Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
Let me explain it to you in a very simple way. Parents must be in control of vaccines, period. When my son was born, they wanted to immediately give him a vitamin k shot (completely unnecessary if you wait to cut the cord until it has stopped pulsing, ie ALL the blood has reached the baby) so we refused... they wanted to immediately give him a HEP B shot, we refused as neither my wife nor I have that particular STD, they wanted to put Gonorrhea Anti-bacterial $#@! in his eyes, again we don't have any STDs so we refused and all that stuff really interferes with initial bonding and nursing of the infant.
It will be a cold day in hell and over my dead body before someone will tell me that my choices listed above are NOT my choices and they will FORCE my child to take those vaccines.
I am not an "Anti-vaxxer", but I am extremely well read on the subject, as a result, I am well informed. We use an alternate schedule for vaccines that spread the vaccine out over longer time periods and never more than one shot per visit. We also have opted out of several vaccines altogether, but still get some. (We skip the varicella for example).
I understand the desire to "protect the children" but this argument/debate is very simple. Parents and informed physicians can and should 100% decide for themselves what is best for their children... NOT THE $#@!ING STATE.
Last edited by jllundqu; 06-22-2017 at 10:30 AM.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
The problem is you "beg" the question and use non-sequitur examples to promote your position.So the question is what control do you think the government should have?
The answer to your question is quite simple: We have the Constitution to protect rights and to give government power to rule over the people through legislation and the legal system.
So, to use one of your examples which is quite different than medical decisions, if a parent spanks a child to the extent that he/she is severely injured, that is true abuse and we have laws and the criminal justice system to prosecute such an offense. It is a law enforcement issue, to protect rights and uphold the law. In the criminal justice system, the accused has constitutional rights such as trial by jury.
But the Constitution and those rights are routinely abused by Child Social Services today, which is nothing more than a BILLION dollar child trafficking business, where the government decides who is a good parent and who is not.
The battle over vaccines and any other medical decision should be first and foremost a legislative battle, so that law enforcement or lawsuits are based on the rule of law, and not the opinions of doctors, social workers, etc. (Many doctors don't give vaccines or give them at a reduced rate)
If you want to take a child for any medical reason, you should have to get a judge to sign a warrant to do so first, and then the parents/care givers should have their day in court, REAL court and not the Kangaroo family courts currently supported by federal funding for foster care and adoption.
What we have currently in terms of children being taken away for medical reasons is tyranny, as the rule of law and the Constitution are not followed in taking children away from parents in almost all of these situations. It is medical kidnapping. The children don't want to leave their home, and neither do the parents, but it happens anyway with no due process of law. Tyranny.
Does the State Ever Have a “Right” to Remove Children from a Home?
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
Life experience is sometimes a really good teacher. My generation and my daughter's generation rarely had complications from vaccines, or even from the actual diseases.
I'm not a conspiracy fan, but it seems like there is some pressure to get kids away from parents and into day cares...vaccines are the golden ticket for entry.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
I never suggested that. In the original post I simply asked, "At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment?" No one seems to want to answer that, although Merkelstan's post lays out the knee-jerk viewpoints of both extremes.
Forget it.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Just because you don't want to define your terms...whatever.
It is not abusive not to vaccinate a child. Government should not require vaccinations for anything. Abusers are going to abuse, and in case you haven't read around, government tends to define abuse, or even the suspicion of abuse, very broadly. Kids are taken from their homes because of such abuse as being born at home with the aid of a midwife or not being vaccinated. Parents should have the right to live in somewhat primitive conditions and be self-sufficient if that's what they choose.
The system is abusive, if you really want to know.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
To be specific to your question, I don't think there is a line to cross where parents raising their children becomes child endangerment. To be clear, beating, starving, or putting kids in cages does not fall under the heading of "raising" children. They are already codified into general criminal law. Nobody is allowed to do that to anyone. Except government.
Last edited by euphemia; 06-22-2017 at 12:00 PM.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
What I would consider over the line is when parents put their children over the railing to a zoo area where dangerous animals can be seen. That's child endangerment--especially when the parent loses her grip and the child falls in and is killed.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
There have been many studies showing the positive effects of prayer on healing. Here are excerpts from a literature review:
In another systematic review, Crawford et al.[31] examined the quality of studies of hands-on healing and distance healing that were published between 1955 and 2001. There were 90 identified studies of which 45 had been conducted in clinical settings and 45 in laboratory settings. Crawford et al.[31] reported that 71% of the clinical studies and 62% of the laboratory studies reported positive outcomes;...
***
Astin et al.[30] conducted a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy of any form of distant healing as a treatment for any medical condition. A total of 23 trials involving 2,774 patients met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to analysis. Of these studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects favoring distant healing, nine showed no superiority of distant healing over control interventions and one showed a negative effect for distant healing.
***
Cha et al.[32] found that the women who had been prayed for had nearly twice as high a pregnancy rate as those who had not been prayed for...
***
Lesniak[33] described a study on the effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in a nonhuman primate species. The sample comprised 22 bush babies (Otolemur garnettii) with wounds resulting from chronic self-injurious behavior. These animals were randomized into prayer and control groups that were similar at baseline. Prayer was conducted for 4 weeks. Both groups of bush babies additionally received L-tryptophan. Lesniak[33] found that the prayer group animals had a greater reduction in wound size and a greater improvement in hematological parameters than the control animals. This study is important because it was conducted in a nonhuman species; therefore, the likelihood of a placebo effect was removed.
..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
People answered your question. Maybe if you'd stopped trolling long enough, you could have a discussion and learn something. Listen more. Talk less.
You talked about "chaining it [a child] to the wall of an unlit tool shed, and feeding it only bread and water for a week," and you say others are talking knee jerk extremes?!No one seems to want to answer that, although Merkelstan's post lays out the knee-jerk viewpoints of both extremes.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
St John's Wort is modern medicine. Walgreen's sells it. Peer reviewed studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in treating some forms of depression, even as much as prescription drugs. Peer reviewed research also shows it helps with other similar issues, like sleep disorders, anxiety, and a whole laundry list.
It appears to me that uneducated government advocates like you are the ones detrimental to children's well-being.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Connect With Us