Quote:
Originally Posted by Vettezuki
The principle you're applying is that the state should intervene on behalf of protecting the child's well being. Ok. Seatbelt laws are fairly trivial in this regard. On the other hand, millions of children are being put at extreme risk of shortened and degraded lives and simultaneously putting vast strains on a now largely socialized medical system. Surely you must then believe the state should be substantially intervening to ensure children are eating properly. After all, if the idea is to make a better and safer society, and apparently there are no fundamental restrictions on what the state can do to achieve these aims, then why not? We don't live in a vacuum right? What's the difference between forcing people to wear seatbelts (or rather, just punishing them for not) and doing the same for maintaining poor health? They're both just forms of not looking after oneself. Children could have annual physicals at school. We could just fine parents if their children are outside of state mandated guidelines for good health. By comparison this would certainly have a much larger net benefit to the society as a whole than a measly seatbelt law and there isn't a damn bit of difference underlying the action.
|
Have yet to read pg 3 and 4, but the govt. does have the right to keep your kids healthy. If a judge determines you're not fit to be a parent, he can take away your rights to your child. No there are no annual checkups, but you get the idea.