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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

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

  1. #21
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,186

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

    Personally, I said in none of these cases.

    I don't like the State making such decisions without prior consent of a court.

    I am much more in favour of a Child Advocacy Protocol, as we have here in Canada, but I'd like to see it have more teeth and the Children's Aid Societies have far less teeth.

    I am in favour of a strong Child Advocate who could sue the parents of children who are involved in such situations and who can quickly seek court relief for the care and comfort of any child in such a situation.

    I don't want to see any child harmed and I want to see any negligent parent punished appropriately. That's not happening in today's system and too often children are viewed as mere chattel and their independent human rights are discounted in relation to the parents and the state.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #22
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

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

    The general standard I used here was "life threatening". Parents do not have the right to threaten or take the lives of their children. It'd be a bit hypocritical for me to adopt a pro-life stance on those grounds, but then say that Parents do nonetheless have the right to shoot their child up with (for example) heroin.

    I did not vote for 4.Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment because "medical treatment" struck me as a very vague standard that could be easily stretched by overeager social workers to mean anything. If I spank my child with a wooden spoon and he get's a splinter, and I give him a bandaid for it, for example. Or if the worker wants to make the argument that a discipline regime that includes spanking could lead to a requirement for emotional and psychological medical treatment in the future. In cases of physical punishment that requires hospitalization (saving lives, saving limbs from being broken, etc), I would absolutely support child-removal.

  3. #23
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,292
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The general standard I used here was "life threatening". Parents do not have the right to threaten or take the lives of their children. It'd be a bit hypocritical for me to adopt a pro-life stance on those grounds, but then say that Parents do nonetheless have the right to shoot their child up with (for example) heroin.

    I did not vote for 4.Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment because "medical treatment" struck me as a very vague standard that could be easily stretched by overeager social workers to mean anything. If I spank my child with a wooden spoon and he get's a splinter, and I give him a bandaid for it, for example. Or if the worker wants to make the argument that a discipline regime that includes spanking could lead to a requirement for emotional and psychological medical treatment in the future. In cases of physical punishment that requires hospitalization (saving lives, saving limbs from being broken, etc), I would absolutely support child-removal.
    The wording was not intended to be as it would be in law kinda thing. Any problem with wording is my fault alone. The intention is physical punishment resulting in severe enough injury to require medical aid from a doctor or hospitalization, as opposed to physical punishment bad enough to bruise or leave welts, but not bad enough to require a doctor. But the truth is with 10 poll options max, it is impossible to make answers that fit every possibility, and my interest is in where some one draws the line, at what point does the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit lose out to the states interest. You answered that pretty well.
    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
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

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

    The state should only interfere when the parent's actions are risking the child's long-term wellbeing to a degree that removing the child from their home and family and letting strangers raise them is the less harmful option.

    The only options that I thought absolutely met that criteria in the poll were faith healing for a potentially fatal illness, physical punishment that requires medical treatment, and giving a child illegal drugs. Some of the other options might meet that criteria, but it would depend on the circumstances.

    The point I guess, is that it's not a clear and well-defined line.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,724

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

    The voting percentages for some of these options, such as the first one, are disturbingly low.
    "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

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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