View Poll Results: Please read the OP and select all that apply

Voters
710. You may not vote on this poll
  • Faith healing for otentially fatal illness

    274 38.59%
  • Faith healing for serious but not fatal illness

    118 16.62%
  • Botox before a beauty pageant

    38 5.35%
  • Physical punishment that requires medical treatment

    72 10.14%
  • Physical punishment that leaves marks

    58 8.17%
  • Giving a child illegal drugs

    66 9.30%
  • Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child

    42 5.92%
  • Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs

    48 6.76%
  • Giving a child a very poor diet

    61 8.59%
  • In none of those cases

    36 5.07%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

  1. #11
    Sage
    Arcana XV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 10:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,412

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That should be grounds to remove the parent from society, if that leaves the child with no other legal guardian/home then the state can take custody of the child. I can see no case where the parent is allowed to remain free but loses only the right (and responsibility) to care for their child without due process. The ability to take a child or assets from a citizen without a criminal conviction (due process) is giving way too much power to the state.
    I can see it happening in faith healing cases. The parents lose custody, at least temporarily, but it's difficult to charge them with anything when their religion forbids them to turn to medical science for help. They have 1st amendment rights.
    "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

  2. #12
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcana XV View Post
    I can see it happening in faith healing cases. The parents lose custody, at least temporarily, but it's difficult to charge them with anything when their religion forbids them to turn to medical science for help. They have 1st amendment rights.
    Now realize I am going to, at least partially, be playing devil's advocate here, but if the parents can loose their children, at least temporarily, in cases of faith healing, when else do you think it is appropriate for the government to make medical decisions for people?
    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.

  3. #13
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,678

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcana XV View Post
    I can see it happening in faith healing cases. The parents lose custody, at least temporarily, but it's difficult to charge them with anything when their religion forbids them to turn to medical science for help. They have 1st amendment rights.
    So you have decided that those 1A rights do not extend to raising their children as they see fit? You honestly believe that the state can respect their constitutional rights by taking their children from them without even making any criminal charges, much less, getting a criminal conviction?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #14
    Sage
    Arcana XV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 10:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,412

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Now realize I am going to, at least partially, be playing devil's advocate here, but if the parents can loose their children, at least temporarily, in cases of faith healing, when else do you think it is appropriate for the government to make medical decisions for people?
    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    So you have decided that those 1A rights do not extend to raising their children as they see fit? You honestly believe that the state can respect their constitutional rights by taking their children from them without even making any criminal charges, much less, getting a criminal conviction?
    Like I said in my first post. Their religious rights end at their child's right to live. They can raise their children as they see fit, brainwash the hell out of them for all I care. The OP asked when the State should intervene. In my opinion, it's justified to intervene to save the life of the child and not one second sooner. Whether the State decides to prosecute the parents or not doesn't really matter all that much to me. As long as the child is given the chance to get life saving health care. That's pretty much the only scenario I can think of where I'm okay with government making medical decisions for people.
    "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

  5. #15
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    I chose 3,4,6,7,8,9

    Faith healing.... although I have no "faith" to me is perfectly legal. There are always possible side effects and death from surgeries and medication... you cannot force that choice on families. Faith healing, although not very effective, is a valid choice because modern medicine will never be perfect, it could be equivalent as a no treatment choice. The placebo affect and ones own immune system/positive low stress attitude really does crazy things in terms of healing on your own... not nearly as reliable, but has a great affect.

    with that said, for more immediate things like.... you're child is bleeding from an artery! Let's pray!! That's different.... that is an immediate emergency that would be neglect if you did not take them to a hospital.
    There is a difference and what falls in that difference can be hard to come up with.... but blanket faith healing/choice of no treatment counting as neglect isn't right.


    I could change my mind on this because obviously I don't agree with faith healing, but I don't think I/we have a legal right to do anything about that.

    Botox should be illegal for the same reasons tattoos are illegal.
    For whatever reason you have shockingly undersold the benefits and efficacy of modern medicine and inexplicably played up the nearly non-existent benefits of 'faith healing'. If your child is sick and you don't allow them to have appropriate medical attention I want the government to take a closer look at you and help get your child proper care.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    So you have decided that those 1A rights do not extend to raising their children as they see fit? You honestly believe that the state can respect their constitutional rights by taking their children from them without even making any criminal charges, much less, getting a criminal conviction?
    I don't think they do. You don't own your children. They aren't property for you to do whatever you like with them. I think the list put together in the OP's poll contains some reasonable examples where intervention might be necessary and ideal.

  7. #17
    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: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Did this a few years ago and had an interesting discussion. Board membership has changed significantly and a thread I just saw made me think of it, so going to try it again. Setting up the question is kinda a pain, so bear with me.

    At what point should the state, ie child welfare workers or the court system or by legislating mandatory levels of care, intervene in a parents choices to raise their children. Now the obvious problem with this question is that there are alot of possible actions the state could take(this was a problem people picked apart last time I did this poll), so for the sake of the question, the least the state would do is remove the children from the home temporarily, and could potentially do more, including permanently taking the children to jailing their parents. In other words, for which of the situations listed in the poll should the state be able to say to parents that if they do this, the state will take the children from the parents.

