Personal Liberties and Parental Rights

Whew.....like I said, slippery and dangerous slope......

I think that educated decisions should be made for the wellfare of an under aged child.....denying medical care if the outcome is injury or death should be over ridden......just like marrying off children at a young age, posing nude or anything that could harm a child......

Some people can not make that educated decision.....

I am one of those people who wants the government out of my life as much as possible.....but, we still have to protect the children......

I value personal liberties highly. And as a parent, would act as I think is best for my children, if I had any. You ask when the govt should step in and say, "you can't make that decision, we will." For example, the FBI is often hard at work catching child porn rings. If someone exhibits artwork containing nude children that could be copied or reproduced for later for the use of pedophiles, where does the liability lie? Is the artist liable? Or is the pedophile liable? I would prefer to say the latter and chalk it up to personal responsibility which is the other side of personal liberty. "Do as you will, if it harms none." Exercise personal liberty as long as it does not harm someone else. So, who is harmed by the nude photos of children? Are the children victims if the photos fall into the hands of pedophiles? Are the children harmed if someone views the photos as child porn?

Be mindful that while I can contemplate the legal ramifications, I err on the side of caution. The few pics I had of my goddaughter and Shadow, you cannot see her face. The fact that she is clothed is irrelevant. I was most careful to take the pics the way I did. I don't even show DW's face for her personal security reasons. We may have to look to the law on legal majority for a deciding factor. That is, you can't pose nude for a publication or any public display until you are 18. But then, are we not furthering the sexualization of nudity even more, if that's possible?

Yet, we do look to the govt for help in protecting our children. We want them to sting the child porno rings, we want them to get the abusers off the streets.

It is a dilemma. Like I said in the other thread, it is kind of a very personal issue. I think small girls dressing up in skimpy dance outfits and heavy makeup and pumping their hips in the air is kinda revolting, and I wouldn't let a daughter of mine do it, but I'm less freaked out by nudity. *shrug* So much grey. Although if nude photos were being displayed, I'd want no faces, or at least not enough to identify the person.

Part of me thinks that this needs a majority. If the vast majority of people think it's inappropriate to display nude photos of teenagers, then perhaps it should be illegal. But if, say, 10% of the population still thought it was no big deal, then no, I don't think we have the right to make a decision for them about it.

FourIsCompany

So, should it be up to a parent  to decide whether or not it's OK for their child to pose nude (providing the child wants to)?

If it could qualify as kiddie porn, which IMHO it could, then no, the parents should not be able to give consent.  Unless the law is going to also find it acceptable for an underage girl to appear in Playboy, whose material could be considered art just as artsy pics of a naked 12 year old could be considered porn.

When a parent decides not to allow their child to receive medical care because of their religion, is that a personal liberties issue?

Well, I think that kids should have at least the protections that pets do.  If you fail to get a very sick or injured dog vet care you would be arrested, so I don't see much logic in treating children differently, religion or not. 

Where should a parent's right to make decisions for their child be questioned or even overridden by law?

When the child in in clear physical danger (either through abuse or neglect), when the child's educational needs are being severely neglected (parent won't send kid to school, won't make kid go to school, or home schools and does not teach the child the things that he/she needs to know, etc), or when it can be proven that the child is suffering severe mental abuse.  

Parents make decisions for their children every day. When does it become the business of the government to step in and say, "Sorry, we'll make that decision for you."?

Well, the government does that a lot already and in many cases I believe it is justified.  Just to give an example from my own family:  My aunt and her estranged husband are crappy parents, there is just no other way to put it.  Their kids always went to school dirty, etc.  After a while, the boy stopped going to school and his mother failed to make him go to school, so they took him away and sent him to juvenile detention.  In the meantime, my aunt and her husband stopped paying their rent and were evicted.  My aunt and younger cousin, a girl, went to live in a homeless shelter.  My aunt was kicked out of the shelter due to her bad behavior and my cousin was taken away because she had no place to live.  Now, the only monthly expense my aunt even had was rent.  My dad's other sister pays for her insurance and car payment.  My dad and uncle were giving my aunt several hundred dollars a month to help with expenses and my aunt works full time.  It's been *well* over a year since my cousin has been taken away and she still doesn't actually have a place to live--she lives in a room some lady's basement.  While she did have my cousin in her custody (she was 8 or 9 at the time), my dad was always having to remind her to bathe my cousin and wash her clothes (when you can see the grease in a 8 year old's hair from across the room, you know there is a problem).  As far as we know my aunt never hit my cousin, but she was verbally abusive.  Once my dad and uncle bought my cousin a halloween costume.  She was *so* excited to have her own costume that she was just beaming.  The second she got it on (the kid hadn't even said a word) my aunt just started yelling at her "Now DON'T even THINK about getting any CANDY!"  She believed that my cousin was retarded and referred to her as such in from of my cousin.

Although my aunt will say she wants the kids back, the social worker handling the case said that neither parent has done anything that the state requires to get their kids back in the nearly 2 years of them being in foster care.  The case worker said that he has seen parents with much less resources then them move mountains to get their kids back, and he does not understand why my aunt and her husband aren't lifting a finger.  not one person in our family thinks that they should have custody of those kids--they are much better off in therapeutic foster homes (which is where they are).

