U.S.A. What Does' "Parents' Rights" Really Mean?

[Christina]

I'm not disagreeing, but I found it to be relatable.

When your communication as a couple has broken down, you can end up fighting about to dumbest things. Everything the other person does becomes annoying. Most often the real issue is just feeling like you are not being heard.

 

[Kat]

Yes, because I often find myself battling sentient vacuums and listening to books tell me about how much of a fuck-up I am

I meant the bickering with a spouse over petty BS.

 

[Mark]

I meant the bickering with a spouse over petty BS.

But you see… I was being serious.



We make things weird around here.

 

[Christina]

Well if we are just posting pictures of our robot vacuums.

 

[Mark]

Well if we are just posting pictures of our robot vacuums.
View attachment 6013

IT NEEDS EYES.

 

[Christina]

It needs some really big giant ones. Yes.

 

[Mark]

It needs some really big giant ones. Yes.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/887147110

These are the ones we got, and they’re assorted sizes and adhesive. They’ve fulfilled every need we had for them.

 

[Christina]

This is wonderful. I have a whole box of candy ones. I would use them but I think that's how you get ants.

 

[Mark]

This is wonderful. I have a whole box of candy ones. I would use them but I think that's how you get ants.

We waited til everyone was asleep. The kids took days to notice, so we covered their pictures with them.

 

[Smacktard]

Well if we are just posting pictures of our robot vacuums.
View attachment 6013

You need a much smaller robot vacuum to clean the top of your robot vaccuum

 

[MrDawn]

I learned at a young age that parenting is a privilege, not a right. just because people can have kids doesn't mean they should raise them.

 

[Tubby23]

Man, Vash and I have enough issues with lego games. I apparently am not that good at lego games.

The Lego games are the only games we have co-oped on. I had to turn down my competitiveness significantly

 

[Kat]

I learned at a young age that parenting is a privilege, not a right. just because people can have kids doesn't mean they should raise them.

If only the world agreed.

 

[Ants!]

Nah dude. You make a kid, you have a right to raise them unless you do something so extreme that society has to intervene.

 

[MrDawn]

If only the world agreed.

Sure they do. It's called Child Protective Services.

 

[Kat]

Nah dude. You make a kid, you have a right to raise them unless you do something so extreme that society has to intervene.

In all seriousness, it's a tough line to draw. I think we can generally agree children shouldn't be abused, but what exactly qualifies as abuse? Should parents be required to respect their kid's identity? How far are they allowed to go to dissuade their kid from believing something they don't want him/her to believe?

I was reading a fictional story the other day, and some dialogue made me think of this thread. A teenager was talking to her mom about her gay friend who had to hide her relationship because her parents wouldn't approve - like would kick her into the street or send her to gay conversion therapy "wouldn't approve". The kid said people like that shouldn't be allowed to parent. The mom (who was queer herself) disagreed and said "that makes us the same as them, thinking the only right way to raise kids is our way, but we should respect their right to raise their kid how they want." But ... should we?

Remember that queer kids who come out to parents who aren't supportive are much more likely to commit suicide.

Of course, there's no good alternative. At least in the USA, the foster system is worse than borderline abusive homes. So realistically we can't do much. But ideally, should we really say "sure, deny your kid's harmless identity and attempt to force them to be the person you want? They're your kids to do whatever you want to?"

I dunno, feels like the bar should be higher than that.

 

[Mark]

In all seriousness, it's a tough line to draw. I think we can generally agree children shouldn't be abused, but what exactly qualifies as abuse? Should parents be required to respect their kid's identity? How far are they allowed to go to dissuade their kid from believing something they don't want him/her to believe?

I was reading a fictional story the other day, and some dialogue made me think of this thread. A teenager was talking to her mom about her gay friend who had to hide her relationship because her parents wouldn't approve - like would kick her into the street or send her to gay conversion therapy "wouldn't approve". The kid said people like that shouldn't be allowed to parent. The mom (who was queer herself) disagreed and said "that makes us the same as them, thinking the only right way to raise kids is our way, but we should respect their right to raise their kid how they want." But ... should we?

Remember that queer kids who come out to parents who aren't supportive are much more likely to commit suicide.

