4 ms·

Are children the parents’ property or an individual we as a society should work to guarantee the best outcome? Should parents be allowed to kill their property

Are children the parents’ property or an individual we as a society should work to guarantee the best outcome? Should parents be allowed to kill their property?

SilverElfin 1y ago
[flagged]
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  No they are not. If you abuse them you can be put in prison and unlike property you can't sell them or use them as collateral. Propertarian ideology is delusional.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    I used the word “property” in quotes because I am just repeating the word the earlier comment used. I’m not suggesting you can sell people. You’re attacking a strawman. Regardless - my point stands that children belong first to the parents. Using words like “abuse”, which aren’t applicable to this situation at hand, is just a way to appeal to emotion rather than acknowledging that states taking over parental judgment is explicitly authoritarian.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      Not giving your child medical care is abuse.
      - SilverElfin 1y ago
        It is for parents to judge what medical care is appropriate. You’re making it seem like everyone must consent to injecting whatever the government tells them, which is dystopian.
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        No, children are not dolls for parents to neglect as much as they want with no legitimate justification. Are they allowed to withhold food too? Keep them from getting school? Marry 12 year olds off? Oh, woops, the GOP do support that last one.
        SilverElfin 1y ago
        If they want to homeschool, yes that is their fundamental right. Not everyone has to share the same culture or knowledge or way of life. As for food - do you think all Arab households should behave their children taken away when they withhold food for religious fasting?
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        Religious fasting is not starving and home schooling is not "no school". You didn't address the marriage thing either. I take that to mean you understand the point?
        SilverElfin 1y ago
        I understand that you don’t understand that religious fasting is literally “withholding food” - which you had a problem with until you flip flopped apparently. Sigh.
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        I didn't amuse your goal-moving example because it's not related and you're not bringing it up in good faith. I have never met in my entire life, in America, a family that engaged in religious starvation fasting. Not Catholic, not Jewish, not Muslim. Their fasting rules were eating bland food or only at certain times of the day. And it's for a limited period of time. But if a family makes a child go without eating for any prolonged period of time not for a medical necessity (pre-surgery, for instance), yes, they should get a a check-in from social services. And to go even further, if you only feed your child bad foods on purpose - like only bread and potatoes every day, when you can afford real food and diversity - you should also get a visit from social services. I seriously don't get why you're defending people like the Turpins. Do you genuinely not understand why these laws are necessary and why it is pivotal we have basic protections for children from their parents? You don't even need to look past Hollywood with Honey booboo and Justin Bieber and all that lot to see how dangerous parents can be, let alone the insidiousness and commonality of the lower-profile cases. Again, a number of sitting members of legislation in 2025 are arguing that children as low as the age of 12 should be allowed to be married off to adults who then (if they haven't already) rape them. And that child cannot legally get divorced without their parent's consent! In one hearing the politician admitted to knowing an example! So you can't even say "well it never happens." I can't believe it needs to be argued: in any just and equitable society, children have a right to a basically healthy upbringing. That means socialization, education (both physical and mental), healthcare, nutrition, and protection from those who would do them harm. They are not "lesser people" or property of their parents. It is a practical reality that some of their rights must be ceded because they are incapable, but their parents are meant to be guardians and not owners.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      They're very much applicable to the situation at hand. Abusive parents are a common enough phenomenon that it can't be handwaved away, and istm that abusive behavior is just taking this ownership idea to its logical conclusion, since there are few/no restrictions on exploiting or even destroying your own property as long as it doesn't impact others.
      - SilverElfin 1y ago
        Abusive parents are extremely rare. It should be hand waved away to give most parents the freedom to parent that they fundamentally deserve. Withholding a vaccine isn’t abuse - it’s just a legitimate decision to live differently and judge risks and benefits differently. What you’re arguing for is a highly controlled authoritarian culture with no room to think differently from the powers that be. Free societies value individual rights above societal ones exactly to avoid this basic authoritarian trap.
        BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
        > Abusive parents are extremely rare. The people who actually study this say you could not be more wrong. They probably also say you should stop randomly making things up and should consider what else you're also wrong about. "Approximately 1 in 4 children experiences child abuse or neglect in their lifetime ... 91% of the time, the perpetrator is a parent." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470337/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470337/ "Child abuse and neglect are common. At least one in seven children experienced child abuse or neglect in the past year in the United States." - https://www.cdc.gov/child-abuse-neglect/about/index.html#cdc_behavioral_basics_quick-quick-facts-and-stats https://www.cdc.gov/child-abuse-neglect/about/index.html#cdc... "Statistics provided by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) ... show that in about 82% of substantiated abuse cases the alleged perpetrator was the birth parent." - https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-0509.htm https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-0509.htm (adoptive parents are in there too but counted separately, in case you're wondering) I don't care how you slice the numbers, there's no way to get from 23% of children (90% of 25%) in the US having abusive parents to abusive parents being "extremely rare" unless your definition of "extremely rare" here is utterly insane.
fragmede 1y ago
Of course, we just don't agree on when it is acceptable. Between the ages of -.75 and -.50, it's generally legal to. Shifting the Overton window to make it legal for ages up to, say, 15, would be one for an ultra-left wing party to throw out there, just to disrupt the national conversation.

