I was watching an episode of Family Guy and...

[enoch150]

Parents and children have a kind of contract. The parents agree to care for the child and the child agrees to obey the parent's rules.

If the parents violate their side of the contract, then the child is not obligated to follow his parent's wishes. The child has the final say on getting treatment or not. Charities will pick up the costs.

What happens after is between the parent and the child. It may involve adoption or foster care.

 

[mczerone]

Due process. And I trust the free market to handle it better than a monopoly.

 

[JuicyG]

Government wants a uniform population across the board and that`s best achieved through intrusion. The Nazis for example put all Jehova`s witnesses in concentration camps for refusing to join the army.

Yes, there are many cases when abuses happen in families. Father raping their kids, bloody beatings and so on. There are also religious issues such as accepting blood transfusions for example. Jehova`s witnesses oppose it and that basically causes deaths. So there are different many kind of abuses going on one could argue.

Best solutions are to be found at local level where community reaches a consensus on how to deal with these issues. We may or may not agree how that community solves those issue but having state imposing 1 size fits all solution on everybody is not the answer. There are tribes in Papua new guinea and Indonesia that practice cannibalism to this day or burn people at stake, there also are amazon tribes that bury their kids alive in rituals. They should be left to evolve with their own devices. Interference causes more harm than good in the long run, because it creates an uneven, unbalanced society.

On a different side note; a previous poster said he doesn`t trust modern medicine because of some medication having side effects. I find this statement a bit obtuse.
Even good food has side effects. Everything has side effects. Every decision we make has side effects. Every decision brings with it a level of sacrifice, because you sacrifice one thing to gain another. For example, people who are big savers know this better, because you do make sacrifices when saving money such as depriving yourself of certain items perhaps, but you know it will do more good than harm in the long run. There is a very interesting German saying "Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual" which roughly translates into "He who has to choose has to go through pain."
Let`s take the example of blood transfusion which Jehova`s reject. I may dislike blood transfusion from some obese individual who`s blood is full of cholesterol or risk getting some blood disease, but when I weigh that against dying, choice is pretty obvious.

 

[Tod]

what kind of Fascist are you if you don't believe a parent has a right to endanger their child because of their religious beliefs and skepticism of modern pharma scam?

Parental negligence is a legal fiction, a made up crime for liberals who want to force parents to behave in ways contrary to freedom. If there were no social services, children would be educated, happy and healthy (that's like OBVIOUS for anybody who's been on a libertarian discussion board). I don't see what the "problem" is, apparently you're brainwashed by the liberal media and education system to think that freedom is a problem.

A friend of mine works for child protective services, and if the stories he has told have ANY shred of truth, you are way off base. Some people who have no business being parents somehow, through biology, do, and it is not a pretty sight. Perhaps incest, bones broken through beatings, etc just are outside of your imagination.

 

[JuicyG]

A friend of mine works for child protective services, and if the stories he has told have ANY shred of truth, you are way off base. Some people who have no business being parents somehow, through biology, do, and it is not a pretty sight. Perhaps incest, bones broken through beatings, etc just are outside of your imagination.

I agree. I know many of such cases, many that happened in my city, even someone I know was abused. A girl some family friends adopted was repeatedly sexually abused by a state worker.

So basically we pick bigger evil over lesser evil. In this case, the bigger evil also involves lots of government subsidies.

 

[Revolution0918]

Ill tell you this......i know chemo and various madern medicine has helped people and cured some of cancer......i recently watched my dad die of cancer and go through 9 rounds of chemo.....no1 will EVER tell me that chemo helps people.....even when u win....you lose

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Who do you trust more with kids, their parents or the government?

 

[NYgs23]

In cases where the parents violate the child's rights, obviously it's a crime as much as any other crime. It shouldn't be handled by the state, though, which is inefficient and violent in everything it does. The state is just as liable to snatch children from decent families as it is leave children with abusive ones. Voluntary child protection organizations could exist to investigate these matters and bring it to voluntary courts if they feel a child is the victim of aggression. In the furthest extreme, they might try to take the child by force. However, they would then have to prove that the child was actually being abused or otherwise they themselves would be guilty of child abduction.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Children?

Hell, they are moving to have adults medicated against their will.

If progression of promising vaccines from the lab to the clinic is to remain unaffected and financial inducement is an ethically unacceptable solution to the recruitment shortage, other strategies need to be considered. Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration. Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt-out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as nondonors are presumed to consent to donation) [10], and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon. In these examples, the risks or inconvenience to an individual are usually limited and minor. Mandatory involvement in vaccine trials is therefore perhaps more akin to military conscription, a policy operating today in 66 countries. In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society.

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/01/pfor1-1201.html

 

[Czolgosz]

Funny, I also watched it tonight (fox delays for 8 days).

It's the parent's decision, though wacky from my perspective.

Further, we need not be obsessed with the quality of *every* life, that we take measures to protect it. The species will continue on, people in general don't do stuff that'll get them killed off prematurely.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Children?

Hell, they are moving to have adults medicated against their will.

I have several thousand self-contained chemically propelled subdermal metallic injections to return the favor.

ETA: In the way of justification, I will be sure and scream "it's for the good of society!" several times while administering the treatment.

 

[otherone]

Speaking of "Family Guy", I find it amusing that anyone under the age of 50 would vote for Gingrich or Obama having been raised on "Star Wars". Aren't we all indoctrinated to despise Evil Empires? Or was the trick to make the Tyranny long ago and far away?

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

it is the parents obligation to raise their child. if the child somehow dies in something like this, and another family member thinks they were negligent - they should take them to court. each situation is different and needs to generally be looked at by a case by case basis. at the very least, parents who refuse treament x, y, or z and allow the child to die should have their day in court to tell their story and be judged by their peers, there isn't some 'government should do X solution'.

things like this are exactly what state/local courts are for. me personally? this could be a tough decision depending on circumstances. some people place far too much stock in their faith, and other people make science practically their religion.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

In the episode Lois and Peter kidnap a child because the child had cancer and his parents refused to give him medical treatment due to their religious beliefs. They believed that only prayer and faith should be administered to treat illness, and Lois thought this was morally wrong.

It got me thinking, I'm always emphasizing parents' rights especially as it relates to education, but what is the answer in a situation like this? What if there are parents who do not believe in modern medicine, and therefore endanger the health of their child by not treating them in serious situations such as cancer, or don't provide their child with fundamental medical care?

Actually, now that I'm on the subject... What do you do about parental negligence? What if there was no social services? What is the answer to these types of problems that doesn't involve government?

I don't think you understand liberty that much. Also, you approach this question as if modern medicine were the undeniable standard of better health these days. Never mind that it has been the #1 killer in America per year. A lot of the side effects include death or paralysis or some similarly life-threatening complications. It is just silly that people think this is the way to health.

Regardless, Family Guy has always been an uber liberal show. I hate it when they express their views like it is the unadulterated, unbiased truth of the universe that God doesn't exist, and that gay marriage is right and government is good. I love the show for its humor, but sometimes it goes too far in its anti-religious mockery.

 

[jkr]

AND this is on FOX.
where all those "christians" hang out.
we are being played

 

[Hospitaller]

Father or mother raping their kids, bloody beatings and so on.

Fixed, you are brainwashed if you think that only men commit sexual assault.

 

[onlyrp]

So a parent has the right to endanger their own child? Bullcrap. Children are human too. They have natural rights. Letting a parent use them as a guinea pig is just ignoring their right to liberty.

I suppose you're accusing us for ignoring a person's right to liberty if he doesn't live in our country and we don't exercise jurisdiction, intervention when they are violated? Are you advocating using force in the name of liberty?

 

[onlyrp]

A friend of mine works for child protective services, and if the stories he has told have ANY shred of truth, you are way off base. Some people who have no business being parents somehow, through biology, do, and it is not a pretty sight. Perhaps incest, bones broken through beatings, etc just are outside of your imagination.

Who is your friend, or anybody, to tell a person whether he has business being a parent?

 

[camp_steveo]

When one person harms another it is the responsibility of the state to protect. That is not anti-liberty.

 

[onlyrp]

When one person harms another it is the responsibility of the state to protect. That is not anti-liberty.

at what cost are you willing to give the state power to protect against "harm"?