Rights of the child Vs Rights of the parent

[katie kaboom]

playing the devil's advocate... what would have happened if they did do the transfusion... considering your beliefs it would have traumatized you and probably had life long effects... whether or not you later lost those beliefs.

But rather than traumatizing him, couldn't it possibly make him believe that despite what his religion and/or his parents tell him that getting the transfusion was the best thing he could do for himself?

I know if i was in that situation and i did agree to a transfusion, which in turn saved my life, i would have to reconsider what the church and my parents believe....because what if those beliefs caused me to lose my life? Then can we say the church was responsible for that loss of life?

[Slytovhand]

Then can we say the church was responsible for that loss of life?

Already happened - hence part of the reason for the thread. Yes, kids have died because of a parent's beliefs and practices. So... why should those parents have the right to (effectively) kill a child for those beliefs, instead of being forced to wait until the child becomes an adult and is allowed to think freely as an adult?

Pedersen wants to take away the 'right' of a parent to have a male child circumcised, which I'm totally for. So... where's the line? Part of what Ped is saying there is (I think) that the parents' religion shouldn't dictate that they automatically have this right... and I'm saying that in general, perhaps there are a stack of other things as well.......

Oh - and no, I'm not trying to get into little kids trying to force their parents into blatantly stupid things, or holding it against them. I'm actually trying to make people a lot more responsible in general, and to realise that having kids isn't just a 'thing you do'... but that it means actually taking a look at yourself and thinking "Is this how I want my child to behave? Is this what I want from my kids when they are adults?" And I'm thinking, if people are going to be so blind and wilfully ignorant to not even consider such things, then maybe they shouldn't be having kids in the first place... (how harsh am I??? )

[Boozy]

There are some cases where the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. There are some that don't. There are thousands of variables in each and every one of those cases.

That's why we have social services for families, and a court system. Because we can't know every variable of every situation when we pass laws, we need to be sure that these systems are well-funded so that they can pay enough to attract and keep smart people, and lots of them. Then we need to rely on their good judgment.

[katie kaboom]

Yes, kids have died because of a parent's beliefs and practices. So... why should those parents have the right to (effectively) kill a child for those beliefs, instead of being forced to wait until the child becomes an adult and is allowed to think freely as an adult?

You've actually touched on one of my biggest pet peeves. On the contrary, i don't find you harsh, but very refreshing. It absolutely sickens me to hear about an innocent child losing their life because their parents refused life saving treatment, simply because the church they belong to tells them it's a bad idea...i would even go so far as to say that some religions consider things like a transfusion, to be a sin. Maybe that is an overly severe reaction on my part, but nothing infuriates me more than the injustice of a child losing their life, when in fact that life could have been saved if only the parents would have allowed the necessary medical treatment.

I'm sorry to say (and i hope i don't get slammed for this) parents who lose a child simply because they refuse to go against what their religion tells them should be banned from ever having any more children in the future. They obviously are not strong enough individuals to make decisions on their own and therefore will let their religion dictate their lives in an unreasonable and tragic way.

[smileyeagle1021]

Katie, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. One of the things that makes modern society great is the ability for people to freely practice religion. While I know a lot of people think those of us who practice religion still are just behind the times, but I refuse to believe that life is about nothing more than having sex and continueing the species, which is what most athiests tell me "the meaning" is. That said, I think meaningful sorrow is infitely better than meaningless joy. Assuming I am correct that there is a God up there somewhere, who are we to say that a particular child is sick and can't be cured following their parent's belief because they aren't supposed to be here? What if God knew that they turned into the next BTK or the next Zodiac killer? Or what if that child's death brings a community together? It may be a steep price to pay, but if it is that person's destiny who's to say that they pay that price gladly?
I know I'm going to make you all think I've gone off the deep end (ok, so probably most of you thought that before getting up to this point ) but I listen to CoasttoCoastAM, and one of the most memorable shows they had was a lady talking about spirits, and how before we are born we have already met all of the other people we will ever interact with, heard the plan for us, and agreed to it... yeah it sounds crazy, but what if it's true and we've now stepped in and said "we don't like that plan" ?

Ok, I'll stop before I make you all think I'm even crazier than I am.

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm - ok, firstly - Boozy... please stop putting arguments and suggestions that make sense - they just derail my crazy ideas! Isn't there that saying "All things in moderation - including moderators"?

Katie... Your last paragraph gets closer to the crux I'm aiming for (minds out of gutters please, I said "cruX"). If society can mandate on health issues, what about other issues. Say, parents say "Katie, you can't play with Smiley cos he's of a different religion to you"?

On the other hand... maybe, just maybe, that particular religion is right. Should parents follow the dictates of the law of the land, and go against those of the 'God'?

Smiley... you live in Utah, I wouldn't expect anything else other than craziness...

You reminded me of Babylon 5 right at the end when Sheridan told all those ancient races that were interferring in the younger races evolution "Get the hell out of our universe". Thus, so what if we don't like that plan. What's wrong with making a new one?? (and, if they were that good, they'd already know that...)

