Can philosophically carnivore parents force their vegan kids to eat meat?
I suppose it varies from state to state. So FYI I live in Michigan.
I just have this terrible image of some redneck parents forcing their commie pinko daughter to eat a big plate of meat. And I have to tell you, it could happen in Michigan too. We have a large immigrant population of people from the South (presumably looking for better jobs).
BTW, I have nothing against Southerners. They are a decent bunch of people from what I understand. But that is just the image I have in my mind for some reason.
I don’t know about ‘force’, but I’m sure they could refuse to provide a particularly complete or healthy vegan diet, if their normal family diet included meat.
I mean, it’s not reasonable for parents to have to cater to their children’s menu whims any more at 15 than it is at 4.
Aren’t kids in general pretty much brainwashed by their parents to accept an entire system of values? I’m having a hard time seeing how one can just single out one issue, like eating meat, and say that is illegal. Where would it end?
I have no idea if it is legal or not, but forcing children to eat anything is IMO a waste of parenting. Neither of my kids were ever vegan or vegetarian or picky eaters, so the conflict never came up.
The general rule is “take it or leave it. If you aren’t hungry, maybe you will like breakfast better.”
If you’re asking the question can a parent ground their child for not eating a healthy meal, then the answer is ‘Yes’ in most states regardless of the child’s philosophical proclivities. My son went through a phase where he only ate marshmallows and I’m sure that he had a deep seated desire to only eat marshmallows, but you will find that the state generally supports the rights of me (the parent) to compel my child to act in what they see as the child’s best interest as long as it doesn’t constitute abuse - so basically, I can say ‘Eat your asparagus and grilled chicken or go to bed early. No more marshmallows!’ If the child were tied to a bed and had a tube inserted into their throat to poor down liquefied tuna, then it’s a different discussion, but simply requiring a certain healthy diet I think most judges would not find meets the threshold of abuse.
To continue from senoy’s post, if the child refuses to eat meat, and as a result the parent fails to provide meals to the child that are both complete nutritionally AND actually eaten by the child, I think it is clear that the child will become nutritionally deficient.
Given that the parent is responsible for the child’s welfare, this may fall on the parent’s shoulders to fix. It’s one thing for the kid to go to bed hungry, it’s another for the kid to get ricketts or some other disorder because you refuse to serve beans.
It is a substantive due process right in the United States that a fit parent has the right to the care, custody and control of his or her minor children. You may even use corrective force on children (corporal punishment).
Although children do have substantial rights that are protected in and of themselves, the right to make certain lifestyle choices are not one of them. When you become an adult, you can choose to be vegan, stay out all night, eat all the junk food you want, or invite people over to have sex. When you are a minor child, your parents have the right to control those types of things.
Quite frankly I would consider a child incapable of understanding the needs of a nutrition of a vegan diet, and allowing a kid to do that would be equal to allowing only junk foods, which would be irresponsible.
If the parent wants to work with the child with their choice, that’s a different subject. But that would also be a extra meal to make - more pots to clean, and most likely a higher food bill.
Let’s say that we have a family that routinely eats healthy meals like baked chicken, rice and broccoli. Or maybe pot roast, carrots and potatoes. Or fish, asparagus and quinoa.
I hardly think that any court is going to find the parents negligent or abusive if they tell the kid they can eat all they want of that stuff, but that they’re not going to specially cook them a pot of beans, or even buy beans for them. The parents shouldn’t let themselves be held hostage because the kid “won’t eat anything with a face” and is becoming deficient as a result. That’s a choice on the part of the child to forego a provided nutritious diet.
I mean, vegans aren’t accommodated in prison or the military, so I don’t see many courts being willing to compel parents to accommodate recalcitrant children in their veganism.
Huh. I know, for a fact, it works the other way…I know a few former vegans who’s folks were vegan and ‘forced’ them to eat vegan until they were old enough to make their own decisions (and, in fact, railed at them when they decided to give vegan diets up for The Meats(tm…arr)). I don’t know any little kids who want to be vegans who weren’t raised in that dietary philosophy, so I could only think that maybe some ‘redneck parents’ with, perhaps, young teens who want to go vegan maybe ‘forcing’ their kids to not eat meat…or something? For my part, being a confirmed ‘carnivore parent’, I’d be fine with my kids going vegan…means more meat for me!
I wonder if that’s true. Like, obviously the authorities are likely to get involved if the child develops a malnutrition-based illness. But if they find that normal nutritious food is being supplied and the kid refuses to eat it, what then?
What if the child refuses to eat any protein but caviar and lobster? Or unless personally spoon-fed?
