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
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