On parents right to raise their children according to their own beliefs

[Ubereil]

A while ago there was an an argument on homosexuality (with Oxlar). During this debate Oxlar claimed that he had the right to raise his daughter in any way he pleased as long as he wasn't directly harming her. I claimed that he didn't acually have this right, and that if he for instance believed that kids should be put out in the woods to fend for themselves at the age of seven then this wouldn't be right of him. Oxlar didn't find this example very relevant. Which I buy, even though I feel he could have gotten what I was saying even from this irrelevant example. Anyway, now I have a better example, taken from the real worl, to illustrate what I'm saying.

Before I go over to the example I want to clarify that I'm not interested in discussing wether Oxlar's decision to try and shield his daughter from homosexuality is right or not. That's not the point or this thread. The point of this thread is to show that it isn't Oxlar's right to do so.

Also, for the sake of having an example of something that isn't obviously bad for the child, I'm going to assume that exposing a child to homosexuality from an early age will make her comfused and that this will hamper her mental development, making is right to shield her from homosexuality. This is merely for the sake of having something to relate to when discussing how free parents should be in how they raise their child.

Now, the story (which I got here):

"I have been reading plenty of blogs on the current case ongoing in the U.S. about Daniel Hauser.

This is the 13 year old kid who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma which is a treatable form of cancer by chemotherapy. He had one dose of chemotherapy and refused to go back for any more. His parents then refused to take him back to any doctors because they were followers of an 'Native American' religion Nemenhah and that they are treating him with herbal treatments and remedies.

The survival rates for Hodgkins Lymphoma when diagnosed early are around 90-95% using chemotherapy treatment.

The survival rate for Hodgkins Lymphoma when it is not treated is 5%

A judge ruled that Daniel Hausers parents must take Daniel to a hospital to have a chest x-ray and then take the prescribed course of treatment prescribed by an oncologist.

Daniel was taken to the x-ray where it was found the tumour had grown back to the size it was before his dose of chemotherapy, so did his mother take him onto the oncologist to get the treatment he needs to give him the best chance of survival?

No... Daniel's mother has absconded with Daniel and now has a warrant out for her arrest and for Daniel to be taken into care.

Daniel himself refused the treatment because he didn't like the chemotherapy (which is understandable) and is now saying it is against his religion.

Daniel is home schooled and also illiterate."

There are good ways and bad ways to raise a child. We can discuss which ways are good and which are bad in great detail (for instance, is shielding the child from homosexuality a good way of raising her), and we can discuss how authoritarian we should be in allowing parents to raise their child in how they want. But the fact is that there are good ways and bad ways to raise a child. The difference between different ways can be quite subtle (like with shielding your child from homosexuality).

But, Daniel's an illiterate who's under severe risk to die from a disease that has a 90 % survival rate if treated properly, all because of how his parents raised him. I'm going to claim that the way Daniel's parents raised him is a bad way of raising a child. A way that may not have been directly harmful to him, but it has in the long run severely hampered his way to function in the world. Right or not, raising your way in this way is wrong.

Übereil

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

I dont like this argument. Forgetting homosexuality for a minute. The child is still the responsibility of a parent, i agree with oxlar in that if what you are teaching doesnt harm the child then it is ok.

Now onto homosexuality, i believe that even if being a homosexual is something you are born with(which i doubt but lets say for the sake of this argument it is), that doesnt force them into homosexuality, there is abstinence and there are homosexuals that live their life as a part of a regular heterosexual couple.

Putting both together, i dont believe that teaching a child that homosexuality is wrong is wrong.

EDIT: That said IMO you shouldnt teach your kids to hate anyone except for the devil maybe.

 

[Rithrandil]

In this case, the parents denying their kid badly needed medical treatment in favor of some faith based quackery could cost the child his life. Unfortunately, something like half the states in the U.S. have laws "protecting" parent's rights to use "faith healing" instead of medicine - those laws need to be removed, IMO. If adults want to be idiots and kill themselves, fine, but they shouldn't have the "right" to sentence their children to that fate as well.

But how are we defining harm? Do we mean only severe emotional or physical trauma? Or are we talking about a scale of harm, where you have to cross some sort of "harm threshold" before you forfeit your parental rights? I'd argue that keeping your child in the dark about science harms them and makes it harder for them to deal with the real world, especially if they enter into higher education. I don't think this necessitates removing kids from their parents, but I think schools definitely need to hammer home the difference between reality and faith.

When it comes to homosexuality - why should we listen to books written thousands of years ago about whether or not it is "wrong"? Homosexuality harms no one and there are homosexual animals in nature. If there was some evidence, etc, etc to show that homosexuality can actually harm people then I would say it would be reasonable to have a debate about whether or not it should be discriminated against. But there is no such evidence. If a homosexual is "living as a heterosexual" that is asking them to give up who and what they are solely to satisfy religious beliefs. Teaching a kid that homosexuality is wrong is, well, wrong.

If I teach my (hypothetical) kids that religious people (or some other group I have issues with) are wicked, immoral, and evil and that they should have their civil rights restricted, I'm sure that'd cause a huge amount of controversy from the eligious/whatever other group's side. What if I started a public movement, or private schools that taught this? What if I successfully lobbied the government to make it illegal for these people to get married solely because my "belief system" said they aren't entitled to the same rights that I am?

Teaching children that a certain class of society is "Wrong", regardless of whether or not what that class does actually harms anyone, is harmful to the development of the child. Telling children that homosexuals are committing evil acts is no different then a white supremacist telling his children that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote or drink from the same drinking fountain. Hell, now there's this concept of "civil unions" that some people are trying to push. Doesn't that seem remarkably similar to "Separate but Equal"? Why should we encourage such divisiveness, or even allow it? Children are NOT the property of the parents - the parents have the obligation to protect, raise, and care for the children - but they do not have the right to indoctrinate them on any issue they so choose.

 

[JemyM]

Our ability to accumulate experience over time is what separates us from animals. Even if a child deserves good parents, a child also deserve treatment based on the latest and best experience available, experience which must trump bad parents for the sake of the child.

 

[Benedict]

Now onto homosexuality, i believe that even if being a homosexual is something you are born with(which i doubt but lets say for the sake of this argument it is), that doesnt force them into homosexuality, there is abstinence and there are homosexuals that live their life as a part of a regular heterosexual couple.

Putting both together, i dont believe that teaching a child that homosexuality is wrong is wrong.

EDIT: That said IMO you shouldnt teach your kids to hate anyone except for the devil maybe.

So don't hate anyone except the devil & themselves if they're gay?

Edit - and, most likely, their partners if they push themselves for a lifetime of sham marriage.

 

[blatantninja]

It's a very slippery slope concerning religious beliefs and medical care. While I think any parent that would without life-saving care from their child is absolutely nuts, it's hard to say where the line should be drawn.

If you don't share the beliefs of those in question, it seems like an easy decision. However, turn it around a bit. I am 100% against female circumcision. Yet, a decent portion of the world believes in it. They think that I'm nuts for not being for it. Additionally, I have no problem with male circumcision. Some people would think I'm as nuts as the people that believe in female circumcision.

Yet, who is right? How do you legislate it without infringing upon the individual rights that we hold so dear? I really don't have a good answer.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

So don't hate anyone except the devil & themselves if they're gay?

Edit - and, most likely, their partners if they push themselves for a lifetime of sham marriage.

Nope just the devil. And in my mother country we have a 1.3% divorce rate and every one gets married, there is a small homosexual element in our country but it is much smaller than in the US.

The thing is that unlike the US we dont focus too much on sex and sexual needs, so we are less likely to be bitter if we are homosexual and get married.

 

[blatantninja]

Were are you from?

 

[Rithrandil]

It's a very slippery slope concerning religious beliefs and medical care. While I think any parent that would without life-saving care from their child is absolutely nuts, it's hard to say where the line should be drawn.

If you don't share the beliefs of those in question, it seems like an easy decision. However, turn it around a bit. I am 100% against female circumcision. Yet, a decent portion of the world believes in it. They think that I'm nuts for not being for it. Additionally, I have no problem with male circumcision. Some people would think I'm as nuts as the people that believe in female circumcision.