But as for 'God's' plan... who can really say...oh, that's right, someone wrote a book about it...which brings us back full circle - do parents get to control what religion a child is forced to be a part of (and all that that entails).

[smileyeagle1021]

Smiley... you live in Utah, I wouldn't expect anything else other than craziness...

You reminded me of Babylon 5 right at the end when Sheridan told all those ancient races that were interferring in the younger races evolution "Get the hell out of our universe". Thus, so what if we don't like that plan. What's wrong with making a new one?? (and, if they were that good, they'd already know that...)

first... this craziness started when I lived in Nevada, it only got worse once I moved to Utah

second, speaking of Babylon 5, this thread actually reminds me of the episode where there is a child from (actually, I don't recall the race)... this race believed that if their skin was ever punctured their soul would escape and their body would be nothing but an empty shell. And basically the whole episode was a debate between Franklin and (I can't remember if this was season 1 or not and whether it was Sinclair or Sheridan, I think it was Sinclair though) on whether or not to perform the surgery against the parent's will. You know... now I have to use netflix to find that episode again... it has a lot of good points that could be used in this thread.

[Rapscallion]

From memory, it's called Believers. From my DVD case, it's Season one, Episode 10.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Katie, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. One of the things that makes modern society great is the ability for people to freely practice religion. While I know a lot of people think those of us who practice religion still are just behind the times, but I refuse to believe that life is about nothing more than having sex and continueing the species, which is what most athiests tell me "the meaning" is. That said, I think meaningful sorrow is infitely better than meaningless joy. Assuming I am correct that there is a God up there somewhere, who are we to say that a particular child is sick and can't be cured following their parent's belief because they aren't supposed to be here? What if God knew that they turned into the next BTK or the next Zodiac killer? Or what if that child's death brings a community together? It may be a steep price to pay, but if it is that person's destiny who's to say that they pay that price gladly?
I know I'm going to make you all think I've gone off the deep end (ok, so probably most of you thought that before getting up to this point ) but I listen to CoasttoCoastAM, and one of the most memorable shows they had was a lady talking about spirits, and how before we are born we have already met all of the other people we will ever interact with, heard the plan for us, and agreed to it... yeah it sounds crazy, but what if it's true and we've now stepped in and said "we don't like that plan" ?

Ok, I'll stop before I make you all think I'm even crazier than I am.

For starters, not all athiests believe the same, and many think you can find meaning in one's life without having to worry about a hereafter. But, that's a topic for another thread.

It would be fine if the parent's beliefs were based on something that could be pointed to as rational, but the particular thing we're discussing (blood transfusions) isn't really even backed up biblically, so why should society support that belief? Why should that not fall under the jurisdiction of social services?
I lump that in with the nutball faith healers in my state who have let children die of easily treated conditions and infections simply because they stood by and did nothing. Maybe parents should take an oath to "first, do no harm" after they deliver.
As for male circumcision, if I ever have a male child, I will probably let him stay intact, as most of the reasons against I find to be pretty reactionary. While I don't think the lack of it inhibits sexual function much at all (especially when it's done so early in life that's all a boy knows), it's still an organ that's there for a reason.

[smileyeagle1021]

From memory, it's called Believers. From my DVD case, it's Season one, Episode 10.

Rapscallion

raps, you scare me... in a good way... but still scary...

too bad you are on the other side of the planet... otherwise I would so be stopping by to bum those DVDs off of you.

and AP, I agree with you on the issue of blood transfusions, I just fear the precedent that would be set if we start saying "that belief is wrong and will be overridden, but that one is ok and we'll let it happen"

[Shangri-laschild]

Just a thought, but if children were taken away from their parents to be raised in a good environment and taught and such...who would be in charge of it? The government? Too tempting not to try to turn it into some sort of training camp where they were taught based on whoever is in charge's governmental ideals (yes to some extent this is going to happen no matter who's teaching the child). Churches? That already seems to be not looked on all that well. Who then?

[Rapscallion]

Define good.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

second, speaking of Babylon 5

There's an episode of NCIS (Season 5...can't remember the title). Ducky (the ME) refuses to do an autopsy on a Muslim Marine. Lots of similar issues get brought up in that episode - rights of the gov't vs. freedom of religion.

[AFPheonix]

raps, you scare me... in a good way... but still scary...

too bad you are on the other side of the planet... otherwise I would so be stopping by to bum those DVDs off of you.

and AP, I agree with you on the issue of blood transfusions, I just fear the precedent that would be set if we start saying "that belief is wrong and will be overridden, but that one is ok and we'll let it happen"

I think if you make the exception to be that if it causes a person in your care who is not able to give consent physical harm, then it is a bad belief. If one chooses that self harm once they are of age to give consent, then more power to that person.

[IDrinkaRum]

I might have missed it in all the posts, but at what age do we take the children away from their parents? At birth? That would be an easier for the children to grow up but what about the parents? To have their children removed so quickly? So early? And would the parents even be given updates on their children?