Government authority

[The Bellman]

Does a government have a moral right to prevent a parent doing something to, for, or on behalf of a child if that government finds that thing harmful to that child?

Should it have the legal right to do so?

If so, what degree of harm is allowed before the government has the moral, or should have the legal, responsibility to do so?

 

[`Raine]

An ideal government would, but I don't think governments intitued by man (ie, any government in place now) should.

There's just too much leeway involved in letting a governmental body decide what it harmful to a child (has seen/read way too many CPS horror stories).

I guess I'm divided here. I think the government should be anle to step in in cases of proven physical or sexual abuse, but sometimes those are hard to prove, and people use them to "settle" grudges and nasty divorces.

Aslo, some people in government think that teaching against homosexuality, or homeschooling your children, is *dangerous*, so too much power could result in children being taken out of homes because of religious beliefs or lifestyles that aren't really harmful, but that the government just disagrees with.

 

[Sors]

Does a government have a moral right to prevent a parent doing something to, for, or on behalf of a child if that government finds that thing harmful to that child?

Should it have the legal right to do so?

If so, what degree of harm is allowed before the government has the moral, or should have the legal, responsibility to do so?

As much as I hate government I would have to say yes it does. In situations of sexual and physical abuse it is completely needed and appropriate. I believe we can draw the line when the government starts dictating a child's education and upbringing.

 

[savvy]

Yes, I agree they have not only the right, but the moral obligation to intervene in cases of physical, sexual or *serious* emotional abuse (those are the tricky ones). Governments are supposed to protect citizens. But they should stay out of any religious, educational, or lifestyle decisions.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Does a government have a moral right to prevent a parent doing something to, for, or on behalf of a child if that government finds that thing harmful to that child?

Should it have the legal right to do so?

If so, what degree of harm is allowed before the government has the moral, or should have the legal, responsibility to do so?

This is a tough one to answer, because one needs to judge both intent and results when deciding if the government has an overriding moral authority to intervene.

It's safe to say the government has a right to intervene if a parent is attempting to willfully murder a child through a violent act.

If the family's religious beliefs preclude certain medical procedures, it's kinda iffy to say the government has the right to force the procedure on a child. At one extreme one might have a child who could be saved by immediate medical treatment, but the parents won't grant the right. On the other extreme you have children who might contract the flu if they don't get an innoculation and might get sick enough to die, but since there's no way of knowing for certain in advance who will get sick and/or die, does the government have the right to mandate everyone receive an innoculation?

(And in that instance, it doesn't even have to be a religious reason; I know lots of people who prefer not to use any medications or innoculations at all because they don't want their bodies to become dependent/immune to certain drugs.)

There have even been people seriously suggesting that second hand smoke is child abuse and smokers should have their children taken from them if they continue to smoke in their presence.

 

[joebudda]

I seem to remember like 6 months ago the government took away some mans son because he took him off Prozac (or something).

The father didn’t like the side effects the drug was doing to his son so he stopped administering it to him. I don’t remember all the details, but if I remember correctly someone complained stating it was child abuse for taking him off the drug so the man lost custody of his son.

 

[Nathan David]

Are your sure the man lost custody? Or did someone try to take away custody and lose?

In the US it is very difficult to terminate parental rights. There are many legal steps the government has to take and and stringent conditions that must be met.

 

[jon1101]

I'm intrigued by the condition "if that government finds that thing harmful to that child." It seems that this is incredibly open ended. Are you asking if the opinion of "the government" should be enough justification for the government to get involved, or would there be some sort of standard that the public could hammer out for the government to enforce?

It's really a difficult question. I think it's generally agreed that at some level parents should not be allowed to harm their children, but once we get past extreme cases of obvious abuse I honestly don't know how to decide. For instance, I knew a family when I lived in southern Indiana that "home schooled" their children. They didn't though. The poor high school daughter could barely read. Is that harming children? She was tossed out into the world with almost no ability to operate healthily in society, let alone to succeed. Should the government have done something?

-Jon

 

[joebudda]

Are your sure the man lost custody? Or did someone try to take away custody and lose?

In the US it is very difficult to terminate parental rights. There are many legal steps the government has to take and and stringent conditions that must be met.

I don’t remember the details.

I will see if I can find anything on it. I don’t remember if the outcome was certain or if it was in the process at the time I read it.

 

[joebudda]

Here is a link to a few cases and more info on the subject.

Link

 

[The Bellman]

I'm intrigued by the condition "if that government finds that thing harmful to that child." It seems that this is incredibly open ended. Are you asking if the opinion of "the government" should be enough justification for the government to get involved, or would there be some sort of standard that the public could hammer out for the government to enforce?

