Seven-year-old boy living as a girl

[carosio]

Was the judge right or wrong ?

 

From the brief account I've read, I think he's right as it seems the boy was coerced into living as a girl.

[Cyclone]

If we follow your argument then no one should have religious freedom or any other type of freedom because with freedom comes decisions that may not be in your own best interests.

No, that isn't a logical extension of what I said.

 

And I didn't pick that particular example to bash religion, I picked it because it's a very clear example of a parent's decision not actually being in the best interest of the child. Parents don't always make the best decisions, that's quite clear from all the horrible cases of neglect and abuse and even the 'well meaning' cases of the example I gave.

 

Its also not helpful to inflict your beliefs onto others, who are you to decide that the suffering and pain that comes from living is more important than the peace that can come from death.

 

If the belief is that children shouldn't be allowed to die when we can easily save them, well society disagrees with you and courts can and will overrule religious parents in the scenario I described.

[Petminder]

No, that isn't a logical extension of what I said.

 

And I didn't pick that particular example to bash religion, I picked it because it's a very clear example of a parent's decision not actually being in the best interest of the child. Parents don't always make the best decisions, that's quite clear from all the horrible cases of neglect and abuse and even the 'well meaning' cases of the example I gave.

 

If the belief is that children shouldn't be allowed to die when we can easily save them, well society disagrees with you and courts can and will overrule religious parents in the scenario I described.

 

But it is in the best interest of the child from the parents point of view, but I accept that some people think they know what is best for everyone so will interfere in the lives of others.

 

Its not in a child's best interest to be brought up religious from my point of view but then they aren't my children so its not my place or your place to interfere.

 

Its not in a child's best interest to do a lot of thing that they are allowed to do, eat cake and sweets but we allow them to get fat and die earlier than they should.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 12:35 ----------

 

Put yourself in a minority group, imagine a more religious world with the majority being Jehovah's Witnesses, would you be happy for them to force their beliefs onto you and your children?

[petemcewan]

But it is in the best interest of the child from the parents point of view, but I accept that some people think they know what is best for everyone so will interfere in the lives of others.

 

Its not in a child's best interest to be brought up religious from my point of view but then they aren't my children so its not my place or your place to interfere.

 

Its not in a child's best interest to do a lot of thing that they are allowed to do, eat cake and sweets but we allow them to get fat and die earlier than they should.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 12:35 ----------

 

Put yourself in a minority group, imagine a more religious world with the majority being Jehovah's Witnesses, would you be happy for them to force their beliefs onto you and your children?

 

Thank goodness we live in a secular society. Of course agencies of the state will

step in and prohibit harm being inflicted upon a child. At the moment secular society doesn't consider that a child being brought up to believe in religion is harmful to them. However, secular society does consider it unacceptable if a parent inflicts physical harm upon a child motivated out of religious doctrine.

It is obvious to most sane people that there is not a limitless degree of human action to which a person may go . Consequently, it's not insane for the state to impose limits on the amount of control parent's can have over the life of their

children. For instance,if a religious doctrine permitted the regular beating of a child, then a secular approach would put a stop to it. The parents can continue to believe in their religion and its doctrines.Ensuring the safety of their chlid wouldn't necessitate banning the religion.It would only necessitate stopping them from beating their child.

So as a secularist, I do believe there are occasions when the religious doctrinal

beliefs of parents have to be overruled . Certain religious zealots might consider it interference in their family and religion.

 

Note: Petminder.

What I've put may be full of philosophical gaffs- but it's the best I can do.

Edited October 28, 2016 by petemcewan

[Cyclone]

But it is in the best interest of the child from the parents point of view, but I accept that some people think they know what is best for everyone so will interfere in the lives of others.

 

Its not in a child's best interest to be brought up religious from my point of view but then they aren't my children so its not my place or your place to interfere.

 

Its not in a child's best interest to do a lot of thing that they are allowed to do, eat cake and sweets but we allow them to get fat and die earlier than they should.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 12:35 ----------

 

Put yourself in a minority group, imagine a more religious world with the majority being Jehovah's Witnesses, would you be happy for them to force their beliefs onto you and your children?

 

I'm glad that the state and the majority of people agree with me.

 

I can't understand how anyone could let their personal delusion cause the death of a child in their care, or how you could possibly be defending it as right.

 

FGM in the name of religion has been illegal for some time. Hopefully MGM will follow suit soon. Refusing a life saving blood transfusion will always be over-ruled by the state in the interest of the childs life. Religion in the UK is in decline as education continues to be widespread, and that can only be a good thing IMO.

[Petminder]

I'm glad that the state and the majority of people agree with me.

 

I can't understand how anyone could let their personal delusion cause the death of a child in their care, or how you could possibly be defending it as right.

 

FGM in the name of religion has been illegal for some time. Hopefully MGM will follow suit soon. Refusing a life saving blood transfusion will always be over-ruled by the state in the interest of the childs life. Religion in the UK is in decline as education continues to be widespread, and that can only be a good thing IMO.

 

But how would you feel if the majority didn't agree with you and forced you to go against your beliefs?

 

You call it a personal delusion they call it faith, your lack of understanding isn't the best reason to cause them unnecessary suffering.

 

I am aware that the state forces its beliefs onto people with different beliefs. The question is how would you feel if you was in the minority and they forced their beliefs onto you.

[petemcewan]

Petmonder,

 

Are you now broadening this discussion into the State and the rights of minorities ?

[Cyclone]

But how would you feel if the majority didn't agree with you and forced you to go against your beliefs?

 

You call it a personal delusion they call it faith, your lack of understanding isn't the best reason to cause them unnecessary suffering.

 

I am aware that the state forces its beliefs onto people with different beliefs. The question is how would you feel if you was in the minority and they forced their beliefs onto you.

 

My beliefs won't endanger any children.

 

How you can call it "unnecessary suffering" to save the life of a child and still live with yourself I don't know.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Cyclone

[Petminder]

My beliefs won't endanger any children.

 

How you can call it "unnecessary suffering" to save the life of a child and still live with yourself I don't know.

 

But your beliefs do endanger children, your beliefs are that this life is more important than the after life, by forcing your beliefs on people in this life you destroy their chance of a peaceful after life and condemn them to eternity of suffering, you also cause suffering in this life by splitting up parent and child, or forcing the parent to avoid medical help. Its possible that a child could be saved without the use of a blood transfusion but by removing the free will of parent and child you make it more likely that they will avoid seeking medical help.

[Robin-H]

But your beliefs do endanger children, your beliefs are that this life is more important than the after life, by forcing your beliefs on people in this life you destroy their chance of a peaceful after life and condemn them to eternity of suffering.

 

What on earth are you on about! I've never heard such tripe!