# To what extent should the state protect children from their parents? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 26, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684 "2014-11-26T16:35:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/21 "2014-12-01T08:00:49Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Though, of course, failing to use real doctors could cause some real harm. But on that note I don’t understand what you mean; very strong Christian type people are NOT the kind of people who follow that new-age hippy crystal healing stuff. Are you using that as a literary sort of exaguration for hiring crappy doctors, or do you mean it literally? It’s rare but there are strains of fundamentalist Christianity that do accept alternative healing methods & some other forms of metaphysical/New Age philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/22 "2014-12-01T08:08:45Z")
Not sure what it adds to the discussion, but just to point out, Round here a) Vaccination is compulsory b) Primary school education is compulsory - and curriculum is set by the state. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/23 "2014-12-01T10:44:24Z")
In Denmark there’s talk of making circumcision illegal for children. Male circumcision; female circumcision is already illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/24 "2014-12-01T15:34:53Z")
My sister is a lesbian who has raised eight daughters. I am often been told by certain groups that gay parenting is child abuse. When a lesbian friend of my sister was raped and got pregnant, she and her partner decided to raise the child together. I told her to ask anti-abortion people and the like what to do. Their answer was unanimous “Have the child and give it to a real family.” It’s weird that fundamentalist whacko Christians can have as many children as they want, but gays and considered bad parents. ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/25 "2014-12-01T16:01:39Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Your issues with this are purely aesthetic. You don’t like their lifestyle, and you have an itch to make them change by force, under the assumption that your lifestyle is better and so it would be for their own good (of course, you at least realize this isn’t right.) Unfortunately, this is the problem with this issue and a lot of our politics nowadays. Everyone is a closet fascist, and really is quite willing to use brute force to stop other people from doing stuff they don’t like. > > Though, of course, failing to use real doctors could cause some real harm. But on that note I don’t understand what you mean; very strong Christian type people are NOT the kind of people who follow that new-age hippy crystal healing stuff. Are you using that as a literary sort of exaguration for hiring crappy doctors, or do you mean it literally? :dubious: Did you read the second half of that post? > [@pbbth](#): > > …When you look at my daughter and my little cousins each as individuals they are shining stars. Happy, healthy, emotionally stable with parents and extended family who love them beyond their wildest imaginings. Though I disagree with the choices my aunt makes I cannot look at the outcome of her decisions and say that anything she has done appears to be causing harm to her kids. Though she disagrees with my choices she would be lying to herself if she said my daughter was damaged or harmed in any way because of my lifestyle. Looking at someone else’s choices and saying that they are abusive when they aren’t causing any physical or mental harm would cause much more damage in the long run than allowing people to make the choices that work for them as parents. And yes, they use hippy crystal-woo doctors. They seriously argued with me back and forth about my aunt getting a root canal because “root canals are poison!” and they would rather have some quack with an internet dental degree try to use herbs and ground up crystals to take away the infection. Eventually she had the tooth pulled but absolutely refused anything like a root canal to save her tooth. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/26 "2014-12-01T16:45:39Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > In theory? They should go through the same kind of scrutinity adoptive parents go through. If you think 5 minutes about it, extremely vulnerable people should never be entrusted to random guys. The fact that you produced the crawler should in no way allow you to even come close to it after birth if there’s the slighest chance it could be harmful to it. The feeling of entitlement and ownership (because that’s that) of the parents should be of essentially no relevance when weighted against the only thing that matters, the best interest of the child. We don’t hand orphaned kids to whoever happens to have put his name on a “I want a kid” list. There’s zero objective reason to allow the same for newborns. > > In practice : I’d have zero problem with testing the value of the education provided or with mandating vaccination whether the parents like it or not. My grandfather had a fairly minor but not catastrophic criminal record. Nowadays, that might be enough to prevent him from being approved to adopt. Should my father have been taken away and put into foster care from birth? Where do you draw the line? And consider how many births there are a year - that’s _a lot_ of cases to wind their ways through Social Services Court toward adjudication. Mom admits to once smoking pot. Take the kid away? Mom and dad admit to using pot extensively in college but they quit ten years ago.Take the kid away? Mom and dad admit to using pot extensively in college but now they only do so occasionally when dad’s sister is in town, and they always get Uncle Bill to watch the kid in the meantime and keep all drugs away from the kid. Take the kid away? ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/27 "2014-12-01T16:55:13Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Who decides what “weird stuff” is? I’m glad you asked, I have a Weirdometer 2050 XL over here that I’m not using. This is the enhanced _XL_ model that incorporates the latest research into social deviance to identify the difference between parents who have an admiration for medieval literature, fashion, and aesthetics but keep that interest well balanced with a healthy, integrated pro-social lifestyle on the one hand and parents who are just crazy geeky roleplayers and LARPheads on the other hand. Perhaps, though, you should wait until they come out with the Weirdometer 2050 XL _Mark 2_ next year. It’s supposed to have an attachment that automatically scans Magic: The Gathering card collections and matches them against a ten-year study of social outcomes matched against Ultra-Rare card ownership practices. Surprisingly enough, Johnson (2014) claims that owning _just one_ Wurmcoil Engine card is not associated with sufficient deviancy to support taking a child away. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/28 "2014-12-01T17:02:53Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > … > > The problem is there are very perverse incentives, i.e. the CPS gets more money when they “have to” “protect” more children. When I was a kid, there was a form that teachers would harangue us week after week about taking home to our parents to get filled out. The form asked for answers to some rather personal family matter questions. In later years, I found out that that form was part of a government program to allocate funds to areas that they thought were deprived. So if you answered “B” to Question 2, the school got $1,000 to use however they thought best (i.e. not on you). Answer “C”, the school got $1,500. Answer “A” or “D”, the school got nothing. Fun times. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/29 "2014-12-01T22:31:33Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Ultra-Rare Shows what you know. They’re called _mythic_ rares. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/30 "2014-12-02T00:28:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Purely aesthetic? The women in this family are being committed to subservience. Children in that family are being raised to be closed-minded and anti-intellectual. They’re being taught, whether explicitly or through inference, that other cultural ideas are unacceptable. That’s aesthetic? > > I’d argue that that’s not only not a purely aesthetic problem, but it’s also not a problem that’s reserved to that family. It’s a problem that affects the society around them. Indeed, this type of anti-intellectualism has essentially been a long-standing plague on every aspect of American society. How the hell is that purely subjective or aesthetic? Yup, purely aesthetic. Ignoring the fact that again, I find it hard to believe that there’s some group of people who are both fundamentalist Christians AND new-age hippies, the stuff described isn’t anti-intellectual, and doesn’t instill subservience in women only. Leftists love to throw this accusation around, but they have no idea what they’re talking about, because they only project, they never actually listen to the Right. A lot of anti-intellectualism is just against people who _hold themselves out_ to be intellectuals, and use that as an excuse to promote the crushing of freedom. The idea that women should work in a certain way is mirrored by the fact that men have to work, too, and provide for the family. Are you sure you don’t just believe that women _shouldn’t_ have to work? There’s a lot of putting women on a pedestal in modern, blue-state, media-driven culture, and people really end up EFFECTIVELY believing such things, however much they’d deny it when phrased directly. I could go on and on, but to an honest person it’s clear that parents attempting to teach these beliefs can’t cause serious damage. After all, the kids will turn 18 eventually and have their own freedom. No matter who raises them they’d eventually have to disabuse themselves of SOME bad ideas. I mean, unless you force the kids-turned-adults to do something, they’re largely **subject of their own free will,** however much that is influenced by their upbringing. > [@](#): > > strains of fundamentalist Christianity that do accept alternative healing methods > [@](#): > > Did you read the second half of that post? Accept, sure. Who doesn’t accept it a little? I could tell you that a lot of that shit works a little just because it involves relaxing and sometimes forms of massage and stuff. But people who are fundamentalist Christian but believe in _new age_ medicine and completely _eschew_ modern medicine? Like new age medicine, with the quartz crystals and stuff? The new agies and the jesus-freaks are complete opposites and they both know it. The new agies are hyper liberal free-spirit people. Christofundies are the opposite culturally/socially, they believe in duty and following one specific set life path. I mean, as far as I know. Where Christofundies would get new-age ideas I have no idea. Maybe these aunt/uncle are just flat-out weirdos. There are plenty of flakey weirdos out there, who believe crazy mish moshes of crazy things, even when they normally don’t even go together. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/31 "2014-12-02T01:25:23Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > But people who are fundamentalist Christian but believe in _new age_ medicine and completely _eschew_ modern medicine? Like new age medicine, with the quartz crystals and stuff? The new agies and the jesus-freaks are complete opposites and they both know it. The new agies are hyper liberal free-spirit people. Christofundies are the opposite culturally/socially, they believe in duty and following one specific set life path. > I mean, as far as I know. > Where Christofundies would get new-age ideas I have no idea. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy: [Crystal Healing: A Christian Perspective Part 1 | Trinity Phix](http://www.trinityphix.com/4/) Is it common? No. But it is common for seriously conservative fundamentalists to be into herbalism (healing with God’s plants) and herbalism is sometimes a gateway into crystal healing. Since it’s perfectly possible (as that blog demonstrates) to work up a reasonable Christian argument in their favor, some succumb. Most don’t, most remain convinced that crystal healing is inherently “occult” and therefore forbidden or cursed. But for those who really kind of want to be persuaded, it’s not a very hard sell. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/32 "2014-12-02T02:06:53Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Yup, purely aesthetic. Ignoring the fact that again, I find it hard to believe that there’s some group of people who are both fundamentalist Christians AND new-age hippies, the stuff described isn’t anti-intellectual, and doesn’t instill subservience in women only. Leftists love to throw this accusation around, but they have no idea what they’re talking about, because they only project, they never actually listen to the Right. A lot of anti-intellectualism is just against people who _hold themselves out_ to be intellectuals, and use that as an excuse to promote the crushing of freedom. > [@](#): > > …home school them so they won’t be exposed to people who don’t believe in Jesus… they are NOT allowed to go to college and that if they try they will be kicked out of their family… …Seriously? I understand that “anti-intellectual” is thrown around quite a lot, but _look at this shit_. These parents are intentionally attempting to shield their children from ever being confronted with anything that challenges or refutes their worldview. If that is not damn near textbook anti-intellectualism, then I’d like you to show me an example, because you may have just defined the word out of existence. > [@](#): > > The idea that women should work in a certain way is mirrored by the fact that men have to work, too, and provide for the family. Are you sure you don’t just believe that women _shouldn’t_ have to work? What are you even talking about? When did I say anything about women not working? Or for that matter anything about women working? No, I spoke of the women being _subservient_. Explicitly forbidding your female children from seeking higher education is about one thing and one thing only: keeping them subservient to the men. It’s a more “cultured” variant on the classic “only men get to learn how to read and write” gag. And it’s not funny. > [@](#): > > There’s a lot of putting women on a pedestal in modern, blue-state, media-driven culture, and people really end up EFFECTIVELY believing such things, however much they’d deny it when phrased directly. I could go on and on, Or you could format your thoughts in a way that people can understand. Seriously, what are you even trying to say? I literally cannot understand what you’re talking about. Are you saying that women _shouldn’t_ be taught that they have the same opportunities as men? Are you saying that it’s a bad thing that women are taught to be subservient? What are you even trying to say? > [@](#): > > but to an honest person it’s clear that parents attempting to teach these beliefs can’t cause serious damage. [You’re wrong](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/). This sort of indoctrination and the culture that comes with it leaves psychological scars on people. It hurts them in ways they will be recovering for for much of their lives. > [@](#): > > After all, the kids will turn 18 eventually and have their own freedom. No matter who raises them they’d eventually have to disabuse themselves of SOME bad ideas. I mean, unless you force the kids-turned-adults to do something, they’re largely **subject of their own free will,** however much that is influenced by their upbringing. There’s a bit of a difference between “apparently my dad was wrong about people getting what’s coming for them” and “apparently my dad was wrong about me needing to be completely subservient to the patriarch of my household and now I’ve basically scuttled any hope of an independent future and I’m stuck in a situation where I am not free and not able to do anything about it. Also, I have deep-seated issues when it comes to recognizing and addressing abusive behavior because everything about my upbringing made it clear that such behavior could not happen to me and that if it did, I deserved it”. Some bad ideas are more harmful than others. If I taught my child that murder, rape, and pedophilia was okay, and that he should seek out and molest children, then damn straight they’d need to disabuse themselves of _those_ bad ideas. That does not excuse my teaching those things. I fucked up, and I deserve to be held accountable in some manner for this. These are ideas that will fuck a person up for life. Years of therapy later, they’re still gonna bear scars. The idea that this is harmless, and that people just bounce back, is simply wrong. That’s not what happens. > [@](#): > > But people who are fundamentalist Christian but believe in _new age_ medicine and completely _eschew_ modern medicine? Like new age medicine, with the quartz crystals and stuff? The new agies and the jesus-freaks are complete opposites and they both know it. The new agies are hyper liberal free-spirit people. Christofundies are the opposite culturally/socially, they believe in duty and following one specific set life path. > I mean, as far as I know. > Where Christofundies would get new-age ideas I have no idea. > Maybe these aunt/uncle are just flat-out weirdos. There are plenty of flakey weirdos out there, who believe crazy mish moshes of crazy things, even when they normally don’t even go together. Once you poison your epistemology, you have no filter. You have no way of determining how good or bad an idea is. Is it any wonder that those who believe the most fervently in something which they cannot possibly prove and those who hold up belief without good reason as the highest virtue would be drawn towards other comforting, baseless beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/33 "2014-12-02T02:28:43Z")
Seriously **Edwin**. > **[Nonreligious Questions](https://www.patheos.com/nonreligious-questions/)** > > Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer. > [@](#): > > Over time the stress of repressing the trauma from childhood built up in me and I developed severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic Fatigue, and Adrenal Burnout. I had to move back home, but my parents turned their back on me and wouldn’t open their doors to me or help me. I was shocked. I was the black sheep in their eyes because I wasn’t going to church or following the rules of the cult, but I was their child. I couldn’t believe the cult had them so blinded that they couldn’t help their own child. At that point, I started seriously evaluating this religion of theirs. Over time, the blinders fell off my eyes and I began experiencing truth. I am now so free and joyful. Spend some time reading. This shit gets really heavy really fast. The scars from teachings like this run deep. To brush them off, as though our brains get a hard reset at age 18 when we get out of the house (assuming one can, because with no valuable life skills other than “be a wife”, options are limited), ignores the real abuses caused by these beliefs. You don’t know what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/34 "2014-12-02T02:35:53Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Yup, purely aesthetic. Ignoring the fact that again, I find it hard to believe that there’s some group of people who are both fundamentalist Christians AND new-age hippies, the stuff described isn’t anti-intellectual, and doesn’t instill subservience in women only. Leftists love to throw this accusation around, but they have no idea what they’re talking about, because they only project, they never actually listen to the Right. A lot of anti-intellectualism is just against people who _hold themselves out_ to be intellectuals, and use that as an excuse to promote the crushing of freedom. The idea that women should work in a certain way is mirrored by the fact that men have to work, too, and provide for the family. Are you sure you don’t just believe that women _shouldn’t_ have to work? There’s a lot of putting women on a pedestal in modern, blue-state, media-driven culture, and people really end up EFFECTIVELY believing such things, however much they’d deny it when phrased directly. I could go on and on, but to an honest person it’s clear that parents attempting to teach these beliefs can’t cause serious damage. After all, the kids will turn 18 eventually and have their own freedom. No matter who raises them they’d eventually have to disabuse themselves of SOME bad ideas. I mean, unless you force the kids-turned-adults to do something, they’re largely **subject of their own free will,** however much that is influenced by their upbringing. > > Accept, sure. Who doesn’t accept it a little? I could tell you that a lot of that shit works a little just because it involves relaxing and sometimes forms of massage and stuff. > But people who are fundamentalist Christian but believe in _new age_ medicine and completely _eschew_ modern medicine? Like new age medicine, with the quartz crystals and stuff? The new agies and the jesus-freaks are complete opposites and they both know it. The new agies are hyper liberal free-spirit people. Christofundies are the opposite culturally/socially, they believe in duty and following one specific set life path. > I mean, as far as I know. > Where Christofundies would get new-age ideas I have no idea. > Maybe these aunt/uncle are just flat-out weirdos. There are plenty of flakey weirdos out there, who believe crazy mish moshes of crazy things, even when they normally don’t even go together. Okay, again I ask if you read the second half of my post. As you didn’t respond to anything I actually said and just ran off at the mouth (fingers?) at the mention of Jesus let me try again. My point was that I find their parenting terrifying and they find my parenting terrifying but it doesn’t matter because we all ended up with happy, healthy, competent kids. There was no mention anywhere in anything I’ve said about taking her kids away from her, in fact I said the exact opposite of that. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/35 "2014-12-02T02:37:44Z")
> [@pbbth](#): > > My point was that I find their parenting terrifying and they find my parenting terrifying but it doesn’t matter because we all ended up with happy, healthy, competent kids. There was no mention anywhere in anything I’ve said about taking her kids away from her, in fact I said the exact opposite of that. Here’s hoping. It’s not too many steps from where they are to where the emotional and spiritual abuse starts. ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/36 "2014-12-02T02:53:20Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Here’s hoping. It’s not too many steps from where they are to where the emotional and spiritual abuse starts. I agree they are walking a fine, fine line. But truth be told, their kids are truly loved, well fed and part of a huge supportive community. They will be limited to being wives and mothers with no other skill set, but lots of women throughout history have done the same and been very happy with it. And they are all in their young teens (the oldest is 16) and will potentially have a mind expanding experience that can help them lead a happier, more productive life. I’m friends with the girls on facebook, not because I love all the Jesus updates all day long but because when one of them finally has an awakening of some kind I want them to know how to contact me so I can help guide them through it if they need my assistance. The kids aren’t beaten. They aren’t starved. They aren’t forced into prostitution or child bride situations. They can all read and write and play at least one instrument. The fact that my values are the complete opposite of theirs isn’t enough for me to say the kids are being abused and I would never advocate taking the kids away because they choose differently for their family than I choose for mine. But yeah, they’re total nutballs. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/37 "2014-12-02T05:17:18Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > My grandfather had a fairly minor but not catastrophic criminal record. Nowadays, that might be enough to prevent him from being approved to adopt. Should my father have been taken away and put into foster care from birth? Where do you draw the line? And consider how many births there are a year - that’s _a lot_ of cases to wind their ways through Social Services Court toward adjudication. Mom admits to once smoking pot. Take the kid away? Mom and dad admit to using pot extensively in college but they quit ten years ago.Take the kid away? Mom and dad admit to using pot extensively in college but now they only do so occasionally when dad’s sister is in town, and they always get Uncle Bill to watch the kid in the meantime and keep all drugs away from the kid. Take the kid away? If you think that it’s right for a set of parents to be prevented from adopting, because the adoption wouldn’t be in the child best interest, then it logically follows that being raised by the same set of parents wouldn’t be in the best interest of a natural children, either. So, the response to your questions is easy : if you think that a parent shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because he smoked pot once, then he shouldn’t be allowed to raise his own children, either. If something is bad for an adopted child, it’s equally bad for a non-adopted child. If you think that having smoked pot once isn’t important enough to justify removing a baby from the care of his biological parents, then you shouldn’t deem it important enough to reject an adoption, either. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. There’s no magical property of biological children that is making them immune to what would harm adopted kids, and the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/38 "2014-12-02T05:54:50Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > If you think that it’s right for a set of parents to be prevented from adopting, because the adoption wouldn’t be in the child best interest, then it logically follows that being raised by the same set of parents wouldn’t be in the best interest of a natural children, either. > > So, the response to your questions is easy : if you think that a parent shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because he smoked pot once, then he shouldn’t be allowed to raise his own children, either. If something is bad for an adopted child, it’s equally bad for a non-adopted child. If you think that having smoked pot once isn’t important enough to justify removing a baby from the care of his biological parents, then you shouldn’t deem it important enough to reject an adoption, either. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. > > There’s no magical property of biological children that is making them immune to what would harm adopted kids, and the other way around. You’re ignoring a point that’s already been made. The situation of adoption and the situation where a couple is raising their biological child are not the same. When the state has custody of a child, and is deciding where to place that child, the state must do what is in the child’s best interest. Not so when a biological parent or parents are raising their own child. Then the state must prevent the child from being abused, but that’s it. Other things, such as the intellectual climate of the household or the amount of tobacco or marijuana smoked, are not the government’s business, regardless of how they affect the child’s well-being or future prospects. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/39 "2014-12-02T08:18:54Z")
The state should protect kids to the maximum extent possible with the resources at its disposal. Homeschooling should be outlawed. I’m OK with the setting up various alternative schools ([I have nothing against alternative teaching methods](http://osterskov.dk/om-os/osterskov-in-english/).) but this must be audited by outside authorities and fall under the state education system (so more like Charter schools, I think?) and all kids must attend school. Non-vaccination should be outlawed. I’d allow no non-medical exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684/40 "2014-12-02T12:46:23Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Homeschooling should be outlawed. I’m not a huge fan of homeschooling but I know several parents doing a great job homeschooling their kids. Absolutely no harm is being done. If you’re going to propose something like this you need to provide clear positive proof that all homeschooling is harmful in a tangible way or else you’re just removing someone’s freedom to educate their children as they see fit on a whim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-what-extent-should-the-state-protect-children-from-their-parents/705684.md?page=3)