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 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

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

  1. #1
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:22 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,326
    Blog Entries
    2

    The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    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...
    Last edited by Redress; 02-22-14 at 08:58 PM.
    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.

  2. #2
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

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

    #2 was a hard call. If the parents stop, then i would leave the child, if the parents dont stop after a few incidents, than take that kid away.

  3. #3
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

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

    All could potentially qualify as ample reasoning to remove the child from the household in my view. On the fence in regards to option seven, as it would be the least incriminating in my mind and most likely deserving of leniency. Good poll though.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

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

    I'd say all of them.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  5. #5
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

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

    Good job on crafting the scenarios.

    I'd support the State removing the children in scenario #1. Scenario #5 is tough to judge based simply on the black/white scenario you've sketched. People die for principles all the time so is the child old enough to understand why it is dying or too young and so the child will die to uphold the parent's principles? Unborn children die when the mother doesn't want to give birth. I can think of a view scenarios where parents would rather see their children die than face some awful outcome - being put into slavery might be one, being subjected to horrible torture might be another. With regard to this medical scenario, we know that many adults choose to avoid what they see as horrible suffering arising from cancer treatments and instead choose to let the cancer proceed until it takes their life. If they can make such a decision for themselves, then they should certainly be able to make it for their child who may be too young to decide for themselves.

    I generally refrain from supporting removing children from their parents because while the immediate act of removal looks like salvation, and quite likely is salvation, there are also costs to the child which arise from being ripped away from their family. Some children can heal from those wounds but others can't and we can't predict how the children will fare for the remainder of their lives. Now, instead of the issue being clear cut - remove the child from harm's way - the issue transforms into trying to judge the lesser of the harms.

    The undernourished children we can address via school lunches and thus mostly bypass having to make a tough call. The druggie parents scenarios speak to potential harm which may arise from dealing drugs from the home rather than actual harm plus neglect from the parents being stoned. This certainly isn't an ideal home life but I'm not quite sure that this justifies the State in ripping a family, even a dysfunctional family, apart and visiting a new harm on the children.
    Last edited by RiverDad; 02-22-14 at 09:34 PM.

  6. #6
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

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

    As a slight amendment, my support for state intervention in the case of Option 9 would extend to abusive nutritional practices in general. Both neglecting the most basic food needs of a child and overfeeding it to the point of crippling obesity (80 pound toddlers) could both warrant action in my opinion.

  7. #7
    Professor
    herenow1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    12-11-15 @ 11:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,686

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

    I take in abused kids and it's sad how CPS puts parental rights over the childs safety now. I'm fighting for a child now.... but can't say too much due to confidentiality laws. Basically a parent can almost kill their child and as long as they make minimal efforts to show they want that child back, they can get them. So very sad and unfortunate

  8. #8
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,623
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    I did not vote for #2 because the term "beaten" is too ambiguous, and could be taken to mean a child whose buttocks were bruised because of a spanking. Personally, I'm against routine corporal punishment for children; however, I have seen families where corporal punishment was used, but the children were well-cared for, happy and psychologically fit. Having the state leap in and snatch children from parents because the child was bruised during a spanking seems over-reaching and onerous to me.

  9. #9
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,804

    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...
    1.) yes definitely
    2.) i voted no but only based on best case scenario and not having more info. Bruises and welts are no big deal IMO if its not often and if its on the but or something like that.
    also you said no medical attention is needed, hard core bruises do need medical attention so again assumed on the light side.
    3.) yes definitely
    4.) I voted yes but you mean illegal abusing drugs daily
    5.) no, I personally dont like it but this isnt my call
    6.) see #5
    7.) see #5
    8.) yes per your description
    9.) yes i assumed you mean on purpose, starving the kid/neglect
    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

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

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,804

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I did not vote for #2 because the term "beaten" is too ambiguous, and could be taken to mean a child whose buttocks were bruised because of a spanking. Personally, I'm against routine corporal punishment for children; however, I have seen families where corporal punishment was used, but the children were well-cared for, happy and psychologically fit. Having the state leap in and snatch children from parents because the child was bruised during a spanking seems over-reaching and onerous to me.
    Id have to agree 100%

    if that was grounds for removal of children in my day the vast majority of kids would have been removed from the home lol

    what was key for me is frequency wasnt listed, location of bruises wasn't listed and it was said medical attention wasn't needed. Sever bruises do require medical attention.
    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 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •