All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Tami]

Sigh.....logic here.

Parent's have a responsibility to care for and raise their children. They have a right to decide how to raise and care for their children so long as their children are taken care of to the best of the parent's ability (Food, shelter, health care, kept safe from harm, etc.).

Parent's don't have a right to control how other parents choose to raise their children. They can advise or suggest or even try to influence, but they should not have a blanket ability to make decisions, requirements, or prohibitions in regards to other families.

If they believe that a child is in danger, then they can report it to the local authorities who would then investigate the concern.

Government agencies can pass laws to protect children from harm, but the issue becomes what defines harm to a child? That is where it can get murky. Some types of harm are clear and well accepted such as abuse, neglect, abandonment.

When it comes to education or health care, then the question can be contentious. It shouldn't be, since logic has it that the rule of 'Best Possible' should apply to both. Best Possible Health Care and Best Possible Education based on a universally accepted modern standard designed to keep children physically and mentally healthy and well educated enough o have a chance to survive, thrive and be successful as adults. However, , as stated above,, Parents still retain the right to decide how their children should be educated, where their children should be educated, and by whom their children should be educated. Same with health care, so long as the children meet the standards of health and not neglect.

[JackDaw]

What rights should parents have apart from those that ensure being able to provide for their children (which basically make them children rights)?

Factually there’s a lot of established law in US that parents do have rights. If you doubt that, you can always check via Google.

I won’t define it in strict legal terms (I probably couldn’t even if I wanted to), but in lay terms it’s something like:-

Parents have the fundamental right to make decisions regarding their child's upbringing without government interference. These decisions include decisions about education, religion, and healthcare. While government mandates require that a child is provided with an education, the parent has the right to choose whether they will enroll the child in private school, public school, or homeschooling.

Which of those rights would you want to deny parents?? (Of course, those rights aren’t absolute, they can be taken away IF the parents are monsters. But then, few rights are absolute!)

[Catlady in training]

I know this is unpopular, but I don't think parents should have a right to decide religion for their children. No, I don't know how it could be done in law, just speaking how I would prefer to have it. I'm not talking about teaching them about religion, but about stuff like baptism when the child is clearly unable to consent. Circumcision or piercing of ears should be no go too. Funny how nobody who worries about "permanent damage to the bodies" ever mentions those. I'm not saying wait until they're 18, but just until the're old enough to decide.

And it seems like in the US, parents have more options to make decisions about their children based on their ideology. Not vaccinating them, keeping them home-schooled. It's one thing if it's for the benefit of the child (like if the child is bullied in school or disabled and can better learn at home), it's something else when the parents want to shield their children from some boogeyman like gender ideology or CRT.

[JackDaw]

I know this is unpopular, but I don't think parents should have a right to decide religion for their children. No, I don't know how it could be done in law, just speaking how I would prefer to have it. I'm not talking about teaching them about religion, but about stuff like baptism when the child is clearly unable to consent. Circumcision or piercing of ears should be no go too. Funny how nobody who worries about "permanent damage to the bodies" ever mentions those. I'm not saying wait until they're 18, but just until the're old enough to decide.

And it seems like in the US, parents have more options to make decisions about their children based on their ideology. Not vaccinating them, keeping them home-schooled. It's one thing if it's for the benefit of the child (like if the child is bullied in school or disabled and can better learn at home), it's something else when the parents want to shield their children from some boogeyman like gender ideology or CRT.

Pragmatically, I don’t think the parents can directly decide their children’s religion. I was baptised, for example, but decided long ago I’m not a Christian. The right the parents have is not that: it’s the right to try to steer the kids in the religious “direction” they (the parents) believe is the right religious path, not the ones the state regards as correct.

The position on home schooling in the UK is similar to that in the US….they are requirements the parents have to comply with before it can be done, but realistically if the parents want to do it, they can.

[Catlady in training]

Anyway, I did not plan to get sucked into another ideological debate, just came to point that Mike Johnson remains a huge POS:

Mike Johnson moves ahead with foreign aid bills despite threats to oust him

Look, I'm not qualified to judge how serious is the situation at southern US border, but all of this shuffling and packaging of critical aid to Ukraine with other bills is frankly disgusting.

Meanwhile, Donald Tusk sums the situation in EU quite well: Polish prime minister blasts Europe over gap between rhetoric and action

Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, has issued another one of his sharply-worded posts criticising Europe’s approach to defence.

“If all the words that were said in the last years here in Brussels about common defence, could be changed into bullets and rocket launchers, Europe would have become the strongest power in the world. And the safest place,” he said.

[Tendrin]

Wow. Do you really not realise how extremist that view is?

It is not in fact an extremist view. The extremist view is that of 'parental rights', because those centers *parents* and *not children*. Parents have a *responsibility* to their children, and that includes raising them. They do not have the right to decide WHO their children are, which is what the 'parental rights' movement is really about.

[thwhtGuardian]

It is not in fact an extremist view. The extremist view is that of 'parental rights', because those centers *parents* and *not children*. Parents have a *responsibility* to their children, and that includes raising they. They do not have the right to decide WHO their children are, which is what the 'parental rights' movement is really about.

