“There is no “good faith” justification for letting parents—who perhaps mean well—allow their children to harm themselves.” One problem with this line of thinking is that the government’s ideology of “right and wrong” then trumps the parent’s. There are implications of allowing this as Joseph Backholm points out in his article on public education. It becomes a slippery slope. Historically our government has not clearly defined where the line between the state’s interest in the child ends and the parent’s begins. If it’s a case of life-saving blood transfusion for a Seventh Day Adventist’s child, the parent can choose. If it’s a case of leaving a child home alone the state often intervenes because of potentially harmful neglect. I believe the Bible is quite clear that God gives parents both rights and responsibilities regarding their children and in the end parents will answer to Him not society for their choices.
I see your point and agree that there need to be clear boundaries before the state decides it knows better than parents how to take care of kids. It's definitely an important discussion that needs to happen.
But wouldn't carving up/sterilizing otherwise healthy kids' bodies (especially since we won't even let them legally get a tattoo) fall pretty clearly in the "abuse of children" category? That being said, I do think the most effective thing would be to legally go after the medical institutions that have monetized this whole issue at the expense of their patients' well-being. It's one of the many reasons for my increasing distrust of the medical establishment.
WCUN6811
Good article. I can't help but observe that David French didn't seem nearly as "libertarian" in his treatment of COVID issues.
Tom Ratkovich
Thank you for this thoughtful piece. I generally agree with your outcomes but come to them from a differing perspective. As outlined in the post below, I believe that God has granted us free will, and that the government’s overarching function is to ensure that its citizens can exercise their (God-given) free will so long as, in doing so, those citizens do not inhibit others from doing the same. The fact that laws protecting the exercise of free will are, to most, morally correct is fortuitous but incidental. The underlying premise is that God prefer that we come to obedience through faith rather than legislation. https://therighteouswillanswer.com/2023/02/02/free-will-the-role-of-government/
Matthew Alger
Good points, but it does miss an important point that French made in other pieces and concurrently on Twitter, that legislative efforts to ban these procedures are good and proper. Using CPS to address it as abuse is unwise, whereas declaring in law that it is wrong is right and proper. His argument is apples to oranges and misses because of that, but we should still take care in how we punish evil.
California’s legislation is wrong even as legislation, whereas Texas allegedly errs on methodology of the ban and punishment, not on the intent.
Josh Bishop
Excellent. Thank you.
Reepicheep
Good article. It's never whether, but which. There is no moral neutrality.
This article is at odds with the March 9th piece:
https://wng.org/opinions/a-human-rights-test-in-nigeria-1678366601
The previous piece rests upon the assumption of neutrality.
“There is no “good faith” justification for letting parents—who perhaps mean well—allow their children to harm themselves.” One problem with this line of thinking is that the government’s ideology of “right and wrong” then trumps the parent’s. There are implications of allowing this as Joseph Backholm points out in his article on public education. It becomes a slippery slope. Historically our government has not clearly defined where the line between the state’s interest in the child ends and the parent’s begins. If it’s a case of life-saving blood transfusion for a Seventh Day Adventist’s child, the parent can choose. If it’s a case of leaving a child home alone the state often intervenes because of potentially harmful neglect. I believe the Bible is quite clear that God gives parents both rights and responsibilities regarding their children and in the end parents will answer to Him not society for their choices.
I see your point and agree that there need to be clear boundaries before the state decides it knows better than parents how to take care of kids. It's definitely an important discussion that needs to happen.
But wouldn't carving up/sterilizing otherwise healthy kids' bodies (especially since we won't even let them legally get a tattoo) fall pretty clearly in the "abuse of children" category? That being said, I do think the most effective thing would be to legally go after the medical institutions that have monetized this whole issue at the expense of their patients' well-being. It's one of the many reasons for my increasing distrust of the medical establishment.
Good article. I can't help but observe that David French didn't seem nearly as "libertarian" in his treatment of COVID issues.
Thank you for this thoughtful piece. I generally agree with your outcomes but come to them from a differing perspective. As outlined in the post below, I believe that God has granted us free will, and that the government’s overarching function is to ensure that its citizens can exercise their (God-given) free will so long as, in doing so, those citizens do not inhibit others from doing the same. The fact that laws protecting the exercise of free will are, to most, morally correct is fortuitous but incidental. The underlying premise is that God prefer that we come to obedience through faith rather than legislation. https://therighteouswillanswer.com/2023/02/02/free-will-the-role-of-government/
Good points, but it does miss an important point that French made in other pieces and concurrently on Twitter, that legislative efforts to ban these procedures are good and proper. Using CPS to address it as abuse is unwise, whereas declaring in law that it is wrong is right and proper. His argument is apples to oranges and misses because of that, but we should still take care in how we punish evil.
California’s legislation is wrong even as legislation, whereas Texas allegedly errs on methodology of the ban and punishment, not on the intent.
Excellent. Thank you.
Good article. It's never whether, but which. There is no moral neutrality.
This article is at odds with the March 9th piece:
https://wng.org/opinions/a-human-rights-test-in-nigeria-1678366601
The previous piece rests upon the assumption of neutrality.