And if I think that the way you are “caring” for you child could cause them harm, or in some way be insufficient to meet my standards of “tending “ them, I then have the right to use the long arm of the great god gov’t to take those children from you??
Where does it end?? Once we let the do-gooders, social workers and “Mrs Grundy’s” into our homes, we will NOT be able to get them out again.
In times past, it was the community through various forms of peer pressure who assured some standard of conduct within the neighborhood. But as we have become more affluent, and “successful” we have become lazier and look more to the questionable auspices of an ever more intrusive “state” do do for us, that which we used to (and should still) do for ourselves.
Is your right to privacy a stronger right than your child's right not to die at your hand or because of your neglect? Could you answer that question directly, please?
Do your "standards of tending them" include allowing them to die?
Allowing a child to die when she did not have to die is abuse and it is a crime. I am surprised that you seem to want to argue otherwise.
Having a dead child that didn't have to be dead isn't meeting even a minimal standard of tending them", it is?
This isn't a tough case. The child is dead. She is dead today rather than having her whole life ahead of her, when a trip to the doctor for some insulin would have easily prevented her death.
Where does it end?? Once we let the do-gooders, social workers and “Mrs Grundy’s” into our homes, we will NOT be able to get them out again.
There is no right to pray your child into the grave.
Where does this overriding right to abuse children at will without government interference stem from, in your opinion?