    1. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a life threatening illness, refusing normal treatments
    2. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a serious but not life threatening illness(ie one that could leave them handicapped but still alive for example)
    3. Injecting your child with botox before taking part in a beauty pageant(yes, this was the thread that spurred me to make this poll)
    4. Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment
    5. Physical punishment that harms a child enough to leave marks(bruises, welts) but does not require hospitalization or medical treatment
    6. Giving a child illegal drugs
    7. Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child
    8. Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs
    9. Feeding the child very poorly such that they are significantly underweight or overweight
    10. none of those


    Please be patient as I add the poll options, select all that apply when I get the poll up
    Very interesting . . I like it!

    For me 3,4 and 6 are a lock (3 under the assumption that its the same as 6)
    now for the rest I want to talk about because it isnt so black and white. . .

    Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a life threatening illness, refusing normal treatments
    This one is VERY tough for me, while my gut and initial knee jerk reaction based on common sense is for the state to intervene.
    There is a serious clash of rights here. For one there's a freedom of religion which i support but at the same time a childs life is in danger. I want to save the life of the child but at the same time if the parents believe that using medicine on the child would damn them to hell i could imagine how hard that would be on them to force that on thier child. Id say in most cases i have to go with the life and 99% of the time i probably say state intervention on this one too.

    Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a serious but not life threatening illness(ie one that could leave them handicapped but still alive for example)
    Same as above, most cases intervention especially with the example of possible handicap

    Physical punishment that harms a child enough to leave marks(bruises, welts) but does not require hospitalization or medical treatment
    in moderation i have no problem with this one . . . of course there is a line that could be crossed . . . so id say most cases no problem but some cases it could be. Constant bruising, especially if its on the head etc


    Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child
    This is another yes in some cases and some no. whats the illegal drug, why is it usages illegal and what usage in front of the child takes place.

    SHooting up heroin in front of your kids . . . yes intervention

    You tell me you are sick and got lots of pain, I have left over antibiotics and some pain meds from when i was sick so I give them to you. You take those in front of your kids, that is illegal but no intervention is needed.

    Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs
    bascially the same as above, high on heroin . . yes, other cases no

    Feeding the child very poorly such that they are significantly underweight or overweight
    not sure on this one, you use the word significantly so i assume thats based on a medical bases. If thats the case i say yes to this one.
    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. #18
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,678

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I don't think they do. You don't own your children. They aren't property for you to do whatever you like with them. I think the list put together in the OP's poll contains some reasonable examples where intervention might be necessary and ideal.
    That implies that they are "owned" by the state instead and simply on loan to selected parents that are deemed to raise them properly as defined by the state. My point was that the parent must have comitted a crime in order for the state to act under due process. This taking of a child is very close to civil asset forfeiture in that the state may "intervene" without ever obtaining a concivtion or even leveling a charge. In cases of child abuse, which are certainly defined as crimes, that requires due process while this "taking" by the state does not appear to.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #19
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Did this a few years ago and had an interesting discussion. Board membership has changed significantly and a thread I just saw made me think of it, so going to try it again. Setting up the question is kinda a pain, so bear with me.

    At what point should the state, ie child welfare workers or the court system or by legislating mandatory levels of care, intervene in a parents choices to raise their children. Now the obvious problem with this question is that there are alot of possible actions the state could take(this was a problem people picked apart last time I did this poll), so for the sake of the question, the least the state would do is remove the children from the home temporarily, and could potentially do more, including permanently taking the children to jailing their parents. In other words, for which of the situations listed in the poll should the state be able to say to parents that if they do this, the state will take the children from the parents.

    1. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a life threatening illness, refusing normal treatments
    2. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a serious but not life threatening illness(ie one that could leave them handicapped but still alive for example)
    3. Injecting your child with botox before taking part in a beauty pageant(yes, this was the thread that spurred me to make this poll)
    4. Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment
    5. Physical punishment that harms a child enough to leave marks(bruises, welts) but does not require hospitalization or medical treatment
    6. Giving a child illegal drugs
    7. Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child
    8. Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs
    9. Feeding the child very poorly such that they are significantly underweight or overweight
    10. none of those


    Please be patient as I add the poll options, select all that apply when I get the poll up
    3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9

    I'm confused on 7. If the question means smoking crack or something like that with your kid in the room, then i am against it and the kid is in danger. If it means smoking pot outside when you're kids are teenagers and don't know you're doing it, then no.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  10. #20
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That implies that they are "owned" by the state instead and simply on loan to selected parents that are deemed to raise them properly as defined by the state. My point was that the parent must have comitted a crime in order for the state to act under due process. This taking of a child is very close to civil asset forfeiture in that the state may "intervene" without ever obtaining a concivtion or even leveling a charge. In cases of child abuse, which are certainly defined as crimes, that requires due process while this "taking" by the state does not appear to.
    State, society, whatever you want to call it. I think that we have a collective right to intervene to protect children from harm and that parental rights, whatever they might be, do not offer any protection from this. This causes zero qualms for me. Don't beat your kids, allow them to see doctors and use medicine, and make sure they get an education and we'll be fine. Stop doing any of those things and yeah I think an agent should knock at your door to see whats going on and see what we need to do to fix the situation.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •