B
Mother, cancer-stricken son on the run
- Thread starter PantherWoman
- Start date
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
ATV ban
Like 10 year olds eat ATV batteries!
I'm not familiar.
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
Just looked it up and that in no way inhibits a parents right to parent their children.
Christy
b*tch rocket
You know, I have had this very same argument when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. It makes me crazy that because YOU have not had any life altering constraints put on you or because none of this effects YOUR life, that it doesn't matter. And I'm using "YOU" (the terminology) as an overall example of the apathy in this country when it comes to issues that don't directly effect someone. By the time it does effect you, it's damn sure going to be too late.
And quite frankly, times have changed a lot from the time I was a child and when my parents were raising me until now. No one while I was growing up even considered it to be the role of the government to make parental or medical decisions. Your doctor, your neighbors, and your schools, weren't all stumbling over themselves to call the police or child protective services every time a parent made a decision they didn't agree with. Individual rights were much more respected.
B
Beaver-Cleaver
Guest
Nutty ideals.
The government bans something because there were a few cases of toys from China were recalled for having trace, harmless amounts of lead in them.
But because ATVs have lead in the batteries (like kids eat ATV batteries for breakfast
), they're banned.It's not just nutty ideals you should be worried about, it's knee jerk reactions by the government to small problems. Do you know how much money Big O promised for Swine Flu response?
As much as I hate to agree with Christy, she does have a point.
Christy
b*tch rocket
Actually, our governance structure was set up so that mob rule didn't win out over another individual or minority group of individual's rights and freedoms. :shrug:
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
I'm of the opinion that we've lost a good deal of common sense over time. Times may have changed, people may be a whole hell of a lot nosier BUT the fact that remains is there are no more constraints put on you as a parent than were your parents. People are just more "aware" of everything and everyone else now. I fully agree that we're a nation of flipping busy bodies that need to mind our own freaking business.
I'm also of the opinion that 20-30 years ago the dumb biatch in question would have had her child yanked from her and treated with the proper medical care. Society was MUCH less tolerant of extreme ideas.
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
It matters not WHY it was set up I was talking about HOW it's set up.
huntr1
.
MD's drinking age was raised about 20 years ago.
Christy
b*tch rocket
And I'm saying that is HOW it is set up as well.
Even the nutties are afforded rights. Hell, if not more than your average citizen. But again, that's a whole other different conversation.
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
And I'm saying that is HOW it is set up as well.
But your argument wasn't about who is given rights it was about rights of the average parent being taken away.
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
From 18 to 21. I have a 41 year old sister that talks about it all the time who was grandfathered in. That still has nothing to do with parents rights being taken away.
More like 25 years ago as it was 1984.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984
By my calculations, she was was 16 when it was raised so she's either not remembering correctly or is fibbing about her age.
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, parents may not choose anything that someone else could consider harmful?ing!:
And theres the chicken dinner.
In our country a 13 year old can not make these decisions. In our country, for the most part, a 13 year old can not make any binding decisions, because they are a minor.
Since 13 year olds are not capable of making these decisions, the onus is now on the parents. While the child is not capable of making a binding decision, they are also protected from their decision makers (Parents) decisions that affect and could harm them.
Its a simple test, if something is illegal or ruled harm to a minor, it does not suddenly become OK if religion is brought in. This is because that would allow Religion to be a greater rule of law than societies.
Is EVERY medical decision, therefore, up to the doctor instead of the parent? Do statistics rule all parents decisions?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Where do the parents' rights as parents end, and anarchy begin?
No, this is about choosing a medical plan/treatment option.
The child chooses to not take it, the parents agreed and accepted the child's choice. That's all this is. It's a bad choice, but the real question is whether it's the parents' choice or not.
Take religion out - is an overweight child criminally neglected? How about a poorly dressed one? A child allowed to ride a bike without a helmet?
Actually, my argument was that society has a vested interest in a strong definition and respect for the institution of marriage, not in the parents' treatment option decisions....
