Should parents be able to make potentially dangerous decisions for children? 18 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

GuineaPig

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

505 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/02/02/3507173-sun.html Just wondering what people think about this story, and others similar to it. Should the government be able to take children away from people who could make potentially fatal decisions for them, even if it is in compliance with their religion? I say that the government should be able to take these children away, because it is a life-or-death situation in which they themselves are not given a choice. I don't think they should die because of their parents' religion? What do the rest of y'all think?




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

22nd March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Thats what they call child endangerment. If the child's life is put at risk because of the reactions or decisions of the parents then the state has the ability to take up guardianship to look after the best interests of the child.

Child Endangerment - Child abuse is the physical or psychological mistreatment of a child by his or her parents (including adoptive parents), guardians, or other adults. While this term emphasizes on carrying out wrong acts, a related term is child neglect: not doing what is necessary, negligence. The combined problem area is often called child abuse and neglect. Below the term abuse is used in the generalized meaning which also includes neglect. Child abuse occurs in all classes of society.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

In any such situation the child's right to life should take precedent. There's no question in my mind about it, letting a child die because you'd have to break some nonsensical rule to save him or her is scarcely better than killing in the name of religion.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#4 11 years ago

The Child's life is much more important than religion. The government, in my opinion, has EVERY right to use their best judgement to remove the child from a potentially dangerous family because of absurd religious rules.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

The state has the right to intervene in most serious cases as this one. Some people think too much about the selfish interests of the parents rather than the interests of a child.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,402 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,121 Posts

1,330 Threads

#6 11 years ago

When it endangers the childs life, then yes....

But in all other matters the gov't needs to stay away from them, they do enough damage in the public school systems


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

Of course religious/moral/political/whatever freedom is important. But with freedom comes responsibility. If your application of freedom irresponsibly endangers other people, you shouldn't do it.




HairySheep

I train sheep to cage fight!!

50 XP

8th January 2006

0 Uploads

3,252 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

two of thier badies died, i think it might have been the same for the rest if they didnt take them away its sorta of a hypocritical thing, they go have the badies which are VERY premature, that means they gave the mom lots of modern medicine and after the birth, the babies were probably pumped with medicine, they pump you with medicine during a normal healthy birth too if they are so against medicine, why didnt they do it themselves? they will have the babies but they will just let them die afterwards?




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

22nd March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
HairySheep;3518468two of thier badies died, i think it might have been the same for the rest if they didnt take them away its sorta of a hypocritical thing, they go have the badies which are VERY premature, that means they gave the mom lots of modern medicine and after the birth, the babies were probably pumped with medicine, they pump you with medicine during a normal healthy birth too if they are so against medicine, why didnt they do it themselves? they will have the babies but they will just let them die afterwards?

Jehovah's Witnesses go against blood transfusions. They don't have anything against medicine.




HairySheep

I train sheep to cage fight!!

50 XP

8th January 2006

0 Uploads

3,252 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

oh, ok well i see now, i thought it was a medicine thing too

i want to hear what the one person who voted "no" has to say




  • 1
  • 2