Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
biggie rection wrote:
Hold on - the issue of parenting being a right or a priviledge is merely an excersize in semantics..

In order to maintain your rights you must follow your responsibilities. Having a child - that is a right - but I think Don's point was that the responsibilities must be satisfied in order to maintain custody of your children.

This is true of most of our fundamental rights - using lisa's logic we can apply the same argument to all laws. All of a sudden criminals can't be jailed because it infringes on their rights. No, the point is that if you can't be responsible with the rights you have, you lose them.

As for proof lisa - I don't need any proof; the proof for pulling a child out of a home is on a case-by-case basis. But one thing I can tell you; I've gone on ridealongs... a couple now. And I've seen situations where children should have been pulled out of a house, but couldn't be.
Sit down and watch a couple episodes of to serve and protect... Then maybe you'll see why we have this law in place.


I think you hit the nail on the head there. One of the central themes in philosophy is that with every right comes a responsibility. Such as with the right to have children, we have the responsibility to raise them in a safe environment. The argument, as I percieve it, from Lisa is that children cannot be removed because it would somehow violate the parents rights doesn't fly with me. Its not because it doesn't violate some rights of the parents, because it surely does. It doesn't fly with me because the children also have rights. They have a right to a safe home and a healthy life (including mental health). If there is child abuse going on, then the parents have neglected their responsibility and thus lose their rights to retain custody of their children.

That's how I see it anyway. I'm pretty sure its how the courts see it too.


Yes that's exactly it - in this point i made - "I don't think having children is a right - rather - it is a privilege and of course - our rights are not governed by what we do but - our privileges are...for children it is a right to have proper care in every respect not a 'privilege'."
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
Hold on - the issue of parenting being a right or a priviledge is merely an excersize in semantics..

In order to maintain your rights you must follow your responsibilities. Having a child - that is a right - but I think Don's point was that the responsibilities must be satisfied in order to maintain custody of your children.

This is true of most of our fundamental rights - using lisa's logic we can apply the same argument to all laws. All of a sudden criminals can't be jailed because it infringes on their rights. No, the point is that if you can't be responsible with the rights you have, you lose them.

As for proof lisa - I don't need any proof; the proof for pulling a child out of a home is on a case-by-case basis. But one thing I can tell you; I've gone on ridealongs... a couple now. And I've seen situations where children should have been pulled out of a house, but couldn't be.
Sit down and watch a couple episodes of to serve and protect... Then maybe you'll see why we have this law in place.


Yes. :) - However in the semantics of this - we have our privileges as governed by our actions - not our fundamental rights - these 'rights' are inalienable - whereas privileges are governed by our actions and are subject to demarcations based on responsiblity. The idea then is to know what are fundamental rights and - what are privileges.

I think you have a good estimation of this point.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


There needs to be a change in the Law

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB