Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

In other words - parents have no right to determine what medications their children take, where they go to school, and how and when they learn about sex?

Sounds like an argument that the government knows what's better for kids than their own parents do. Because once you make the argument for one set of parents, why not apply it to them all?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

In one word yes.

Then what is the point of parents outside of the actual conception and birthing part? If they have no right to determine anything, then you're basically saying that the government is everybody's parent.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Because, you know, traditional parenting doesn't ever result in screwed-up lunatics who practice taxidermy on their mothers.

At some point, the line has to be drawn: "You cannot raise your child like that." You cannot raise your child by smacking his teeth out with a belt buckle. You cannot raise your child by chaining her to the basement radiator. You cannot raise your child by freely providing him with vodka from the age of 2. Doing any of these things to your children will result in a very dissatisfying visit from John Law. These are all reasonable restrictions: Why would anyone object to them? They are intended to protect the child from the sheer maliciousness or stupidity of the parent. As such, the child's well-being has had priority over "I'm his daddy so I can do what I want" for quite some time. Now, let's all be touchy-feely about moral beliefs, eh? For example, let's say I have a moral belief that only Jesus Christ can cure disease and injury, and that the use of medicines is an abominable sin. Let's say that for this reason I refuse to let my child receive any medical assistance although he has been disemboweled by a bear. Now, in the event that the kid miraculously survives, do you think the state will look fondly upon me as a responsible parent? No, of course not. But I didn't DO anything, I just imparted my moral beliefs on my child! I'm allowed to do that! I'm a PARENT! Don't parents have any rights in this godforsaken communist hellhole of a country anymore?!

Additionally, there's a little thing called psychological damage. Now, I know those of you who are fondly stroking your autographed thanks-for-donating letters from our President just chuckled over that one, but it's a significant matter of law. Rape, for example, need not cause any physical harm to the victim. But it's still illegal, even though you didn't really hurt anybody! What's up with that. And hey, if I rape my DAUGHTER, I mean, she's not actually hurt, and I'm a PARENT, god dammit. I was just imparting my moral value that the age of consent should be lowered to around 14!

And I think the examples you've provided are things pretty much everyone thinks is wrong. However, using these examples as justification for the abbrogation of parental rights is simply absurd. In fairness, it's not that you are advocating that, but to say that parents don't have the right to educate their children in the manner they choose (within all legal reason) is absurd.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.