Comments on: Whose Kids are They?

By: Children of the State « infoRipple

Children of the State « infoRipple — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 05:30:58 +0000

[...] Charles P. Hehmeyer, “The Case for Universal Newborn Screening,” Exceptional Parent Magazine, 88 (August 2001). The analogy to a gunman in a stadium is blatantly false. Someone who shoots at a group of people creates the risk of harm, but a person who declines a medical test simply fails to mitigate a pre-existing risk of harm. These acts are very different morally as well as legally. But even setting aside the blatantly false analogy, the argument fails. It rests on a false assumption. It assumes that children are a national resource to be guarded, guided, and regulated as the majority dictates. In fact, if children can be said to belong to anyone, they belong to their parents and themselves. Neighbors, friends, and community do-gooders have no rightful claim at all. (For a more detailed argument about this point, see my previous post: Whose Kids are They?) [...]

By: Quincy

Quincy — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:34:36 +0000

Unfortunately, there are very few individuals who hold power in government today who appear to worry at all about the basis for their interference with the lives of citizens. Legislators think they know what’s best and rarely ask if it is right.

By: David

David — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:51:18 +0000

Good argument, and seemingly sound. What then is the current legal basis (argument) for the interference of government (read social workers) in the parent child relationship? Which laws attempt to govern this?