Seven-year-old boy living as a girl

[Petminder]

That post is not worthy of reply.

 

(Except to say it's not worthy of reply)

 

So its not about protecting children then, its about bashing the religious beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses.

[pmurtdlanod1]

What gives anyone the right to push their religious beliefs or lack of beliefs onto other people?

 

Totally agree thats why is fundamentally wrong for an adult to decide that their belief comes before the safety of a child in a life threatening situation:mad:

[Petminder]

Totally agree thats why is fundamentally wrong for an adult to decide that their belief comes before the safety of a child in a life threatening situation:mad:

 

 

Adults but children at risk of injury and death every minute of every day, but eliminating that risk involves you changing your life style, what you are proposing would save the life of very few children without any inconvenience for you. If you are that bothered about the safety of children you would stop doing everything that puts them at risk.

[petemcewan]

Cyclone,

 

I beg your pardon. I think I did understand the point you made-and I don't disagree with you.

 

Anyway, I've made my point. I personally don't want the thread to drag off into

parenting and religion. I just thought your point warranted an answer.

[carosio]

Its not best for the child in your opinion, whilst in their opinion it is whats best for their children.

 

Depends where one draws the line, ie, some parents might consult a Witch Doctor rather than an NHS doctor in the belief that it is in the best interests of their child.

[pmurtdlanod1]

Adults but children at risk of injury and death every minute of every day, but eliminating that risk involves you changing your life style, what you are proposing would save the life of very few children without any inconvenience for you. If you are that bothered about the safety of children you would stop doing everything that puts them at risk.

 

rubbish!! we are all at risk at some point or another you cant eliminate it, BUT on these grounds you can and even if one poor kids life were saved then its worth it:confused:

[petemcewan]

So its not about protecting children then, its about bashing the religious beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses.

 

Petminder.

 

It's not about bashing religion. It was an observation about religious doctine and a secular approach in relation to a child's health.

[Petminder]

rubbish!! we are all at risk at some point or another you cant eliminate it, BUT on these grounds you can and even if one poor kids life were saved then its worth it:confused:

 

We can eliminate most risks by changing our life styles, banning cars would save millions of lives.

[Becky B]

You're twisting my words like a politician, I never said it did involve changing gender although it is predominantly a female subject and probably always will be and quite rightly so, its traditionally what women do best just like traditionally men do other things better than women, nothing wrong with one gender being predominantly better at something than the other is they? We see the vast majority of nursery teachers and hairdressers are women because they are good at what them jobs involve and vice Versa for men in jobs such as car mechanics and joinery. Too much emphasis is based on equality and not enough on quality these days

 

I'm not that clever, to twist your words! I just read them...

You chose cooking to "be around all the girls and hated it" and in the same sentence said children should not be allowed to change gender. Maybe clearer punctuation would have helped clarify your meaning?

 

Do you think there might be fewer male nursery teachers because they are afraid of being labelled a paedophile following media hyperbole, rather than because "women are better at it"?

 

With regards your last sentence, do you consider that if women do "men's jobs" they are inferior at it and therefore there is less quality in the work? How incredibly patronising and patriarchal.

 

The 1950's called. They want their attitudes back.

 

[petemcewan]

Depends where one draws the line, ie, some parents might consult a Witch Doctor rather than an NHS doctor in the belief that it is in the best interests of their child.

 

 

And that's where the agencies of the State step in. So as to protect the child from actions detrimental to the child's physical and mental health that are motivated out of a parent's religious doctrinal beliefs or superstitions.

For the State to intervene at that level does not deny the parents their beliefs. So of course, there are limits to what parents can do to their children. And that brings us right back to the beginning. Was the judge right or wrong ?

Edited October 27, 2016 by petemcewan