Do Parents Always Know What's Best for their Children?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

idiots are allowed to have children. there is no qualification needed to bring a life into the world and take care of it.


absolutely some parents are unfit to take care of their children and absolutely it is right to take their parental rights in some cases. We do that already. The only issue is how fast can we add Jehovah's witnesses refusal to allow blood transfusions and imbeciles refusing to vaccinate their children to the list of people unfit to care for children.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

And society must sometimes leave behind its slowest members and improve despite them.

@zahlanzi said
And society must sometimes leave behind its slowest members and improve despite them.

35 U.S. states have eliminated an age requirement for hunting. A parent can give a toddler in diapers a loaded rifle in the woods. Yes, a mentor must accompany the infant. However, I find such laws deplorable.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-wisconsin-hunting-age-20171113-story.html

@phranny said
35 U.S. states have eliminated an age requirement for hunting. A parent can give a toddler in diapers a loaded rifle in the woods. Yes, a mentor must accompany the infant. However, I find such laws deplorable.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-wisconsin-hunting-age-20171113-story.html

google how many underage girls get married in the US since we are trying to depress each other😀

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The main problem, in a classical liberal society that values individual freedom, is that the anti-vaxx parent is making a choice which, if made the same way by every parent, would convert an isolated infection into a pandemic. This is predictable. Such situations, if genuine, must be addressed if the society is to continue to provide maximum freedom to the individuals that comprise it.

It is also reminiscent of the issue of in loco parentis but in a reverse sort of way, in that the parent would rather not cede direct, exclusive control.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Not vaccinating your kids isn't a legitimate option, and it shouldn't be available.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Obviously, in a secular society, a religious objection cannot be treated differently from any other objection.

@js357 said
The main problem, in a classical liberal society that values individual freedom, is that the anti-vaxx parent is making a choice which, if made the same way by every parent, would convert an isolated infection into a pandemic. This is predictable. Such situations, if genuine, must be addressed if the society is to continue to provide maximum freedom to the individuals that comp ...[text shortened]... i] but in a reverse sort of way, in that the parent would rather not cede direct, exclusive control.

we are thinking too much about parenting as a right and not a privilege. You don't have a right to your child. You are merely the care provider. You provide care until you prove unfit to provide it, in which case we already have ways to remove children and place them in the care of someone that is fit.

We worry too much about trampling on the rights of the parent when the well being of the child should always take precedence.

Not vaccinating children should be considered child abuse. It is child abuse, we simply didn't make laws on this yet because, in the past, we never thought someone would be so dumb as to dismiss established science that saved millions.

@kazetnagorra said
Obviously, in a secular society, a religious objection cannot be treated differently from any other objection.

In a secular society a religious objection should be given no weight.
Only the facts and current best-practice matter.

Otherwise one could make up a religion extolling any sort of mad practice.
(Like circumcision or FGM)