Login/Sign Up




Does the presence of unsupportable beliefs in the home justify the forcible removal of children?
Politics


Children's aid takes kids from a neo-nazi home
This is an unusual situation. The children live with their mother and neo-nazi step-father. He has drawn (non-permanent ink) a swastika on the little girl's arm, a teacher in school noticed it, and the children were forcibly removed from the home. ...
xanthippa
Jun 10, 2008
2 votes
2 debaters
2
1


+ Add Argument

1
Yes - teaching children hate is grounds for the state to sieze them from their parents


vancam
Jun 11, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
How would an investigation like this work? Social services could probably monitor the situation and interview the family I suppose?

Taking children from parents based on their political or religious based prejudices is a very scary move for Canadian authorities to make.

What if they decided to start removing children from slightly less far right wing families? How do you measure the extent of how right-wing someone is and if their children deserve to be effectively kidnapped?

At the same time. Common sense would dictate that allowing a child to be brain washed with anti-social behaviour like racism, xenophobia and homophobia is in itself inherently wrong and a lack of action is essentially an accomplice to the act.

More questions than answers I'm afraid. I just wanted to post something to try and trigger the debate growing into a larger discussion.

 
vancam
Jun 11, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: themind Show

Yes your 'Santa myth' example makes it almost impossible to argue that this is a good path to go down. However, as you point out, there has to be some protection for innocents suffering mental abuse.

Pre-parenting exams wouldn't be completely unreasonable. Presumably they could be based on the same proccess used to screen adopting parents? It does seems rather invasive though. It takes some of the romance out of having a child. And would effectively end unplanned pregnancies.

I'm still on the fence with this one.

 
vancam
Jun 12, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: themind Show

Yes, any guidance would have to allow for a wide mixture of unique cultural behaviours and in reality that isn't possible to define in a finite law.

 
+ Add Argument

1
No - if 'teaching unsupportable beliefs' to kids gave the state the right to sieze them, no religi


themind
Jun 11, 2008
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

The sticking point is the definition of 'abuse.' Do you take a child from his/her family if they are pressured into working 3-5 hour days, denied television, radio, overhead lighting, and internet, and punished physcially if they do not act 'appropriately'?

If so, the Amish community would dry up overnight.

 
themind
Jun 11, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

A sticky wicket, this one. I think the problem could be pre-empted by having a series of pre-parenting exams, allowing those who pass to reproduce... but that's another debate.

Both hate and abuse are cyclical. There must be a chain-breaker, and sometimes that should be the government acting in the best interest of the innocent.

HOWEVER, unsupportable beliefs being in the home should NEVER be grounds for any governmental action in the lives of citizens. Only when the safety of the children is in danger should the government have recourse. Otherwise, the Santa Myth, Religion, and thousands of other elements of belief and humanity would (by virtue of not being 'supportable') lead to state-run families, whch is a VERY BAD idea.


 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong