Should the welfare of children take legal precedence over their parents' freedom of religion?

  • Yes, absolutely, YES!!!!

    Imagine you are a young child with a very serious but very treatable illness. But your parents are Christian Scientists, and they refuse to take you to the doctor's for treatment. Instead, they pray for you day and night. Meanwhile, your illness just gets worse and worse. I'm all for religious freedom, but when one's beliefs start to affect other people, especially innocent and defenseless children, this is where we need to draw the line.

  • The welfare of children is more important than the realisation of the right on freedom of religion

    I agree that the parents have the right to choose their own methods of rising their children, but these methods should be chosen according to the interests of children. If they violate childrens` rights and may be harmful for their father development, the state must interfere in order to protect the rights of children, who are the most weak part of our society.

  • Of course

    I think it is so obvious a matter that even the single dissenting opinion inadvertently made a case for the affirmative. The government has a duty to prevent harm to it's citizens as best it can. If my religious beliefs indicated that I was expected to molest my children once a week for their benefit no one would argue that my belief should not be respected. How then can we be expected to "respect" any belief that is detrimental to a child that is incapable of recognizing the consequences of these beliefs. To borrow from the poorly applied logic behind most pro lifers, a child is a potential citizen and every citizen is to be afforded protection from those who mean to due harm.

  • Because children are under the legal care of their parents, I do think that their welfare, which they have no control over, should have precedence over their parents' religious choices, if those choices threaten their health and well-being.

    Since parents are ultimately the only people that a child can rely on to ensure their well-being, I do think that a child's welfare takes precedence over their parents' personal choices, like how they choose to practice religion, assuming the freedom of those choices might affect that child's welfare.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • Children can't be expected to understand or accept their parent's religion.

    A child understands certain aspects of their parent's religion and may or may not agree with it. A minor should not be made to die or suffer because their legal guardian has religious preferences. Until a child reaches the age of consent, around 16, the courts should intervene to protect them.

    Posted by: CeIIoBurke
  • Children are too young to make their own medical decisions and therefore need to be looked after by the state if the parents are not willing to seek treatment for them.

    Children should not be allowed to die from lack of medical treatment. If parents follow a religion that does not believe in seeking medical treatment, their children may possibly die. Children should not be allowed to die if medical treatment can save them.

    Posted by: MycaMy
  • Yes, because health should always come first.

    In some religions, health comes before ritual. I know of many Jewish people who are told by their doctors and rabbis not to fast on certain holidays, due to diabetes, pregnancy, or any other digestive problem. Religious rituals would mean nothing if the practitioners all died due to poor health.

    Posted by: elinua
  • As with recent fostering case in the UK where religious views could hamper the development of individual diversity

    By all means teach children what your religion teachs. Don't impose. They should be free to develop opinions, ideas, and activities even that they reason out themselves. Imposing dogma with no alternative view is always dangerous, especially with a developing child.

  • Yes, because the welfare of people should always trump freedom of religion.

    The welfare of people, especially when the people are children, should always be more important than freedom of religion. Parents or adults should be entitled to practice any religion they choose, but they should not impose that upon children. Up until the age of 18, children should actually be allowed to live a life that gives them every opportunity to thrive.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • Children's safety and well-being must outweigh any freedom of religion by their parents.

    There should be no reason why any child should suffer needlessly because of their parents' religious beliefs. I have seen cases in the news where children have been denied much needed medical care because the family did not believe in traditional medicine. Children have died because the parents believed they could "pray away" their child's sickness. In my opinion, this is borderline neglect and abuse, and criminal charges should be filed against these types of parents.

    Posted by: R02Terre
  • We either permit freedom of religion or we don't

    If we protect freedom of religion, to force something against a parents religion undermines their freedom of religion and their posiyion as parents to a child. We may not agree with their religion, and may not like it if a child dies, but, in some religions we are speaking of a persons eternal life as well. We should not be allowed to pick and choose how much freedom of religion we will permit.

  • No, I oppose too much interference between parents and children as long as they abide to the local law & rights.

    In an independent nation, people have all the rights to enjoy their rights and freedom. The same applies to children as well, but there should not be too much interference of any superior authority between parents and children. As long as the basic human rights are respected and the practice are according to the local laws, I guess there is no need for legal precedence.

    Posted by: SaroM0vi3

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.