Government Overruling Parents

[LenardNotLenny]

: Note :

This is not for school, nor is it homework. I'm not trying to cop out of actually effort, I just want Newgrounds user's opinion on the matter.

I'm currently debating whether governments have the right to overrule parents decisions when it comes to their child. Would it be considered abuse if the child was denied needed medical care because of a religion of cultural belief? I can only find a sprinkling of articles and points that support our stance.

Can anyone help out?

[DaEchoo]

Well, i think that government has the right to overrule the parents to certain point.

I mean, you can't persecute a parent for giving his/hers child a spanking for acting like a complete asshole.

But how in the world can they decide if the child gets a medical care or not just because of some stupid religion they follow ? They have no right to decide for the child if he/she's going to be an atheist or a believing person and things like that.

So yeah, government should have the right to overrule parents in certain cases.

[MrFlopz]

Big Brother isn't my daddy!

[DaEchoo]

At 5/26/09 06:08 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Big Brother isn't my daddy!

Me no understand ... xD

Oh and you're welcome for the homework. :D

[Jon-86]

People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people!

[LenardNotLenny]

Not a very hot topic I guess :3

[Bolo]

At 5/26/09 06:32 PM, Jon-86 wrote: People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people!

When the government is of, by, and for the people, why should anybody be afraid?

[Jon-86]

At 5/27/09 01:25 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 5/26/09 06:32 PM, Jon-86 wrote: People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people!

When the government is of, by, and for the people, why should anybody be afraid?

My opinion is the government can over-step its mark. Sure it has its place for making laws etc. But I feel decisions that impact directly life as we live it shouldn't be made by people that don't represent me. One person cannot properly represent a large majority.

If you have an example population of 10,000 people. In a democratic society. Those 10,000 are controlled by either one person or a small group and this could be decided by only 5,001 of the population. Leaving the remaining 4,999 to be rulled by someone that doesn't represent them.

What if the leaders make one or more decisions that have an adverse effect on those 4,999

This is the main problem I have with the current way the world run! I don't like the way my freedom is restricted by paranoid anti-terror laws. And what can I do? NOTHING because the majority are lead by the few. And the majority don't even know it. Or challenge the status-quo.

Maybe that's a bit of a rant, but a will leave that for y'all to decide!

[Expl0it]

i like to kiss penis hole

[MultiCanimefan]

The government already over rules parents when the child is taken away and put into foster care due to the inability of the parents to care for their child. Or am I thinking of some other entity?

[LenardNotLenny]

At 5/27/09 02:59 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 5/27/09 01:25 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 5/26/09 06:32 PM, Jon-86 wrote: People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people!

When the government is of, by, and for the people, why should anybody be afraid?

My opinion is the government can over-step its mark. Sure it has its place for making laws etc. But I feel decisions that impact directly life as we live it shouldn't be made by people that don't represent me. One person cannot properly represent a large majority.

If you have an example population of 10,000 people. In a democratic society. Those 10,000 are controlled by either one person or a small group and this could be decided by only 5,001 of the population. Leaving the remaining 4,999 to be rulled by someone that doesn't represent them.

What if the leaders make one or more decisions that have an adverse effect on those 4,999

This is the main problem I have with the current way the world run! I don't like the way my freedom is restricted by paranoid anti-terror laws. And what can I do? NOTHING because the majority are lead by the few. And the majority don't even know it. Or challenge the status-quo.

Maybe that's a bit of a rant, but a will leave that for y'all to decide!

Someone's always going to be unhappy. Its impossible to create a government where everyone is satisfied.

Concerning restrictions on freedom (though I do agree with you laws such as the Patriot Act are wrong), shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is wrong. There's no doubt about that. You have the right to free speech, but when you restrict other's rights or safety, you know longer have that right. For example, if a child were to say be dying of cancer and the parents refused to give him chemotherapy. Then that would be a restriction on his rights and safety.

[Ragdey-Anne]

At 5/28/09 09:26 AM, LenardNotLenny wrote:
Someone's always going to be unhappy. Its impossible to create a government where everyone is satisfied.

If my dick were a government it could satisfy everyone.

[Ace360]

In my opinion, unless the parent is actually causing physical and/or emotional abuse to the child, the government has NO BUSINESS interfering.

[svenisgod]

i believe they do have the right because generally the governement is comprised of the intelectual (generally i know you want to bring up bush) and the public is comprised generally of the fucktarded. the government needs to save certian people from their parents sometimes.

[Prinzy2]

Would it be child abuse if parents didn't let their kids eat anything with Vitamin C because their religion thinks Vitamin C is bad for your soul? Without Vitamin C the kid would get Scurvy and die, so should the government overrule the parents and give the kid Vitamin C?

It's a little easier choice to make than chemo, but the point still remains. Give the kids the medicine they need to keep living.

[JeremieCompNerd]

The good news is, the Republican people who think the government can step on whomever they wish are also the religious people who claim to value life. So of course they already are obligated to pretend to care, and use their self appointed power to intervene.
The people who actually DO care about life, of course, are the Democrats. And naturally we tend to ignore all religious beliefs as being seperate from the government and therefor when we go to save the childs life, we don't care that his religion prevents it.
Both sides have justification to save the child. Both sides also have the responsibility to save the child.
(I'm in a foul mood and I'm here to distract myself, so if I sound flamey either ignore it or PM me for a good verbal brawl. Sorry.)

[Novalence]

For once, I have some real-life experience to back up my statements.

I grew up (for the first few years of my life) a Jehovah's Witness. Now, its basically a stricter form of relative Christianity. Meetings of their members 4 times a week (or possibly 5) preaching to the general public, etcetc.
Its a religion.
Anyhow, it is believed that blood is a sacred thing, and to transfer blood from another person is a sin. Parents (Now, I'll just say that I believe that the government CAN overrule the parents descision regarding this matter, and I doubt that this is popular in modern times, but hear me out) could prevent their children from getting blood transfers, which we know can save lives.

Basically, a parent could kill their child in the name of Jehovah.

[Rad]

I think the government should be allowed to step in, if the parent is incompetent and the child is at risk of dying or being mistreated.

I'm personally a bit cautious of the government having too much power, but there are tons of cases where children (that had good a chance to live) die because their parents didn't make the logical choice.

Just because a guy can impregnate someone and wait 9 months doesn't make either parent magically skilled at raising children.

[MrHero17]

I think the governments stance is that letting someone die is abuse and that's why they step in.

[dySWN]

At 5/28/09 10:42 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: The good news is, the Republican people who think the government can step on whomever they wish are also the religious people who claim to value life. So of course they already are obligated to pretend to care, and use their self appointed power to intervene.

You seem to be confusing the last group of Republicans in power with all Republicans. Many of us still believe fervently, as Regan did, that the government should stay out of the people's lives when not needed. Please make a note of it.

The people who actually DO care about life, of course, are the Democrats.

Caring about life...

Yeah, not seeing how this fits with an ideology that supports abortion. Or, for that matter, what political partisanship has to do with the issue at hand at all.

[thedo12]

I think to have kid's you should have to take some kind of mandatory "good parenting" course . Parent's need to held up to stricter legal standards "parent's know best" is bullshit.

[RDSchley]

At 5/26/09 06:08 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Big Brother isn't my daddy!

Ahem Brother! YEEEE-HAWWWWW!

[JackPhantasm]

At 5/27/09 01:25 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 5/26/09 06:32 PM, Jon-86 wrote: People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people!

When the government is of, by, and for the people, why should anybody be afraid?

French Revolution much?

[LenardNotLenny]

At 5/30/09 06:15 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 5/27/09 01:25 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 5/26/09 06:32 PM, Jon-86 wrote: People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people!

When the government is of, by, and for the people, why should anybody be afraid?

French Revolution much?

fo sho fo sho

french bitch a ho

[AbstractVagabond]

There's no such thing as parents. They're all babysitters. Children are bought and paid for with taxpayer money.

[Elfer]

At 6/1/09 11:23 PM, AbstractVagabond wrote: There's no such thing as parents. They're all babysitters. Children are bought and paid for with taxpayer money.

Man you have no idea what kids cost do you.

[LenardNotLenny]

At 6/2/09 09:25 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/1/09 11:23 PM, AbstractVagabond wrote: There's no such thing as parents. They're all babysitters. Children are bought and paid for with taxpayer money.

Man you have no idea what kids cost do you.

I cost $312 a month. I figured it out.

[Elfer]

At 6/2/09 10:57 PM, LenardNotLenny wrote:

At 6/2/09 09:25 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/1/09 11:23 PM, AbstractVagabond wrote: There's no such thing as parents. They're all babysitters. Children are bought and paid for with taxpayer money.

Man you have no idea what kids cost do you.

I cost $312 a month. I figured it out.

Did you include dental/medical bills, clothes, trips/activities, gifts, or any of the other things that aren't specific day-to-day costs, but are still there?

Try asking your parents about this, I bet they'll have even more ideas for things you've missed.

[xscoot]

At 5/26/09 06:32 PM, Jon-86 wrote: People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people!

V for Vendetta. Nice.

At 5/29/09 02:16 PM, TheRadicalOne wrote: I think the government should be allowed to step in, if the parent is incompetent and the child is at risk of dying or being mistreated.

I'm personally a bit cautious of the government having too much power, but there are tons of cases where children (that had good a chance to live) die because their parents didn't make the logical choice.

Makes sense to me. I think the government should regularly check households to search for competency in the parents. It would be an annoyance to the parents that are doing it right, but it could save or enhance the lives of children with abusive or simply stupid guardians.

[Christopherr]

It's not uncommon for a Jehovah parent to refuse medical treatment on the basis that God is magically going to cure them (never mind that He gave them doctors to do that). However, while the state recognizes the constitutional right of the parent, they also have to act in the interest of the kid. What I'm saying is, the kid, being too young to understand the faith that was shoved on him by his parents, deserves not to be killed by his said faith, just because his parents want it.

Saving lives > Constitution.