Are children the parents’ property or an individual we as a society should work to guarantee the best outcome? Should parents be allowed to kill their property?

SilverElfin 1y ago

[flagged]

anigbrowl 1y ago
No they are not. If you abuse them you can be put in prison and unlike property you can't sell them or use them as collateral. Propertarian ideology is delusional.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  I used the word “property” in quotes because I am just repeating the word the earlier comment used. I’m not suggesting you can sell people. You’re attacking a strawman. Regardless - my point stands that children belong first to the parents. Using words like “abuse”, which aren’t applicable to this situation at hand, is just a way to appeal to emotion rather than acknowledging that states taking over parental judgment is explicitly authoritarian.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    Not giving your child medical care is abuse.
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      It is for parents to judge what medical care is appropriate. You’re making it seem like everyone must consent to injecting whatever the government tells them, which is dystopian.
      - Tadpole9181 1y ago
        No, children are not dolls for parents to neglect as much as they want with no legitimate justification. Are they allowed to withhold food too? Keep them from getting school? Marry 12 year olds off? Oh, woops, the GOP do support that last one.
        SilverElfin 1y ago
        If they want to homeschool, yes that is their fundamental right. Not everyone has to share the same culture or knowledge or way of life. As for food - do you think all Arab households should behave their children taken away when they withhold food for religious fasting?
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        Religious fasting is not starving and home schooling is not "no school". You didn't address the marriage thing either. I take that to mean you understand the point?
        SilverElfin 1y ago
        I understand that you don’t understand that religious fasting is literally “withholding food” - which you had a problem with until you flip flopped apparently. Sigh.
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        I didn't amuse your goal-moving example because it's not related and you're not bringing it up in good faith. I have never met in my entire life, in America, a family that engaged in religious starvation fasting. Not Catholic, not Jewish, not Muslim. Their fasting rules were eating bland food or only at certain times of the day. And it's for a limited period of time. But if a family makes a child go without eating for any prolonged period of time not for a medical necessity (pre-surgery, for instance), yes, they should get a a check-in from social services. And to go even further, if you only feed your child bad foods on purpose - like only bread and potatoes every day, when you can afford real food and diversity - you should also get a visit from social services. I seriously don't get why you're defending people like the Turpins. Do you genuinely not understand why these laws are necessary and why it is pivotal we have basic protections for children from their parents? You don't even need to look past Hollywood with Honey booboo and Justin Bieber and all that lot to see how dangerous parents can be, let alone the insidiousness and commonality of the lower-profile cases. Again, a number of sitting members of legislation in 2025 are arguing that children as low as the age of 12 should be allowed to be married off to adults who then (if they haven't already) rape them. And that child cannot legally get divorced without their parent's consent! In one hearing the politician admitted to knowing an example! So you can't even say "well it never happens." I can't believe it needs to be argued: in any just and equitable society, children have a right to a basically healthy upbringing. That means socialization, education (both physical and mental), healthcare, nutrition, and protection from those who would do them harm. They are not "lesser people" or property of their parents. It is a practical reality that some of their rights must be ceded because they are incapable, but their parents are meant to be guardians and not owners.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    They're very much applicable to the situation at hand. Abusive parents are a common enough phenomenon that it can't be handwaved away, and istm that abusive behavior is just taking this ownership idea to its logical conclusion, since there are few/no restrictions on exploiting or even destroying your own property as long as it doesn't impact others.
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      Abusive parents are extremely rare. It should be hand waved away to give most parents the freedom to parent that they fundamentally deserve. Withholding a vaccine isn’t abuse - it’s just a legitimate decision to live differently and judge risks and benefits differently. What you’re arguing for is a highly controlled authoritarian culture with no room to think differently from the powers that be. Free societies value individual rights above societal ones exactly to avoid this basic authoritarian trap.
      - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
        > Abusive parents are extremely rare. The people who actually study this say you could not be more wrong. They probably also say you should stop randomly making things up and should consider what else you're also wrong about. "Approximately 1 in 4 children experiences child abuse or neglect in their lifetime ... 91% of the time, the perpetrator is a parent." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470337/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470337/ "Child abuse and neglect are common. At least one in seven children experienced child abuse or neglect in the past year in the United States." - https://www.cdc.gov/child-abuse-neglect/about/index.html#cdc_behavioral_basics_quick-quick-facts-and-stats https://www.cdc.gov/child-abuse-neglect/about/index.html#cdc... "Statistics provided by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) ... show that in about 82% of substantiated abuse cases the alleged perpetrator was the birth parent." - https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-0509.htm https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-0509.htm (adoptive parents are in there too but counted separately, in case you're wondering) I don't care how you slice the numbers, there's no way to get from 23% of children (90% of 25%) in the US having abusive parents to abusive parents being "extremely rare" unless your definition of "extremely rare" here is utterly insane.

fragmede 1y ago

Of course, we just don't agree on when it is acceptable. Between the ages of -.75 and -.50, it's generally legal to. Shifting the Overton window to make it legal for ages up to, say, 15, would be one for an ultra-left wing party to throw out there, just to disrupt the national conversation.