But female circumcision causes demonstrable harm to the female. It can lead to physical complications, injury, death, complete inability to enjoy sex (it also usually causes sex to be a physically painful act). Male circumcision does have some medical benefits, and even if it didn't, it's not equivalent to female circumcision (male circumcision has no harmful side effects as far as I know).

Yet, who is right? How do you legislate it without infringing upon the individual rights that we hold so dear? I really don't have a good answer.

I'd say you draw the line where you can demonstrably prove some harm starts. If you let your kid get chemo but also take him to church and pray for him, that does not cause harm to the kid (although some studies have shown that people who are prayed for actually get sicker then those who aren't prayed for). If you refuse medical treatment for a kid or subject them to something like female circumcision which has clearly been shown to cause harm to the kid then in my view you forfeit all rights to take care of the child. I don't care if your personal belief system says that you should do something to your child if that act can be proven to be wrong.

There are gray areas and matters of degree here, though. I think the important thing is to determine what we mean by "harm", though.

 

[Rithrandil]

Nope just the devil. And in my mother country we have a 1.3% divorce rate and every one gets married, there is a small homosexual element in our country but it is much smaller than in the US.

The thing is that unlike the US we dont focus too much on sex and sexual needs, so we are less likely to be bitter if we are homosexual and get married.

But why should homosexuals be forced into heterosexual marriages? What you are saying strikes me as similar to Ahmadinejad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran - is it that you have a "small homosexual element" and that you "don't focus on sex", or is that those elements of society are just repressed and discriminated against so they go into hiding?

 

[blatantninja]

But female circumcision causes demonstrable harm to the female. It can lead to physical complications, injury, death, complete inability to enjoy sex (it also usually causes sex to be a physically painful act). Male circumcision does have some medical benefits, and even if it didn't, it's not equivalent to female circumcision (male circumcision has no harmful side effects as far as I know).

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT ADVOCATING FEMALE CIRCUMCISION

Female circumcision has most of the the problems (outside of inability to enjoy sex) mainly due to the fact that where it is practiced, the methods used are crude and unsanitary. Do it in a hospital, and while the final effect (and main intent IMO) is still there, the others are no worse than any other operation.

Male circumcision can have "physical complications, injury, death" when not done in a sanitary environment. Additionally, it does reduce the sensitivity of the male significantly, though he can still enjoy sex.

I'd say you draw the line where you can demonstrably prove some harm starts. If you let your kid get chemo but also take him to church and pray for him, that does not cause harm to the kid (although some studies have shown that people who are prayed for actually get sicker then those who aren't prayed for). If you refuse medical treatment for a kid or subject them to something like female circumcision which has clearly been shown to cause harm to the kid then in my view you forfeit all rights to take care of the child. I don't care if your personal belief system says that you should do something to your child if that act can be proven to be wrong.

Again, you're on the slippery slope. What is harm? Since male circumcision reduces the sensitivity for the male, is that not harm as well? Especially given that with western hygiene, the hygiene reasons for male circumcision no longer exist.

There are gray areas and matters of degree here, though. I think the important thing is to determine what we mean by "harm", though.

Agreed.

 

[Prime Junta]

If you don't share the beliefs of those in question, it seems like an easy decision. However, turn it around a bit. I am 100% against female circumcision. Yet, a decent portion of the world believes in it. They think that I'm nuts for not being for it. Additionally, I have no problem with male circumcision. Some people would think I'm as nuts as the people that believe in female circumcision.

And to make it even funkier, I just read that the fastest-growing form of plastic surgery in the US is vaginoplasty and hymen restoration operations. That's pretty much the same thing, only it costs four grand and is done under medical supervision.

I'm totally opposed to FGM too -- but if it was only done at plastic surgery clinics to consenting adults, I have to say it'd be a good deal harder to argue that position.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Were are you from?

Sri Lanka.

But why should homosexuals be forced into heterosexual marriages? What you are saying strikes me as similar to Ahmadinejad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran - is it that you have a "small homosexual element" and that you "don't focus on sex", or is that those elements of society are just repressed and discriminated against so they go into hiding?

