I agree that deprivation of the ability to communicate with the outside world, beatings that could result in brain damage, and senseless mutilation definitely do violate the child's (negative) right to emancipation.
The issue of some blind parents wanting blind children is something that makes a lot more sense once you do some research on the blind culture, think about it for a while, and really contemplate how different the parents' life experience would be from their sighted children. The idea of having children who perceive the world so differently must be terrifying to them... Outlawing artificial blindness would in many cases result in those children never being born in the first place!
Do you really believe that death / non-existence is better than blindness?!
And what gives you the right to force that opinion on someone else?!
They didn't initiate force, they have birth to a baby that shares their disability.
Cutting out your kids eyes is not comparable to cutting off a quarter cm of a completely pointless flap of skin. |
Parents are referred to as guardians and custodians for a reason. |
Libman - how far do parents' rights go? |
What about those people who are born with no skin, should they be allowed to flay their children? |
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/GeordiLaForge.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordi_La_Forge) | (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Ocularimplant.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_prosthesis) |
I too am optimistic about potential technologies that input artificial sensory data into the brain...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/GeordiLaForge.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordi_La_Forge) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Ocularimplant.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_prosthesis)
... but that's not what this thread is about. It's about parents' rights.
You're still basing your interpretation of natural rights on wishful thinking and not reason.
From embryo selection to abortion, fertility treatment to stem cell research, medical advances have created a furious ethical debate. Now MPs must decide how far science should be allowed to go. Robin McKie and Gaby Hinsliff report. Sunday 9 March 2008
Like any other three-year-old child, Molly has brought joy to her parents. Bright-eyed and cheerful, Molly is also deaf - and that is an issue which vexes her parents, though not for the obvious reasons. Paula Garfield, a theatre director, and her partner, Tomato Lichy, an artist and designer, are also deaf and had hoped to have a child who could not hear.
'We celebrated when we found out about Molly's deafness,' says Lichy. 'Being deaf is not about being disabled, or medically incomplete - it's about being part of a linguistic minority. We're proud, not of the medical aspect of deafness, but of the language we use and the community we live in.'
Now the couple are hoping to have a second child, one they also wish to be deaf - and that desire has brought them into a sharp confrontation with Parliament. The government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) bill, scheduled to go through the Commons this spring, will block any attempt by couples like Garfield and Lichy to use modern medical techniques to ensure their children are deaf. The bill is a jumbo-sized piece of legislation intended to pull together all aspects of reproductive science in Britain and pave the way for UK scientists to lead the field in embryology. But in trying to do so, the civil servants drafting the bill have provoked a great deal of unrest. [...]
You're still basing your interpretation of natural rights on wishful thinking and not reason."Governments keep law. They must be allowed to write their own laws, or they'll simply choose not to create them!"
Parents create children. They must be allowed to do so on their terms, or they'll simply choose not to create them!
The point of rights is societal competitive advantage.
I'm interested in this topic, but don't want to discuss it with Libman. Damn.
I'm interested in this topic, but don't want to discuss it with Libman. Damn.
in a true free market, parents would desire that their offspring were as healthy and wholesome as possible so that they could be as competitive as was necessary to succeed and excell in whatever endeavors they might chooseIn a true free market, `echo $myvalues | sed 's/should/would/g' -`!
Cutting out your kids eyes is not comparable to cutting off a quarter cm of a completely pointless flap of skin.
A Florida couple is behind bars for some old school discipline
A Palm Bay woman and her boyfriend were arrested Monday for child abuse after the couple went old school to punish their 8-year-old daughter for swearing.
They washed her mouth out with soap.
We don't know about you, but we would petition President Obama and Congress to make it mandatory for every parent to carry a bar of Irish Spring in their back pockets with all the profanity kids use today.
Police claim Adriyanna Herdener and Wilfredo Rivera went too far by placing a bar of soap in the girl's mouth and letting it stay for 10 minutes. Herdener did not intervene in the discipline.
The girl eventually vomited and Rivera took her to the local hospital, where hospital staff called police.
No one wants a child to be hurt or inhumanely punished, but parents' discipline choices in this country have come down to calling Dr. Phil or hiding the joysticks to the Wii.
Next time your kid has a potty mouth, just give them some gum.