Parents lose custody of son after stopping chemo

[tourist]

I disagree, in this case. The child has cancer: we know how to treat cancer, and it is most definitely not with hocus-pocus and CBD oil. These parents are idiots who could have killed their son, and the child deserves better.

He had mood swings and he lost his hair, so just stop the potentially life saving treatment cause it's difficult to cope with and watch through? Nah. Grow a backbone and suck it up. Chemo will save your kid's life. Not letting him have chemo will kill him, because, and listen closely holistic medicine/anti-vax/anti-science people: it is a statistical fact that chemo is not even remotely as dangerous as cancer.

If it were my child chemo would be considered and all the vaccinations current. The thing is, it is not my child and don't believe that the government should intrude in the care and well-being of the child. The fact is, I'm not a big fan of government and don't need them to watch over every aspect of my life from cradle to grave. That crap may be acceptable in Europe but that's not what I am about. I don't want to connect with the government but rather would prefer to disconnect.

 

[Susanna]

I think whatever is best for the child should come first.

The parents should not be able to warrant a death penalty on their child by denying the child medical treatment.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Some of the posts in this thread read like a page right out of "1984".

 

[Magenta]

If it were my child chemo would be considered and all the vaccinations current. The thing is, it is not my child and don't believe that the government should intrude in the care and well-being of the child. The fact is, I'm not a big fan of government and don't need them to watch over every aspect of my life from cradle to grave. That crap may be acceptable in Europe but that's not what I am about. I don't want to connect with the government but rather would prefer to disconnect.

Before you know it, children will be being removed from their parents because the parents wish to bring their child/ren up with Christian beliefs which the government finds unacceptable

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Before you know it, children will be being removed from their parents because the parents wish to bring their child/ren up with Christian beliefs which the government finds unacceptable

Exactly. This kind of thing always has a tendency to snowball.
I fail to understand all the trust placed in govco when they have lied to us habitually, even the medical establishment with all the horrible things they have done, like the rediculous exponential increase in meds for folks with diabetes.
The same people who say there is no God or that God is dead and that we descended from monkeys and amoebas, are telling us that gender is a social construct, the same education system which brought us moral relativism, modernism, post modernism, and are still trying to sell us the failed economic system of socialism are the same who used govco force take the kids from those people, and the media tells their spin of the story and all these folks here jump right on the band wagon.
1984 is a short book, you all should read.

 

[Ohm]

If it were my child chemo would be considered and all the vaccinations current. The thing is, it is not my child and don't believe that the government should intrude in the care and well-being of the child. The fact is, I'm not a big fan of government and don't need them to watch over every aspect of my life from cradle to grave. That crap may be acceptable in Europe but that's not what I am about. I don't want to connect with the government but rather would prefer to disconnect.

Society necissaily undertakes a duty to protect children who can't make their own choices. I get the principle of your argument but there are instances where the principle falls apart: if we take the principle to its extreme then we are saying "your child is your property. Do to it what you wish".

It doesn't hold up to moral scrutiny.

 

[tourist]

Society necissaily undertakes a duty to protect children who can't make their own choices. I get the principle of your argument but there are instances where the principle falls apart: if we take the principle to its extreme then we are saying "your child is your property. Do to it what you wish".

It doesn't hold up to moral scrutiny.

The thing is that there are no morals in society. I believe that the child is God's property. I agree with your position too that there are times when government intervention is necessary if the parents are neglectful or abusive and the child's life and well-being is in peril. I'm not sure that if the parents are just generally ignorant that the government should step in.

 

[Ohm]

The thing is that there are no morals in society. I believe that the child is God's property. I agree with your position too that there are times when government intervention is necessary if the parents are neglectful or abusive and the child's life and well-being is in peril. I'm not sure that if the parents are just generally ignorant that the government should step in.

I think at a point, ignorance becomes serious negligence. Case in point: being so ignorant about medicine that you take your son off life saving, medically necessary, cancer treatment.

Child abuse is always abusive, whether it is intentional or not.

 

[Ohm]

Before you know it, children will be being removed from their parents because the parents wish to bring their child/ren up with Christian beliefs which the government finds unacceptable

In any developed, democratic society, this has never happened, so far as I am aware. Because here is the thing: there is a significant element of circumstantial investigation, context, and common sense written throughout child protection legislation, in all developed countries. It isn't about controlling parents so much as protecting children from abuse. There must be some level of protection for children. You must see that, surely? We can't just have a society where children are considered property and parents are given license to treat them however they so wish.