No they dont go into hiding. Though it is against the law to have homosexual sex( up to 10 years prison term).

 

[Rithrandil]

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT ADVOCATING FEMALE CIRCUMCISION

I know you're not. No confusion here. I'm just outlining why I think it falls into the category of "should be stopped regardless of people's beliefs" as opposed to a morally gray area.

Female circumcision has most of the the problems (outside of inability to enjoy sex) mainly due to the fact that where it is practiced, the methods used are crude and unsanitary. Do it in a hospital, and while the final effect (and main intent IMO) is still there, the others are no worse than any other operation.

Male circumcision can have "physical complications, injury, death" when not done in a sanitary environment. Additionally, it does reduce the sensitivity of the male significantly, though he can still enjoy sex.

Let's limit the discussion to sanitary environments, then - rule out things such as infection and what have you.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr30/en/index.html

Any female genital mutilation, even in modern hospitals, can lead to serious complications during childbirth. Some pretty scary statistics are listed within. It can significantly increase the risk of a baby dying during/immediately after childbirth and apparently can led to the mother hemorrhaging after the baby is born, as well.

Again, you're on the slippery slope. What is harm? Since male circumcision reduces the sensitivity for the male, is that not harm as well? Especially given that with western hygiene, the hygiene reasons for male circumcision no longer exist.

Male circumcision can limit enjoyment, but it's not to the same extent that any type of female circumcision causes - it also usually leads to sex being painful, not just less pleasurable. However, I'd argue the level of harm caused by this may or may not be outweighed by the benefits in terms of health it brings. Most pediatric medical organizations in the States are ambivalent about it. If I ever have a son I'm not sure what I'd do, though. I guess I'd just ask the doctors and go with what they say.

 

[Rithrandil]

No they dont go into hiding. Though it is against the law to have homosexual sex( up to 10 years prison term).

Of course they would go into hiding! Why would you advertise that you're gay if you could be thrown in jail for it?

 

[Benedict]

Nope just the devil. And in my mother country we have a 1.3% divorce rate and every one gets married, there is a small homosexual element in our country but it is much smaller than in the US.

The thing is that unlike the US we dont focus too much on sex and sexual needs, so we are less likely to be bitter if we are homosexual and get married.

:lol

The point I was trying to make was that by insisting that their own nature is wrong and something to be repressed they'll end up hating themselves and anyone that they're forced into an ultimately unfulfilling union with.

Whatever your cultural mores you are still primates like the rest of us, even if there isn't the cultural tendency to analyse and talk about levels of sexual satisfaction people will still feel it, it's too fundamental an evolutionary impulse for people not to.

Heh . . . rephrase that last paragraph as needed to fit in with your loony creationist views.

 

[Benedict]

Male circumcision does have some medical benefits, and even if it didn't, it's not equivalent to female circumcision (male circumcision has no harmful side effects as far as I know)..

It does HURT though.

 

[Rithrandil]

It does HURT though.

Well, yes - if my hypothetical son was to undergo said procedure it would be done under anesthesia

 

[Benedict]

Well, yes - if my hypothetical son was to undergo said procedure it would be done under anesthesia

It does HURT for a long time afterwards while it heals. It's in a fairly awkward position so that almost any movement of any kind tends to aggravate it, I have memories of sitting very, very still for a good few days demanding a steady supply of comics to read (I was about seven I think).

 

[Thoth]

It does HURT for a long time afterwards while it heals. It's in a fairly awkward position so that almost any movement of any kind tends to aggravate it, I have memories of sitting very, very still for a good few days demanding a steady supply of comics to read (I was about seven I think).

I know it's extremely awkward asking, but when did you have this done?! I had it done when I was a baby! I don't remember anything about it, but I do know I was horrified during my first health class when they showed... "the real deal"

On a side note, I believe the medical need for male circumcision is pretty dated at this point. The only reason for it was for cleanliness I believe, so there really is no point other then that that shit looks nasty.

EDIT: Just saw you had your age there... oops!