It's really a difficult question. I think it's generally agreed that at some level parents should not be allowed to harm their children, but once we get past extreme cases of obvious abuse I honestly don't know how to decide. For instance, I knew a family when I lived in southern Indiana that "home schooled" their children. They didn't though. The poor high school daughter could barely read. Is that harming children? She was tossed out into the world with almost no ability to operate healthily in society, let alone to succeed. Should the government have done something?

-Jon

Well, IMO, yes, they should. But then I think home schooling should be banned.

 

[Drifster]

Well, IMO, yes, they should. But then I think home schooling should be banned.

That would be your opinion, which everyone is entitled too. In your case perhaps home schooling your children would be a bad choice. For myself, my oldest daughter entered kindergarten at the age of 5 not only knowing the alphabet and spelling her name, or identifying numbers and counting to 50, but being capable of reading simple words and doing simple arithmetic. She is now in Grade 1 and has a reading level of a child in grade 3, not only that, my wife is also teaching her a second language. My point is, that the education system is there to ensure we all get the basics to develop a general knowledge. If you want your children to form into a copy cutout of everyone else, send them to school and rely on the system. I want my children to realize their potential, and allow them the chance to become the individual they are capable of becoming.
As to the OP, it is a very difficult question, because of the numerous variables that have to be taken into consideration. I feel that if the child's physical or mental health is endangered, then "yes", the government should have a certain criteria to protect that child's rights! Even if it treads on the rights of the parent.

 

[jon1101]

Well, IMO, yes, they should. But then I think home schooling should be banned.

Hmph. I was home schooled and there's certainly nothing wrong with me

But really, a lot of the top students at my college, which isn't a bad school according to the rankings, were home schooled through high school. As a former home schooler, especially one who travelled around debating other home schoolers, I've known quite a lot of them. I can still only think of that one case where a family was failing to give their children an education at least on par with the rather spotty school system where I lived.

So, to the point of the thread, how should we deal with this situation legally? Should all the rest of us really be carted off the public schools, which, in many cases in my town, would likely lead to a worse education for the students and the rather unfortunate breaking up of a healthy community. On the other hand we have the (in my experience) small minority of cases where children are simply being deprived of much of a life. How on earth do we begin to write law for this situation? First of all, what principles should be driving the endeavor?

-Jon

 

[Drifster]

So, to the point of the thread, how should we deal with this situation legally? Should all the rest of us really be carted off the public schools, which, in many cases in my town, would likely lead to a worse education for the students and the rather unfortunate breaking up of a healthy community. On the other hand we have the (in my experience) small minority of cases where children are simply being deprived of much of a life. How on earth do we begin to write law for this situation? First of all, what principles should be driving the endeavor?

IMO, I think children who are home schooled should be evaluated periodically to ensure that they are at least staying par with their respective peers in school. If they are found to be behind or lacking in some areas of study, then the parents should be informed and assistance should be offered to the parents somehow to improve their child's education (Ex. tutor perhaps? or a course for the parents on teaching skills?). I definitely don't think that home schooling should be banned....it in fact should be promoted more as an option for parents and their children than it is now.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

home schooling here in canada the kids are definelty up to par...one fmily i know all 4 kids are home schooled...xept th eoldest one decided to take gr.12 just to get co-op and stuff....but the kids are extremely smart over average...

 

[The Bellman]

Although it's a bit off-topic, I'll explore this a little. My problem with home-schooling isn't the academic performance of the students. As several have pointed out above, home-schooled students consistently perform well in academic tests of all kinds. I certainly did not mean or intend to imply that home-schooled students are, or are likely to be, dumb or uneducated.

My problems with home-schooling are twofold.

Firstly, regarding curicullum. Many home-schooled students are home-schooled because their parents do not agree with what is being taught in schools, particularly evolutionary theory. These parents do not want their children taught evolutionary theory, and so take them out of schools to prevent that happening. Instead, they are taught creationism. In my opinion, this is harmful to the child. Society has a responsibility to children to give them the best education it can; teaching them a falsified belief is not doing that.

Secondly, regarding socialisation. One of the most important purposes of the twelve or so years of schooling (before university level) is to make children socialise, work, learn and interact with others, including those from diverse backgrounds. In the process, they come across others with widely varying beliefs, and learn to interact with them. This is, of course, excellent preparation for university and the workforce, where they will be forced to have this sort of interaction, like it or not. Home schooling denies children this facet. I realise that many home-schooled children have interaction with other children, through clubs, sporting groups and so forth, but in my opinion none of these can take the place of constant interaction for thirty or so hours a week, every year.

 

[neocon]

.......................I knew a family when I lived in southern Indiana that "home schooled" their children. They didn't though. The poor high school daughter could barely read.................................

Geez just like Government Schools. At least they (the homeschoolers) did not send the Taxpayers a bill.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Firstly, regarding curicullum. Many home-schooled students are home-schooled because their parents do not agree with what is being taught in schools, particularly evolutionary theory. These parents do not want their children taught evolutionary theory, and so take them out of schools to prevent that happening. Instead, they are taught creationism. In my opinion, this is harmful to the child. Society has a responsibility to children to give them the best education it can; teaching them a falsified belief is not doing that.