And that is the context.

Without context, these protections can be see as "infringing on rights" or "goevrnment control". But really, they are manifestations of what the vast majority of society deem to be adequate and necessary laws. As a society, most of us do not want to see children hurt or endangered, thus, we have laws to help prevent that from happening, and to address cases in which it has already happened.

Although it's easy to take a principle like "power to raise a child how one wishes" and advocate for it to the extreme out of fear of "complete government control", It's important to always look at context. Is the legislation for the protection of children necessary for the common good?

I say unequivocally, yes.

 

[Magenta]

In any developed, democratic society, this has never happened, so far as I am aware. Because here is the thing: there is a significant element of circumstantial investigation, context, and common sense written throughout child protection legislation, in all developed countries. It isn't about controlling parents so much as protecting children from abuse. There must be some level of protection for children. You must see that, surely? We can't just have a society where children are considered property and parents are given license to treat them however they so wish.

And that is the context.

Without context, these protections can be see as "infringing on rights" or "goevrnment control". But really, they are manifestations of what the vast majority of society deem to be adequate and necessary laws. As a society, most of us do not want to see children hurt or endangered, thus, we have laws to help prevent that from happening, and to address cases in which it has already happened.

Although it's easy to take a principle like "power to raise a child how one wishes" and advocate for it to the extreme out of fear of "complete government control", It's important to always look at context. Is the legislation for the protection of children necessary for the common good?

I say unequivocally, yes.

What comes to mind for me right away is how these bureaucracies often fail in the tasks they are set up to specifically address, and in fact, it cannot be claimed it is always for the children's good, as with the case/s of Aboriginal children being removed from their parent's care/separated from their culture to be indoctrinated, and placed in residential schools where they were systematically sexually abused.

 

[Ohm]

What comes to mind for me right away is how these bureaucracies often fail in the tasks they are set up to specifically address, and in fact, it cannot be claimed it is always for the children's good, as with the case/s of Aboriginal children being removed from their parent's care/separated from their culture to be indoctrinated, and placed in residential schools where they were systematically sexually abused.

I agree, it's not always done properly. Another great example of this are the abuses in various churches by pastors, priests and ministers alike which were covered up or ignored by secular authorities. But I don't think either of those atrocities is a sufficient reason to completely remove laws that are meant to protect children.

That would seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Magenta]

I agree, it's not always done properly. Another great example of this are the abuses in various churches by pastors, priests and ministers alike which were covered up or ignored by secular authorities. But I don't think either of those atrocities is a sufficient reason to completely remove laws that are meant to protect children.

That would seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You have made some good points Child protection is definitely a concern. My point, however, is that governments and people in positions of power and trust are often misdirected, corrupt, and perpetrate terrible abuses against those most vulnerable, uninformed, uneducated, marginalized, and/or innocent. I am borrowing this next part from a statement of faith:

In contrast to the church, governing authorities of the world have been instituted by God for maintaining order in societies. Such governments and other human institutions as servants of God are called to act justly and provide order. But like all such institutions, nations tend to demand total allegiance. They then become idolatrous and rebellious against the will of God. Even at its best, a government cannot act completely according to the justice of God because no nation, except the church, confesses Christ's rule as its foundation.

 

[Ohm]

You have made some good points Child protection is definitely a concern. My point, however, is that governments and people in positions of power and trust are often misdirected, corrupt, and perpetrate terrible abuses against those most vulnerable, uninformed, uneducated, marginalized, and/or innocent.

Yes, some do, but I would say that most don't. A minority of people who work in child protection are predators, but as a system, child protection institutions in modern countries usually do more good than harm.

At any rate, these laws are necessary. And in the context of the original post, they definitely carried out their purpose. They stopped a child from being denied cancer treatment.

 

[Magenta]

Yes, some do, but I would say that most don't. A minority of people who work in child protection are predators, but as a system, child protection institutions in modern countries usually do more good than harm.

At any rate, these laws are necessary. And in the context of the original post, they definitely carried out their purpose. They stopped a child from being denied cancer treatment.

