Babies stricken with HERPES after ritual oral blood sucking circumcision in NYC

[torchbearer]

And?

its normal. intuitive. the parent is liable if the child goes off and burns down a department store. parent has every right to restrict the movements of their child. and?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

its normal. intuitive. the parent is liable if the child goes off and burns down a department store. parent has every right to restrict the movements of their child. and?

If a parent wants to kill their child, (for this example, let's say 10 years old) do you believe they have the right to? That is not to say you believe it to be moral or what have you, just that parent has the right to if they so choose?

A follow up question would be, what if one parent wants to kill their child and the other does not?

 

[phill4paul]

its normal. intuitive. the parent is liable if the child goes off and burns down a department store. parent has every right to restrict the movements of their child. and?

What's "Normal." What's "Intuitive." Is the parent liable? Not always.

parent has every right to restrict the movements of their child.

Totally different argument than mutilation and destruction. No?

 

[torchbearer]

If a parent wants to kill their child, (for this example, let's say 10 years old) do you believe they have the right to? That is not to say you believe it to be moral or what have you, just that parent has the right to if they so choose?

A follow up question would be, what if one parent wants to kill their child and the other does not?

I wouldn't intervene in a family who decides to kill their own child because it is their loss. I may be tempted to ask a mafia government to intervene to stop it. an evil to stop an evil. From my own values- I would never kill my child. Non-interventionism is tough to swallow. doesn't change the fact that the child is a spawn- a property of its parent until it separates. if you want to cut off your arm- you can. but you are only hurting yourself. if you want to kill of your children- you can. but you are only hurting yourself.

 

[phill4paul]

I wouldn't intervene in a family who decides to kill their own child because it is their loss. I may be tempted to ask a mafia government to intervene to stop it. an evil to stop an evil. From my own values- I would never kill my child. Non-interventionism is tough to swallow. doesn't change the fact that the child is a spawn- a property of its parent until it separates. if you want to cut off your arm- you can. but you are only hurting yourself. if you want to kill of your children- you can. but you are only hurting yourself.

Then you are a believer in government. No? What matters which type? More so to the point how you label it.

 

[RockEnds]

I'm really tired, but I absolutely disagree that children are the property of parents. They are temporarily governed by their parents, and that government should be judicious.

Excerpts from Locke's 2nd Treaties:

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr06.htm

...

Sec. 54. Though I have said above, Chap. II. That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due: and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.

Sec. 55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.

Sec. 56. Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them.

Sec. 57. The law, that was to govern Adam, was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of reason. But his offspring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him, by a natural birth, that produced them ignorant and without the use of reason, they were not presently under that law; for no body can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him; and this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his reason, cannot be said to be under this law; and Adam's children, being not presently as soon as born under this law of reason, were not presently free: for law, in its true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law: could they be happier without it, the law, as an useless thing, would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.

Sec. 58. The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to: for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.

...

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr15.htm

Sec. 169. THOUGH I have had occasion to speak of these separately before, yet the great mistakes of late about government, having, as I suppose, arisen from confounding these distinct powers one with another, it may not, perhaps, be amiss to consider them here together.

Sec. 170. First, then, Paternal or parental power is nothing but that which parents have over their children, to govern them for the children's good, till they come to the use of reason, or a state of knowledge, wherein they may be supposed capable to understand that rule, whether it be the law of nature, or the municipal law of their country, they are to govern themselves by: capable, I say, to know it, as well as several others, who live as freemen under that law. The affection and tenderness which God hath planted in the breast of parents towards their children, makes it evident, that this is not intended to be a severe arbitrary government, but only for the help, instruction, and preservation of their offspring. But happen it as it will, there is, as I have proved, no reason why it should be thought to extend to life and death, at any time, over their children, more than over any body else; neither can there be any pretence why this parental power should keep the child, when grown to a man, in subjection to the will of his parents, any farther than having received life and education from his parents, obliges him to respect, honour, gratitude, assistance and support, all his life, to both father and mother. And thus, 'tis true, the paternal is a natural government, but not at all extending itself to the ends and jurisdictions of that which is political. The power of the father doth not reach at all to the property of the child, which is only in his own disposing.