That situation, IMHO, is a good reason for the government to get involved.

 

The thing that is tough with kids is that so much of how they are raised has an effect on the rest of society.  Kids allowed to miss school repeatedly that don't finish their education often end up as drains on society.  Kids who are left to basically raise themselves often turn to gangs, etc.          

 

.  

FourIsCompany

When a parent decides not to allow their child to receive medical care because of their religion, is that a personal liberties issue?  

When the child is going to suffer harm because of it.

corvus

It is a dilemma. Like I said in the other thread, it is kind of a very personal issue. I think small girls dressing up in skimpy dance outfits and heavy makeup and pumping their hips in the air is kinda revolting, and I wouldn't let a daughter of mine do it, but I'm less freaked out by nudity.

I actually agree with you hugely here.  There is nothing more tacky or revolting.

Chuffy

corvus

It is a dilemma. Like I said in the other thread, it is kind of a very personal issue. I think small girls dressing up in skimpy dance outfits and heavy makeup and pumping their hips in the air is kinda revolting, and I wouldn't let a daughter of mine do it, but I'm less freaked out by nudity.

 

I actually agree with you hugely here.  There is nothing more tacky or revolting.

I couldn't agree more!!!

Haw, I'm glad I'm not the only one! Last time I saw this at a school fete I was looking around at the audience thinking, why am I the only one feeling compelled to look away, here?

When a parent decides not to allow their child to receive medical care because of their religion, is that a personal liberties issue?

Well, I think that kids should have at least the protections that pets do.  If you fail to get a very sick or injured dog vet care you would be arrested, so I don't see much logic in treating children differently, religion or not. 

I'm not saying you're right or wrong (crap, I get in enough trouble with dogs, never mind kids), but I will say that there are quite a few survivors of the indian residential schools who wish their parents had more say in how they were raised...it really is a slippery slope whenever the government thinks that it knows best and parents disagree.  In your case, do we save the soul or the body?  Is there a soul?  Who gets to decide, especially in a land that "guarantees" religious freedom.  Do we only do that if the religion is Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, or some other mainstream religion?  I personally think that it does make sense to afford children protection from not receiving medical care, but to be honest, having just gone through a situation here where a doc really messed up with my BF, I can see how some parents, or even a whole faith, would prefer to put things in the hands of a higher power.  Well, on with the debate (*crawls back under desk*) 

You should come out from under your desk more often. LOL

I believe in the freedom of religion and would support a parent's right to use medicine or not, conventional or not. 

We do treat pets and children differently. People can have pets put to sleep even if they aren't sick, so I'm not sure the comparison should be made in this case.  

FourIsCompany

You should come out from under your desk more often. LOL

I believe in the freedom of religion and would support a parent's right to use medicine or not, conventional or not. 

We do treat pets and children differently. People can have pets put to sleep even if they aren't sick, so I'm not sure the comparison should be made in this case.  

Children cannot decide whether or not to be a member of a religion.  Adults can, and that is the difference.  When the child is of age and can decide that they do not a doctor then that is their choice.  There is also a mention of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  IMHO, forcing a child (who cannot decide for themselves) to die horribly of a perfectly treatable disease because their parents think that god wants it that way is denying the child all three of those rights.     

Where do we draw the line with society and religion? 

If someone claims that their faith allows them to beat their children (spare the rod, spoil the child) is that fine then?  If a religion claims that children are allowed to be sexual abused (the marrying off of prepubescent girls to much older men)?  There are some parts of some religions that encourage the killing of nonbelievers--is that a part of religion that we want to allow people to express?  If Satanists hurt children as part of their ritualism as part of their rituals, are we prepared to accept that as free expression of religion?  

 I think it's just a hard call to make.  Each parent's different views on what's appropriate will govern what's okay for their kids.  So many will say "it's my child's dream" (Lohans) and they're just helping them pursue it, but I think sometimes the parent's job is to tell the kids they'll have to pursue that dream when they're an adult and they (hopefully) better understand the consequences of their choices.  I sincerely doubt Brooke Shields would put her similarly aged daughters in a film like Pretty Baby being the mother she is today.  I have cutie pics of my kids naked when they were babies or young toddlers, but I wouldn't sell them, it would be wrong to my kids.  And my daughter, who has wanted to be an actress forever, has wanted to pursue things that I've said Oh Hell no to.  When she's an adult, she'll have the freedom to do those things.  I hope she's seen enough of those situations go wrong in the media that she won't want to.  But I still have to screen her social network accounts for pics that she should not be posting (not nudes, but you know...).  Sometimes kids don't have the sense they should.  It's sad that their parents don't either at times.

I would just like to add that my belief that children should not be denied access to medical treatment has NOTHING to do with any particular religion.  I'm Christian and if a bunch of Christians refuse to get their kids medical care I'd have just as much of an issue with it.  It has nothing to do with the religion in question, it has to do with the best interests of the child, which IMHO are to be alive and as healthy as possible.

sillysally

is that a part of religion that we want to allow people to express?

But if we pick and choose which parts of which religions people are free to express, is that really freedom of religion? And who would be the person or body that would go through the religions and pick and choose that which we want to allow people to express?

I personally feel that it's not my place to tell other people how to practice their religion or how to treat their children. But that's me. I understand others feel differently.