You already know how I feel: there is a difference between “raising” a child and supplying to them chainsaws to juggle, poison to drink, or offering them up as sex slaves to pedophile neighbors. People have the freedom to teach their kids to love Jesus and/or hate black/white/chinese/whatever people, but they don’t have the right beat the crap out of them or put them in an easily-avoidable and clearly life-threatening situation.

A high fever is a simple, obvious and (sometimes) easily-avoided threat. It is as clear and universally-recognized danger as a high cliff, a loaded and unsecured gun, or a red-hot stove. Children need protection and their ultimate protector is supposed to be their parent(s), yes?

there is, of course, enormous gray area. What seems like an obvious treat to an expert may not be obvious to a layman.

I’m biased. I have a general contempt for religion in general, so it’s hard for me not to view most religious beliefs as more or less moronic. It’s a prejudice for sure.

John, we are on the same page here. Well put sir.

John, you say that “Children need protection and their ultimate protector is supposed to be their parent(s).”

I agree completely and have a couple follow-up questions.

At what point does one become a parent? Does the parental protection that we agree is essential extend to unborn children?

This is such a complex question. For most people who have been pregnant or had children they’ve become aware of a change in themselves and they feel like a parent long before the child is born. However there’s a difference between moment between when you assume the *roll* of parent and the moment the pregnancy becomes a viable human. Anyone who’s endured a miscarriage understands how rocky this particular terrain can be.

I believe that there is a point in a pregnancy where it is reasonable to extend to the unborn child some of the same protections and individual legal rights an out-of-the-womb child deserves. I also understand the reasons that folks are so cautious about extending those rights. I don’t have a ready opinion for this–I haven’t thought enough about it.

On the one hand we don’t want to arrest people for bungie jumping during the first trimester. On the other hand we’re outraged if someone shoots their 9-months-pregnant wife in the stomach or if a late-term pregnant woman loses her child after a 3-day cocaine & grain alcohol binge. I don’t have a well thought-out opinion on where to draw the line.

While the notion of letting a child die when medical care would have saved that child is distasteful, outrageous, and even offensive to most of us, we should recognize that we are judging the situation from our own cultural and religious perspective.

Would those parents have chosen to die rather than to seek medical attention, themselves?

To the devoutly religious, who is to say that God intended us to “play God” and choose to save those who would naturally have died decades ago? Some of us believe that God put knowledge, science, and medical technology into our hands to do just that, as His proxies – “God helps those who help themselves.” Others among us would say that there is no God, it’s all nonsense, and it’s a crime not to employ all means at our disposal to save a child’s life.

Would those same people argue that for that elderly? For a middle-aged adult in need of a multi-million-dollar medical procedure to prolong life? For a child born with severe mental or physical handicaps, who had no reasonable hope of living a “productive” life? Some would, some would not. I suspect we will never all agree. But there’s a difference between putting faith in God and prayer, and in leaving your child to die of pneumonia while you go out and party at the corner bar. One is a matter of conscience (however ignorant, misguided, stupid, or wrong some people – many people – may believe it to be); the other is clearly neglect.

In the US, we have done much to erode the rights (and, by extension, the responsibilities) of parenthood. I would urge caution. Let’s not be too quick to step in and try to force other parents to do it our way.

This really all has to do with when can the State step in and dictate what’s okay and what’s not okay- what are the minimum standards of acceptable parenting, and what are not?
When I worked for a small law firm in Florida, we dealt with the Guardian Ad Litem system-often being appointed by the court to represent parents, pro bono, who were having to face the prospect of having their parental rights terminated, mostly so the child could become available for adoption. I have seen some pretty grim cases, and some that were equally ludicrous- one young infant in foster care because Mom was in jail over drugs and prostitution charges, Dad in jail for the same thing; mom was fine with terminating her parental rights, but Dad wanted his sister in law to raise the child, who had really no interest in doing so. In the end, the Court terminated his rights and the baby was adopted by a couple and hopefully went on to live a long and happy life.
The State has an interest and a right in protecting children from abuse- and sometimes, withholding necessary care, food, clothing, etc. amounts to abuse, regardless of the justifications for it. It gets really ugly when the Courts get involved, but sometimes, that may be the only chance a kid gets.

Please keep in mind that I do not judge parental rights based on any religious perspective. I don’t believe you have a right to let your child die for faith reasons any more than you have a right to kill your child to protect him/her from the Boogey Man or from the magical spiders you conjured up while withdrawing from heroin. I have no respect for your religion. at all. I know that our country was founded on “religious freedom”. Yep–I’m aware of that. I also know that the bible says it’s okay to stone a woman to death for going outside the house when she has her period. the Egyptians believed that you go to the afterlife on a boat that you can be buried with. they believed you don’t need your internal organs or your brains to make this journey. they believed this stuff for several thousand years longer than the world has turned since the estimated birth of Jesus. They were wrong. Just like you are. You can believe whatever you like–knock yourself out. Just don’t kill your child with your ancient superstitions. let the child grow up, cannibalize their god a few times (if they’re Catholic) and then sacrifice their own life with an adult mind when they get an infected cut (or whatever). please give the children at least an opportunity to grow up and realize how intensely stupid your closely-held beliefs are. Remember–the 911 terrorists were absolutely positive that the same God that most Christians believe in is 100% behind their cause. They are wrong. 100% faith in anything is nearly meaningless in this world. We must base our decisions on something more solid than a hodgepodge book written by hundreds of men over the course of thousands of years before people understood that the earth is round, disease is caused by complex biological interactions and thunder is created by electricity.

