3 ms·

I'm familiar with those laws. The problem is that those laws can be invoked in ways that harm the child, just as easily as they can be invoked to prevent harm.

I'm familiar with those laws. The problem is that those laws can be invoked in ways that harm the child, just as easily as they can be invoked to prevent harm. You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child, and the state invokes those laws to the detriment of the child. I mean, it's too bad that the Ninth Circuit had to specify that "a social worker and a police officer are not entitled to qualified immunity for investigating a report of a child crying by making a nonconsensual entry into a home without a search warrant or special exigency and coercing a parent to aid them in strip-searching her child." [0] As I pointed out earlier - what happens when the parent is well-educated, and knows better than to allow some treatment for the child, but the state decides otherwise and forces something that harms the child? This is the risk which we run when we allow the state to have final say. Edit: archive link instead of original dead link. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100706002834/http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/caselaw/calabretta_v_floyd.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100706002834/http://www.family...

croon 4y ago
As an observer reading this exchange, this is my take: > You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child A(n ignorant) parent can absolutely genuinely care for the child, and yet abuse them with medical neglect if they've been brainwashed into thinking that (some) medical care is bad, even when it's not. That's what is being discussed here. > As I pointed out earlier - what happens when the parent is well-educated, and knows better than to allow some treatment for the child, but the state decides otherwise and forces something that harms the child? This is the risk which we run when we allow the state to have final say. I think the bigger question is which risk is larger, that the parent is right or a state employing experts. I'm sure both risks exist, I'm not sure both are even remotely as likely and thus as dangerous. [0] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/ohio-measles-outbreak-more-than-80-children-infected-as-fears-grow-of-growing-numbers-of-unvaccinated/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/oh...

croon 4y ago

As an observer reading this exchange, this is my take: > You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child A(n ignorant) parent can absolutely genuinely care for the child, and yet abuse them with medical neglect if they've been brainwashed into thinking that (some) medical care is bad, even when it's not. That's what is being discussed here. > As I pointed out earlier - what happens when the parent is well-educated, and knows better than to allow some treatment for the child, but the state decides otherwise and forces something that harms the child? This is the risk which we run when we allow the state to have final say. I think the bigger question is which risk is larger, that the parent is right or a state employing experts. I'm sure both risks exist, I'm not sure both are even remotely as likely and thus as dangerous. [0] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/ohio-measles-outbreak-more-than-80-children-infected-as-fears-grow-of-growing-numbers-of-unvaccinated/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/oh...