G'nite

 

[torchbearer]

What's "Normal." What's "Intuitive." Is the parent liable? Not always.



Totally different argument than mutilation and destruction. No?

you can't restrict the movements of other human beings? if a child is equal to them, how can you restrict their movements? what I am stating in this thread sounds awful, but in truth it isn't. children are born from you. they are part you until they grow up. the law see it that way, but the law only reflected the natural tribal organic laws. this is why some cultures decide who their child marries. it infers the parent is responsible for the child. it infers that the child be taken care of by its family unit. do you disagree with this? this implies children are property of the family unit until it separates.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm sorry. There seems to be a mis-communication then.......

What's the mis-communication? Are you confusing "is" and "ought" in what I said? If so, I probably phrased it incorrectly. Abandoning a child does not necessarily kill it. Throwing it off a cliff or something does. In fact, there's a law in AZ which allows mothers to abandon their babies at a fire or police station, no questions asked-and it will be cared for by CPS. Churches have been doing the same forever.

Leaving it to die is entirely immoral, but it is one way of relinquishing legal rights of guardianship. Ideally, the birth mom would give the child up for adoption.

Alles clar?

 

[torchbearer]

Then you are a believer in government. No? What matters which type? More so to the point how you label it.

I may ask, as in be tempted to. I can admit that much. I have a certain value system I am bias to. I don't want to see people injuring their children. they are defenseless really.

 

[RockEnds]

What's the mis-communication? Are you confusing "is" and "ought" in what I said? If so, I probably phrased it incorrectly. Abandoning a child does not necessarily kill it. Throwing it off a cliff or something does. In fact, there's a law in AZ which allows mothers to abandon their babies at a fire or police station, no questions asked-and it will be cared for by CPS. Churches have been doing the same forever.

Leaving it to die is entirely immoral, but it is one way of relinquishing legal rights of guardianship. Ideally, the birth mom would give the child up for adoption.

Alles clar?

Adoption is based on a transfer of title (birth certificate) as well as the total termination of parental rights. Changing guardianship is one thing. Baby dumping is an entirely other. Parents have a minimal responsibility toward children regardless of who raises them. Adoption is an institution through which the state asserts that it has the power to build and destroy families. I disagree with that as well.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I wouldn't intervene in a family who decides to kill their own child because it is their loss. I may be tempted to ask a mafia government to intervene to stop it. an evil to stop an evil. From my own values- I would never kill my child. Non-interventionism is tough to swallow. doesn't change the fact that the child is a spawn- a property of its parent until it separates. if you want to cut off your arm- you can. but you are only hurting yourself. if you want to kill of your children- you can. but you are only hurting yourself.

Would you be tempted yourself to stop it? The mafia government, while mainly true in the comparison, saving a child in said circumstance should be applauded. I would argue against that we need this massive police state to enforce the laws existent on the books. (though a good many of the laws should be repealed) Those who kill their child should be imprisoned. What if the father wants to kill the child and the mother doesn't? Or vice versa? I could think of a few scenarios where this could definitely become a problem. Perhaps further definition is needed? (though frankly, I'm am of the belief one who murders their child ought to be imprisoned, after all, Hell is not a place one can definitively state there is)

Furthermore, cutting off your arm hurts you and only you. Killing your child hurts them and depending on the parent, only them. (only hurts the child) I am a non-interventionist in a strict sense of the word. That does not mean parents ought be able to kill their child without reprisal. I ask how far these religious (as I see them, though you may argue property) rights extend, would you state that a father has the right to crucify his son, should he feel so inclined, sell his son to be raped, should he feel so inclined, or be able to burn his child alive, should he feel so inclined? Again, not that you agree with said examples, just that you think it is the right of the father, or rather, family.