@Holly “In the US, we have done much to erode the rights (and, by extension, the responsibilities) of parenthood.”

I agree that government is encroaching on our rights as parents to raise our children. I see examples of this all too often, and they aren’t as dramatic as allowing a child to die due to a conscious lack of medical attention based on faith.

@Whitney – thank you for your perspective. I understand that the State has a need to step in to ensure that children are safe. I think that I’m having trouble with the ambiguity of the term, “safe.”

Some states prevent homosexuals from adopting a child to keep the child safe.

Some states keep children safe by teaching sex education (including reading a fairy tale about a same sex relationship) to second graders.

Some states refuse to remove children from their biological parents’ care even when parental abuse and neglect have been documented by state officials.

I make my kids do push-ups when they say certain words. How long before some government official decides that my kids are unsafe?

@John – In my mind, this has less to do with religion, and more to do with government entities encroaching on parents’ rights to raise their children. The case I identified is extreme, and the parents should certainly be held responsible for their lack of action.

My core principles are not centered around “freedom” in the libertarian’s definition. How extreme the example is going to shape my response. I (for instance) believe that you can regulate automatic weapons and still have acceptable gun rights. I can recognize a slippery slope as well as the next person, but I’m willing to sacrifice my right to let my kid try out an Uzi if that means I know another child somewhere will still be alive when that child’s parent isn’t a good enough judge of whether his child can safely fire a machine gun.

I often give this example of why we should tolerate a certain amount of inept government interference. If you are familiar with military life you know that the size of bureaucracy necessary to wage war (or “keep the peace”) is huge. When you have bureaucracy you get many instances of stupidity, absurdity, and injustice. But we MUST accept it. You can’t win a war and make sure that every soldier is treated fairly and every innocent village remains unscathed and we only kill “the bad guys”. You judge the overall objective and you accept a certain amount of problems and injustices. It’s only evil when you don’t try hard enough to do the least amount of damage as possible.

I view democracy the same way.

@adjustafresh – I only touched on that notion, but I think we started down a bad path when we started allowing children to sue their parents (NOT that there aren’t a few extreme cases where that might be a just thing to do – I just think the potential for abuse may outweigh the overall good). The threat of “I’ll call CPS!!” actually scares a lot of parents into NOT disciplining their child in any appropriate manner. From what I hear among educators, some parents have bought into this notion that children’s rights are superior – to the point of becoming bullying adversaries towards their kids’ teachers and school administrators. (Kids do NEED an advocate, occasionally, to stand up to those educators – but they do not need a mother or father who makes threats and cows those educators into not giving little Jane or Johnny the best education they can give, because they’re afraid of having to deal with Jane or Johnny’s dad if they tell them their work is not A-worthy and their behavior is unacceptable.) My daughter tried the “I’ll call CPS” once or twice. I handed her the phone and offered to dial the number.

They say that bad cases make bad law – and I think it’s true. THIS happens to be an extreme example that tugs at our heartstrings, but how much MORE damage has been done, over the years, by good intentions that result in making adversaries of parents, children, teachers, and neighbors? I grabbed a small child, once, as he darted out to the grocery store parking lot. His mother had been cut off from him by an oblivious shopper and her grocery cart. She couldn’t get to him quickly enough. He would very likely have been hit by a car. And I felt the need to apologize for TOUCHING her child?? What has this world come to? Fortunately, she was quite grateful and the child was unscathed.

Do I want the school teaching my child morality and sex education? No, but only because I’m afraid they won’t teach it accurately and scientifically. (Their “lifecycle of a chicken” worksheet goes: Hen lays egg, egg hatches, chick grows up to be a hen, lays an egg… Okay, where’s the @#$% rooster??) Too many parents, though, are happy to turn that job over to the schools. They have simply ABDICATED the responsibility (which has led to the schools feeling a need to cover these topics in order to set expectations for reasonable behavior).

Little Jane and Johnny shouldn’t have Uzis. They shouldn’t have guns, period – unless they are closely supervised and learning shooting skills on a safe range or hunting ground. We presume they haven’t got the judgment to drive a car or vote, so John’s example is extreme and unrealistic. But to think that human nature can be subverted – that little Johnny (and maybe Jane) won’t WANT a gun – if all gun-like toys and such are banned? That’s just stupid, as any parent knows. By age three, little boys are turning bananas, fingers, and pieces of toast into pretend guns, cannons, bombs, lasers, light sabers, and other weapons of mass destruction. It’s better to teach them about consequences and “mistakes you cannot afford to make” early on. And to teach them that violence is the LAST resort. And to teach them that revenge comes at a personal price.

What I want to know is why so many people have kids in the first place, if they don’t want them, won’t talk to them, and are happy and eager to turn them over to others to raise?