Now im left wondering whos freedom are we talking about? Certainly not the freedom of the child, we are simply arguing who is a better "ruler" for the child rather than surporting the childs right to chose.
I take it you are also a firm believer in not immunising children, since we, as parents, are injecting our children with illnesses to build up their immunity, without their consent?
For instance in another thread I asked why you cant wait till a boy is an adult and able to chose wether they want to be cirumsised except in cases of medical nessecity and put legislation into effect to surport this. mad (i belive) stated that would be "restricting freedom" and i was left wondering "who cares?, you are already restricting the childs freedom by forcing the decision on them".
Which is hypocritical, in and of itself. You say that parents should only have the right to choose for their child, if it is deemed a medical necessity. Aren't parents restricting the child's freedom if they take the path of the slice and dice when there might be other options available, or the procedure is deemed necessary?
When exactly did children become "property" of the parents?
I believe mine became my "property" when one popped out of my uterus after 21 hours of labour and the other was sliced out in a life and death situation.
I think that I, as my children's mother, have the right to make decisions for them for their own benefit. I decide what they eat, wear, where they go, what they do, what they watch on TV, what they read, drink, who they socialise with, what language they speak, what they learn, how they learn, when they go to bed...
That is my role as their parent. My husband shares the same role.
It was about "shared parenting" in family break ups and the interviee (i think from memory it was someone from the department of family and community but i cant be sure) stated that the primary intrest is ALWAYS "the good of the child". So why is this fundermental in divorce but not in the rest of life?
That would pertain to child support and the driving force behind child support is that both parents are financially and emotionally responsible for their children, and that responsibility does not wane even if the parents are no longer in a relationship.
Children are not free and i would rather see the goverment in charge of them than parents because at least goverment SOMETIMES lissions to scientific opinion.
Hah!
Oh, you're serious?
So if we have a Government led by someone like Abbott for example, who is against the cervical cancer vaccine and deems it inappropriate.. Do you think he would listen to scientific opinion?
What about the bumbling twats in Government who knowingly allow children to remain in abusive households, resulting in the injury or deaths of those children?
I work for the Federal Government, in a department that deals directly with issues regarding children. I would not trust
any Government to raise my children. Unless they pop my children out of their collective womb, they do not raise my children.
My sister in law for example never will, both my sister who is a peadiatric physio and my mum who is a primary school teacher and who raised 4 children of her own told her specifically that doing x will retard the babies development but she "knows better" than 2 people who have proffessional qualifications (and there for education) in childhood development.
There is something to be said for offering opinions about how one should raise one's children when one did not ask for said opinion. It is called interferring. And it is usually not taken well when the unwanted opinion comes from one's inlaws.
How many parents have sat down and read ANY scientific lit on ANY topic, let alone on childhood development, child welfare, pediatric health ect?
So you, as a person who does not have children, think you are more qualified to tell people who have brought up their children from conception, how to raise their children?
People have been bringing up children since the dawn of human evolution. Parents, whether they read scientific studies or not, learn as they go. A scientific paper or study telling you why newborn cries, will not provide the tools of stopping a newborn from crying because not every newborn is the same. I read everything I could get my hands on when I was pregnant with my first child. And then my obstetrician snorted with laughter when I showed him a particular article and told me to stop and that I, like every other parent on earth, would simply forget everything I had read and would learn as I went.
And he was right.
My sister in law has Zero education above highschool, my brother has started a computer engernering degree, they have had a child for 9 months. My sister on the other hand spent 3 years studying mostly childhood development and then has worked in that area for another 2. Mum spent 4 years studying childhood development and education and has worked for 10 years with younger primary children plus has raised 4 kids. So at the end of the day who knows what they are talking about when they say (to use one example) "Jolly jumpers" impead childhood development specifically the ability for a child to learn how to walk?
My eldest used one and was holding the walls and walking when he was 6.5 months.
All I can say to your example is bollocks.
Let me give you a parenting tip. If a jolly jumper makes your child laugh, it safe to use and stops your child from screaming its head off for hours on end, then the jolly jumper will become your friend while your child still finds happiness in it.
Why is it that sociaty requires 2 years worth of education (variable depending on location) plus 3 written and one practical exam and a 4 year traineeship where they face tighter restrictions in order to drive a car yet we alow ANYONE to raise a child (or multiple children)
Education does not equal good parenting skills.
My friend works in child care, she is required to hold a Tafe level certificate plus a working with children qualification and first aid qualifications. If this is nessary for child care workers why shouldnt it be required for parents?
Ah possibly because they are deemed educators and are in charge of approximately 10 - 20 children all within the same age range?
The goverment is elected to represent sociaty and is SURPOSED to make decisions based on scientific evidence.
Which is why we are so advanced on embryonic research for example? Stem cell research?
Have you forgotten the debates held in Parliament about said research?
why should parents have any say in wether there childs genitals are mutilated? (FGM, MGM) ect ect.
What gives the Government the power over how I raise my children? Why do you think you, a public servant, should have more say in how I raise my children?
So far, your examples have only proven why the Government should not raise people's children.
thats why we spend so much money on senate inquires (for example).
Most of which are a waste of time and a waste of tax payer's money.
Further more the departments hire experts in there fields and consult with experts in universities ect. There for it makes a hell of a lot more sense that these sorts of issues regarding child health and development be made by goverment than my the lowest common denominator (who are the ones who tend to breed more i might point out, possably because they dont realise that you have to actually OPEN the condom wrappers for it to work)
You do realise that the very departments who have all the experts on hand, are the very one's who fail at protecting children in abusive situations, right?
How many issues have we seen, how many cases have we seen where children have been forced to remain in abusive households to their own detriment and injury, after "expert" opinion demand they remain there?
And I cannot believe you just made that comment about people who tend to have more children, when your own mother had 4 children.
what a load of crap, parents who mutilate there own children compared to teachers? nurses? paramedics? childcare workers?
Many of which also "mutilate" their own children.
I have really had it with that attitdude of the public service most of whom chose to sacrifice the pay they could get in the private sector because they care enough to take up public sector work.
Just because people who work in the public sector willingly, does not mean that they are more qualified to make day to day decisions about the care and wellbeing of other people's children.
Considering how often those working in the public sector abuse their position and the children in their care, your proposition is laughable at best.
Most of the people in the public sector enter the public sector because it pays so well when you first get out of university, compared to the private sector where the base salary is almost half.