Obviously, if a parent/child dispute gets to the point of legalities, something has gone quite wrong. It seems to me that a child old enough to express philosophical reservations with animal products is also old enough to make their own beans.
Little kids, no, but probably plenty of minors. Lots of teenagers explore being vegetarian or vegan as a part of self-definition or an awakening of a moral sense that includes animals.
When I went through a teenage vegetarian phase, my parents’ response was (mostly) “Good for you. If you don’t want to eat what we’ve made, you know where the peanut butter is”.
Surely the whole reason for giving parents parental responsibility is because we accept that childrent don’t have the maturity and judgment to make choices? And the flip side of that is that if parents defer to children’s choices, and injury results, the parents can’t disclaim responsiblity. If you have power, discretion, authority, whatever, then you should be accountable for failing to exercise it.
So, if your kid really won’t eat meat and will not yield to honeyed words, blandishments or threats, your choices as a parent are (a) force-feeding, (b) provide a nutrionally adequate non-meat diet, or (c) allow your child to become malnourished. It’s a no-brainer that (b) is the correct choice. The question is whether parents who choose (c) instead should have no responsiblity for the consequences because “it’s the kid’s choice”. That doesn’t look like a very strong argument to me.
I would not force my kids, or anyone else, to eat meat. However I did warn my boys that if they married vegetarians they would be disinherited.
So far so good.
I also told them that the second they became vegetarian they also became their own cook. This happened, but didn’t last long. I mean like two weeks.
This is not to say we had meat at every meal, because we didn’t.
This is also not because I have anything against vegetarians. It’s because for many years we had Thanksgiving with some friends whose daughter was a VV (vehement vegetarian) and so, in addition to all the usual chaos of doing a big-deal meal, we had to cook shit that this little princess would eat happily. And she was the only one eating it and it was a royal pain. For one person. If she didn’t take the leftovers home with her that shit got thrown right out. This is the reason we arranged things so we no longer have T-day with these people and I never want to do it again.
But serving a diet which is only nutritionally adequate if the meat is eaten, when in fact the child is effectively refusing to eat the meat, will harm the child.
If you are unable to persaude, cajole or compel your child to eat the meat, you still have a responsiblity to ensure that he doesn’t develop kwashiorkor. If that means you have to feed the little bastard with vegetable protein, then that’s what you have to do.
If a kid becomes malnourished because they are that adamant then they will end up being treated in a hospital for an eating disorder. AFAIK there are no accepted vegan methods of treatment. Even hospitals will not only not cater to this in a malnourishment case, but psychiatrically it is considered to encourage an eating disorder.
As a parent, would most push it this far? Probably not. I suspect most would cave at some point if the kid is really that stubborn.
Are they bound by anything but their own feelings to support such an endeavor, no.
No, they’ll end up being treated in hospital for malnutrition, which is very different. If you can find a diagnostic manual which treats a commitment to vegetarianism for ethical reasons as an “eating disorder”, now would be a good time to post a link to it.
You treat malnutrition by providing adequate nutrition, and it’s usually perfectly possible to do this with a vegetarian or a vegan diet.
I think they may be. As noted, the hospital will treat the child for malnutrition, but the question will certainly arise, how does this child come to be malnourished? And the answer is a combination of choices; the child chooses not to eat meat, and the parents choose not to provide adequate non-meat protein. And while the law doesn’t expect the child to make mature and responsible choices, it does expect the parents to do that. As you say yourself, few parents would push it to the point where the child becomes signficantly malnourished but that just underlines the point; those who do push it to that point don’t appear to be making a reasonable choice in the best interests of the child. At some point, laws dealing with the neglect of children’s welfare are going to become relevant.
Broaden this out a bit. For teenagers to feel drawn to vegetarianism or veganism is common (and becoming more common). This can be problematic if other members of the family are carnivores. Most families manage to negotiate this without anybody become malnourished. Maybe the whole family eats vegetarian some days. Maybe the teenager takes responsiblity for preparing their own food some days. (Or for preparing food for the whole family.) Maybe some days it’s meat-and-two-veg and the teenager skips the meat. Maybe there are conversations about parents respecting their kids developing ethical sensibilities, about kids learning not to be a dick to people who don’t share their ethical sensibilities, and about kids accepting responsiblity for doing some research, and making some choices, so that they can rspect their own ethics and also not become malnourished.
The parents are the adults in this relationship, so they have to take responsiblity for leading this process. But it does strike me that “I like meat, so you’ll eat meat or starve” is not a terribly mature approach to the issue. And if a parent does choose to take this approach to the problem this does not mean that the kid has, or will be treated for, an eating disorder.