I think there is a distinction between the actual various rights that parents have(which vary from state to state) and the Parental Rights Movement which is a bunch of right wing nut jobs.

[Tendrin]

I think there is a distinction between the actual various rights that parents have(which vary from state to state) and the Parental Rights Movement which is a bunch of right wing nut jobs.

Ehhhhhh. A lot of the 'rights movement' stems from the same place as the basic 'parental rights' doctrine. Most of that stuff in America absolutely exists downwind of segregation and cultural conservatism. Just look at the American home schooling movement, and a lot of it, even in milder forms, unhealthily frames children as the possession of a parent.

[4saken1]

I think a lot of parents see the 'my' in 'my child' as proprietary, not relational. As if children are chattel. I think we see this more in conservative parents and has deep roots in religion.

[Arachne]

And, of course, Biden is to blame for that, and only Don Snoreleone can save America from financial ruin! Help us, Nodfather! You're our only hope!

Biden isn't to blame, he's one of the few trying to fix things, but there are big problems with the economy. (Not just in the US, of course. I see the same things here in Canada.)

Robert Reich, former US Secretary of Labor, has some good videos on the subject.

[Tendrin]

I think a lot of parents see the 'my' in 'my child' as proprietary, not relational. As if children are chattel. I think we see this more in conservative parents and has deep roots in religion.

It's why you're seeing a push about 'age 25 because that's when the brain is finally mature!' garbage.

[kidfresh512]

I think a lot of parents see the 'my' in 'my child' as proprietary, not relational. As if children are chattel. I think we see this more in conservative parents and has deep roots in religion.

100%. A lot of them lament the fact they they try to make the kids think a certain conservative way. And then they go to school or meet and get introduced to other people from different backgrounds and perspectives. They realize they aren't the monsters that they grew up being told they were. And end up making friends or expanding their horizons.

That is the part that these people want to nip in the bud by demonizing, banning books, resources, getting on school boards etc changing curriculum.

[thwhtGuardian]

Ehhhhhh. A lot of the 'rights movement' stems from the same place as the basic 'parental rights' doctrine. Most of that stuff in America absolutely exists downwind of segregation and cultural conservatism. Just look at the American home schooling movement, and a lot of it, even in milder forms, unhealthily frames children as the possession of a parent.

Eh, something like school choice which falls under parental rights is definitely important especially with the current sad state of school funding. There are sadly many families that are under-served by the public school system and being able to take your child to a charter school, a private school or school them at home can be the best option for them for a variety of reasons.

Can it be abused? Certainly, but that's no reason to throw the program out any more than abuse is a reason to oppose free school lunch programs, SNAP benefits, low income housing, or other general welfare programs.

[useridgoeshere]

It's why you're seeing a push about 'age 25 because that's when the brain is finally mature!' garbage.

When are they raising the age to join the military to 25? Think of the children! Our country shouldn't be defended by 18-year-olds who are basically toddlers nowadays.

[kidfresh512]

A national abortion ban won’t pass on its own, Republicans should make a deal

The pro-life movement is at a crossroads. Nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, activists continue to demand that Congress pass a national abortion ban — a policy that has no chance of passing on its own, especially after widespread outrage over Arizona’s reinstatement of an 1864 abortion ban.

We can either continue to advocate that failed strategy, or we can try something that may work. Those of us who care about saving unborn lives and protecting mothers should support a political exchange, giving politicians who support abortion something they want in exchange for the pro-life progress we want.

What liberal priority should the right offer in exchange for, say, a 12-week abortion ban? Since Democrats frequently accuse Republicans of ignoring life after birth, the GOP should start with a liberal humanitarian priority. Perhaps that means more funding for mental health, homelessness or general anti-poverty work. More likely, Democrats would only consider something much more substantial — say, amnesty for the estimated 2.3 million “Dreamers” or even for the 10-plus million illegal immigrants living in America.

Some Republicans may balk at exchanging amnesty for an abortion ban, but it’s also true that many Democrats would oppose giving up any abortions for the sake of illegal immigrants. That’s exactly why the bargain could work — because neither side gets all of what they want. Compromise is the proven path to passing a law, and without it, neither amnesty nor an abortion ban stand any chance of advancing.

If Democrats reject a bargain, they’d only hurt themselves. They’d prove to Americans, who overwhelmingly support restrictions on second- and third-trimester abortions, that they’re far outside the mainstream. They’d come across to voters as pigheaded, which is how Republicans seem when they demand stand-alone abortion restrictions. The GOP hasn’t benefited politically from that perception. Democrats would likely suffer, too.

Does any Republican have the courage to call for such a compromise? The opposition would be fierce from some quarters, especially on the fringes of both parties. But the pro-life movement has no other conceivable path to a federal legislative victory. If saving babies and mothers is as important as we say it is, we should be willing to trade something equally important to get the votes in Congress. Or the pro-life cause can continue down its current road — a road of defeat that’s littered with lost innocent lives.

Only reason I posted this is because how insane it is. There is literally nothing at all that would get Democrats to agree to a national abortion ban. The GOP is clearly 100% on the losing side of this issue. And there is NOTHING they could "bargain with" to get Democrats to side with them on a losing issue like this. Not only is it a losing issue but it's a non starter.