 

[torchbearer]

Would you be tempted yourself to stop it? The mafia government, while mainly true in the comparison, saving a child in said circumstance should be applauded. I would argue against that we need this massive police state to enforce the laws existent on the books. (though a good many of the laws should be repealed) Those who kill their child should be imprisoned. What if the father wants to kill the child and the mother doesn't? Or vice versa? I could think of a few scenarios where this could definitely become a problem. Perhaps further definition is needed? (though frankly, I'm am of the belief one who murders their child ought to be imprisoned, after all, Hell is not a place one can definitively state there is)

Furthermore, cutting off your arm hurts you and only you. Killing your child hurts them and depending on the parent, only them. (only hurts the child) I am a non-interventionist in a strict sense of the word. That does not mean parents ought be able to kill their child without reprisal. I ask how these religious (as I see them, though you may argue property) rights extend, would you state that a father has the right to crucify his son, should he feel so inclined, sell his son to be raped, should he feel so inclined, or be able to burn his child alive, should he feel so inclined? Again, not that you agree with said examples, just that you think it is the right of the father, or rather, family.

the child belongs to the parent. the parent can take the child. the person down the street doesn't belong to the parent. the parent can't take the person down the street. the parent can take what it owns. the parent can't take what it doesn't own. I don't know if I can get it any clearer. you can do all the what-ifs, but the foundation is always the same.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

the child belongs to the parent. the parent can take the child. the person down the street doesn't belong to the parent. the parent can't take the person down the street. the parent can take what it owns. the parent can't take what it doesn't own. I don't know if I can get it any clearer. you can do all the what-ifs, but the foundation is always the same.

Which parent?

Yes, it could get a little clearer.

 

[torchbearer]

Which parent?

Yes, it could get a little simpler.

I was speaking in the general. child being the actor that is spawn of another human being, the parent. the parent being the person that owns the cells that created that spawn, the child. the other people down the street are the parents and spawns of people that didn't come from the original parent's cells. all actors defined. reread previous post.

 

[phill4paul]

What's the mis-communication? Are you confusing "is" and "ought" in what I said? If so, I probably phrased it incorrectly. Abandoning a child does not necessarily kill it. Throwing it off a cliff or something does. In fact, there's a law in AZ which allows mothers to abandon their babies at a fire or police station, no questions asked-and it will be cared for by CPS. Churches have been doing the same forever.

Leaving it to die is entirely immoral, but it is one way of relinquishing legal rights of guardianship. Ideally, the birth mom would give the child up for adoption.

Alles clar?

K. Better understanding now. I had mentioned earlier about abandoning to wolves to rid an unwanted child. Still not convinced that turning them over to the state is as moral or immoral as beliefs come.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I was speaking in the general. child being the actor that is spawn of another human being. the parent being the person that owns the cells that created that spawn. the other people down the street or the parents and spawns of people that didn't come from your cells. all actors defined. reread previous post.

There is no need for me to reread. Which parent?

Should there be a court proceeding to see if the child should be sacrificed? (an extreme example where the father wants to sacrifice the child, the mother does not. What would your ideal society propose?)

ETA: In other words,
"parent being the person that owns the cells that created that spawn"

Which person owns 'the cells that created that spawn.'

 

[torchbearer]

There is no need for me to reread. Which parent?

Should there be a court proceeding to see if the child should be sacrificed? (an extreme example where the father wants to sacrifice the child, the mother does not. What would your ideal society propose?)

why would you hold court to decide to kill a child? will there be a philosophical debate over the matter in this court? will their be an indictment with evidence provided of a crime? i'm not understanding the scenario.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Adoption is based on a transfer of title (birth certificate) as well as the total termination of parental rights. Changing guardianship is one thing. Baby dumping is an entirely other. Parents have a minimal responsibility toward children regardless of who raises them. Adoption is an institution through which the state asserts that it has the power to build and destroy families. I disagree with that as well.

Law doesn't necessarily come from a state. There's voluminous literature on private law, in fact. I don't know of any significant "civilized" society that didn't develop some sort of law. Ditto with adoption. People have been abandoning and adopting in stateless societies for millenia.

 

[torchbearer]

Which person owns 'the cells that created that spawn.'

the parent.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

why would you hold court to decide to kill a child. will their be a philosophical debate over the matter? will their be an indictment with evidence provided of a crime? i'm not understanding the scenario.

Sorry, I edited my post in a way that might help.

One parent wants to sacrifice their child for a religious ceremony. The other parent does not. What does your ideal society propose be done?