I realize we are straying from the thread topic... but I was very interested to hear some of what Hilary was promoting during her campaign running up to the presidential election of 2016 in the United States, because part of her spiel was that such outmoded belief systems as Christianity need to be eradicated from society. Did she name Christianity? Not explicitly that I can recall. And yet her implications (or inferences) were clear. The new level of social tolerance erects a façade of tolerance until you disagree with their point of view, and the powers that be largely do not wish to tolerate Christianity. This brings us back to my original point. Even Obama openly mocked the Bible.

 

[Ohm]

I realize we are straying from the thread topic... but I was very interested to hear some of what Hilary was promoting during her campaign running up to the presidential election of 2016 in the United States, because part of her spiel was that such outmoded belief systems as Christianity need to be eradicated from society. Did she name Christianity? Not explicitly that I can recall. And yet her implications (or inferences) were clear. The new level of social tolerance erects a façade of tolerance until you disagree with their point of view, and the powers that be largely do not wish to tolerate Christianity. This brings us back to my original point. Even Obama openly mocked the Bible.

I get what you're saying. In my experience, my progressive, liberal, leftist friends firmly believe in tolerance. That is, tolerance of Christianity, atheism, gay people, Judaism, Islam, immigrants etc.

The point where that tolerance ends, however, is the point where prejudice, discrimination, abuse etc. begin. In other-words, we are tolerant of most things other than intolerance. Does that make sense? For example, I will support, always, your right to choose and practice whichever faith you desire -- that is part of your right of self-determination -- so long as it does not deprive anybody else of their own right to self-determination.

I will gladly accept a Muslim into my community or even my company, with all that entails, allowing them to pray three times a day and express their religious rights, so long as by doing so they don't impede anybody else's rights.

I would also support your right to mock atheism, as I support an atheist's right to mock religion. (I would prefer neither did this, but it's part of free speech). Where that ends, is where it become abusive, threatening, discriminatory etc. For example, I would be against a Christian refusing to employ an atheist on the virtue of their beliefs (except in a church setting, obviously), just as I would be opposed to an atheist refusing to employ a Christian due to their beliefs (except in an organization purposed to promote atheism, obviously).

So, you see, there are common sense exceptions, but in general, rights are for everyone and there's no reason to impede one person's for the sake of someone else's.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

In any developed, democratic society, this has never happened, so far as I am aware. Because here is the thing: there is a significant element of circumstantial investigation, context, and common sense written throughout child protection legislation, in all developed countries. It isn't about controlling parents so much as protecting children from abuse. There must be some level of protection for children. You must see that, surely? We can't just have a society where children are considered property and parents are given license to treat them however they so wish.

And that is the context.

Without context, these protections can be see as "infringing on rights" or "goevrnment control". But really, they are manifestations of what the vast majority of society deem to be adequate and necessary laws. As a society, most of us do not want to see children hurt or endangered, thus, we have laws to help prevent that from happening, and to address cases in which it has already happened.

Although it's easy to take a principle like "power to raise a child how one wishes" and advocate for it to the extreme out of fear of "complete government control", It's important to always look at context. Is the legislation for the protection of children necessary for the common good?

I say unequivocally, yes.

So you are saying that a thing we did up till about 100 years ago is not possible? Why is that? Because we allowed institutions and Govco to create a problem; so they are the only solution? Creating more dependency on the creator of the original problem, don't sound like wisdom to me.

 

[Dude653]

so doesn't work for everyone but it does work for a lot of people.
However there is no scientific evidence that suggests that marijuana treats cancer
so at least with the chemo the kid would have had a chance

 

[Locoponydirtman]

so doesn't work for everyone but it does work for a lot of people.
However there is no scientific evidence that suggests that marijuana treats cancer
so at least with the chemo the kid would have had a chance

So shouldn't a parent be able to say this isnt working for my child and spare the child the torment, in the cases where it isn't working?

 

[Robertt]

Oh to see the church moving in healing and then this would not be a thread ever seen here again.

WE have moved so far from the early church, Christ healed, the apostles healed. and now we all just live in faith but that faith is so small it is less than a mustard seed and cant move a mountain let alone cure cancer.

IF we spent more time praying and fasting instead of debating on line we might just find out that Jesus still love his people and wants to HEAL all that believe.

OH for the HOLY SPIRIT to fall upon us again as it did on day of Pentecost.

 

[Dude653]

I lost my wife to breast cancer
We were separated at the time and I found out later that she had stopped taking her chemo treatments so. theoretically she may have live longer if she had not stopped her treatments.
We will never know. However chemo has been known to work for some people. there is zero evidence to support marijuana having any cancer-fighting properties