heavy duty concept IMO

    2.) correct and im a LITTLE familiar with PA laws, a LITTLE and all of it seems to revolve around physical/psychological abuse and neglect

    and it doesn't really talk about religious impacts.
    It just hard for me to imagine the state coming in and talking a kid from its parents because they believe that using meds will deem thier child and or them an afterlife in hell.
    No PERSONALLY i think that would be nutty BUT thats not my call and its such a grey area with me and i wonder where to draw the line.

    and what about the the opposite end, well not really opposite but different religious end

    APA and AAP agree that gay is normal as far as NOT being a mental or physical disorder.

    So how about parents that psychological abuse thier kids for being gay or try to change them because of religious views?
    should thier kids be taken away? the medical community will definitely classify that as abuse.

    what about teaching other religions are evil or people are bad?

    its just such a tricky thing in my mind i dont see how you legislate it.

    I mean clear cut physical abuse is easy but much of the other areas could seem completely normal to some and completely absurd to others

    its VERY tricky, like the circumcision thing many people feel thats abuse, many people think nothing of it and many people do it because it supposed to be more sanitary and many do it because or religion etc


    also the other thing is as an adult i could easily refuse medical treatment or meds on religious grounds what makes that not ok for my children.
    Think of it like a sports game: To call a foul or a penalty, the rule violation must be clear and definite. For example, if I were officiating a football game and I saw what maybe could be construed as pass interference under a very strict interpretation of the rules, then I would not throw the penalty flag. But if the safety clearly impeded the progress of the receiver while the ball was in the air, hell yeah I'd throw the flag.

    So should it be for abuse or neglect. The decision to take the child away and into the custody of the state should only be done if the evidence for abuse or neglect is overwhelming. A simple error of the parents' judgment should not necessarily suffice.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  10. #60
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Think of it like a sports game: To call a foul or a penalty, the rule violation must be clear and definite. For example, if I were officiating a football game and I saw what maybe could be construed as pass interference under a very strict interpretation of the rules, then I would not throw the penalty flag. But if the safety clearly impeded the progress of the receiver while the ball was in the air, hell yeah I'd throw the flag.

    So should it be for abuse or neglect. The decision to take the child away and into the custody of the state should only be done if the evidence for abuse or neglect is overwhelming. A simple error of the parents' judgment should not necessarily suffice.
    i agree but with the rights we are all afforded i still think its very hard lol

    again just playing devils advocate
    examples

    1.) i dont believe in doctors playing god with surgery and meds so when my kid has a tumor on his back i just take him to a spiritual healer and try natural remedies. But If i do let the doctors treat him and he lives by my religion we have sin and may got to hell. Do you take my kid away from me and in my opinion damn him to hell?

    2.) i dont believe in doctors playing god with surgery and meds so when my kid breaks his leg i just take him to a spiritual healer and try natural remedies and allow them to set it but no surgery. he "could" be a cripple if it doesn't heal right. But If i do let the doctors treat him and he lives by my religion we have sin and may got to hell. Do you take my kid away from me and in my opinion damn him to hell?

    3.) i dont believe in doctors playing god with surgery and meds so when my kid needs lasik surgery for his eyes i just take him to a spiritual healer and try natural remedies or allow him to wear glasses that help but not fix and no surgery. Do you take my kid away from me and in my opinion damn him to hell?

    an adult could make all these decisions on thier own and we'd think nothing of it

    now i know you already basically said 3 was ok but the other two are more difficult.

    and lastly is a different spin

    4.) my child confesses she is gay, i tell her she is an abomination and if she lives that "life style" she will be living in evil sin, i take her to conversion therapy and everyday i tell her she must be straight an call her abnormal and tell her that her mental sickness must be fixed. If she doesnt she will be damned to hell. Do you take my kid away from me?


    it such an issue

    for me I dont THINK i take the kids away for issues 1-3 even though i think the activity is insane and IF and this IF is very important that there is proof that thier religion is definitely written that way and they have always practiced it or at least for a while etc etc

    as far as 4 some states have already outlawed the abusive conversion therapy so by default that abuse is already established by law

    such a tricky thing IMO
    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

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

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