Secondly, regarding socialisation. One of the most important purposes of the twelve or so years of schooling (before university level) is to make children socialise, work, learn and interact with others, including those from diverse backgrounds. In the process, they come across others with widely varying beliefs, and learn to interact with them. This is, of course, excellent preparation for university and the workforce, where they will be forced to have this sort of interaction, like it or not. Home schooling denies children this facet. I realise that many home-schooled children have interaction with other children, through clubs, sporting groups and so forth, but in my opinion none of these can take the place of constant interaction for thirty or so hours a week, every year.

#1 -- suffice it to say lotsa folks, including increasing numbers of scientists, are less and less certain life evolved spontaneously on Earth. Some now try to suggest that life began on some other planet and somehow drifted to Earth on a comet, thus they don't have to explain why no known set of conditions that ever existed on this planet could have produced life. The more we learn about genetics, the more were learn about the intricaies that even the simplest forms of cellular life must possess, the harder it is to explain these things away by just chance happenstance. When Darwin first put forth his theory (which does accurately explain how various species adapt to changing conditions via generations of favorable breeding), cells were conceived of as nothing more that gooey little bags of protoplasm, and somehow the vast primordial soup -- oops, 'escuse me, that theory's been disproven; it's now the primodial hot sandwich (no, I am not kidding; google it if you don't believe me) -- managed to create some tiny globs which then acquired mebranes and became the first cells.

But that was then, this is now. The incredible small and intricate genetic mechanisms must pre-exist the cell or the cell can not form at all.

Look, we know coal is formed from plants that are buried and pressurized under tremendous heat. We know there are three forms of coal, and "soft" coal is coal that has not endured all the pressure and heat over a long enough period of time. We also know bogs exist, and bogs are precursors to vegetative deposits that eventually become coal. And we know plants exist to create the bogs and the peat found in them.

We know this because today we can find coal at every step of its development from living plant to rock hard anthracite.

Where are the proto-cells today? Where are the precursors to basic cellular life? Shouldn't there be places where the evolutionary process is still going on and the precursors to life are forming?

#2 -- home school kids are very well socialized, thank you very much. They participate in Boy SCouts and ballet and 4H and church activities and go to the park and the mall and play with other kids after school. What you call "socialization" others see as indoctrination.

 

[The Bellman]

#1 -- suffice it to say lotsa folks, including increasing numbers of scientists, are less and less certain life evolved spontaneously on Earth. Some now try to suggest that life began on some other planet and somehow drifted to Earth on a comet, thus they don't have to explain why no known set of conditions that ever existed on this planet could have produced life. The more we learn about genetics, the more were learn about the intricaies that even the simplest forms of cellular life must possess, the harder it is to explain these things away by just chance happenstance. When Darwin first put forth his theory (which does accurately explain how various species adapt to changing conditions via generations of favorable breeding), cells were conceived of as nothing more that gooey little bags of protoplasm, and somehow the vast primordial soup -- oops, 'escuse me, that theory's been disproven; it's now the primodial hot sandwich (no, I am not kidding; google it if you don't believe me) -- managed to create some tiny globs which then acquired mebranes and became the first cells.

But that was then, this is now. The incredible small and intricate genetic mechanisms must pre-exist the cell or the cell can not form at all.

Look, we know coal is formed from plants that are buried and pressurized under tremendous heat. We know there are three forms of coal, and "soft" coal is coal that has not endured all the pressure and heat over a long enough period of time. We also know bogs exist, and bogs are precursors to vegetative deposits that eventually become coal. And we know plants exist to create the bogs and the peat found in them.

We know this because today we can find coal at every step of its development from living plant to rock hard anthracite.

Where are the proto-cells today? Where are the precursors to basic cellular life? Shouldn't there be places where the evolutionary process is still going on and the precursors to life are forming?

Sorry, but "increasing numbers of scientists" arent' abandoning evolutionary theory (and note that evolutionary theory says nothing about how life originated). It is sound science; creationism is not.

#2 -- home school kids are very well socialized, thank you very much. They participate in Boy SCouts and ballet and 4H and church activities and go to the park and the mall and play with other kids after school. What you call "socialization" others see as indoctrination.

See above. All of the extra activities cannot compensate for thirty hours or so, everyweek, working and dealing with others.

I find it hard to see how anyone can call socialising with others "indoctrination".

 

[Nietzsche]

Does a government have a moral right to prevent a parent doing something to, for, or on behalf of a child if that government finds that thing harmful to that child?

Should it have the legal right to do so?

If so, what degree of harm is allowed before the government has the moral, or should have the legal, responsibility to do so?

yes it should a parent shouldn't have the right to say kill there child because they find him/her unfit. Further the government should be allowed to decided who has children.