Of course, there's no good alternative. At least in the USA, the foster system is worse than borderline abusive homes. So realistically we can't do much. But ideally, should we really say "sure, deny your kid's harmless identity and attempt to force them to be the person you want? They're your kids to do whatever you want to?"

I dunno, feels like the bar should be higher than that.

I can vouch for quite a few friends, and my girlfriend who spent some time in the foster care system as a teenager. That call to CPS dooms more kids than helps them in a LOT of places around the country.

 

[Raine]

Sure they do. It's called Child Protective Services.

I can vouch for quite a few friends, and my girlfriend who spent some time in the foster care system as a teenager. That call to CPS dooms more kids than helps them in a LOT of places around the country.

Sadly, like everything else, CPS is chronically underfunded and effectively worthless. All of my experiences with them - they came to my family on a couple of different instances for a couple of different instances, and I've called them before to try and seek help for one of my nephews - indicates they're completely worthless unless the people they're investigating are very impoverished.

They give advance notice before showing up, they look for very basic and obvious things (food in the fridge/cupboard, bruises) and then they walk away. If they bother showing up at all.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Sadly, like everything else, CPS is chronically underfunded and effectively worthless. All of my experiences with them - they came to my family on a couple of different instances for a couple of different instances, and I've called them before to try and seek help for one of my nephews - indicates they're completely worthless unless the people they're investigating are very impoverished.

They give advance notice before showing up, they look for very basic and obvious things (food in the fridge/cupboard, bruises) and then they walk away. If they bother showing up at all.

CPS doesn't make anyone any money and they can't help the US assert dominance on the rest of the world. Of course it's underfunded.

 

[Mark]

CPS doesn't make anyone any money and they can't help the US assert dominance on the rest of the world. Of course it's underfunded.

Not to mention… where is the government gonna find all of those disenfranchised youth to recruit for the armed services? They’ll camp on foster kids the same way they will JROTC kids and juvie kids.

 

[Christina]

The other part is there is no place for the kids to go. There is not nearly enough good foster homes. People these days extended family are strangers to them. There are stories of them putting kids in offices to sleep because they have no place to put them and they had to take them from their home because the conditions were so bad.

The whole thing is an absolute nightmare. Once a family is in this system it's almost impossible to get out of it.

The long term solution has to be about education and access to birth control. Access to community that gives these kids and their parents another chance at a real support system.

Kids are legally seen more as property of their parents than a human being. They have so few rights. All their parent has to do is declare they are homeschooling their kid and they have electively taken that kids right to an education away. They don't even have to prove their kid is learning anything. Child labor is legal if you are working for your parent. I used to see this one more growing up in farm country. There was some kids we barly saw at school because they always had to stay home and work the family farm.

Every child born should have a right to food, shelter, and education and that should be supported by the people (aka the government). It should be equal education for all. No more private schools or charter schools. All the money and resources go into the same education system. All money for schools should be allocated evenly and not based on zip code. Good healthy food supplied to all the children for free (via tax payer money). We know that's best. We've seen so many other countries do it with great success.

Does no child get left behind if all the children are getting left behind?

On a side note, one of my biggest red flags of other parents are those people who want a baby because they love babies or just want to take care of a baby. People are babies for a very short period of time. People are kids for only a short period of time. 18 years is about 20% of a persons life. Your kid is going to be an adult for most of the time you know them. So raise them to be a good adult. I swear once their kids start having their own personality these people want nothing to really do with their own kids anymore.

 

[Raine]

are you me

I... did not expect to return to this. Fuckin' bravo!

 

[Raine]

CPS doesn't make anyone any money and they can't help the US assert dominance on the rest of the world. Of course it's underfunded.

Basically, yeah. Shortsighted, power-hungry motherfuckers that can't see beyond their own nose and the fact that their (in)actions doom the future of the country.

CPS is very, very selective in who and what they spend their resources on is a more "civil" way of putting it. And so because I was civil, I can then immediately follow that up by pointing out that certain politicians - Governors and the like - have saw fit to mandate that, for example, CPS must respond to allegations made against loving families taking their child's well-being seriously and allowing them to express whatever gender identity they need to.

So literally: Abusing your child? They sleep. Taking care of your child? They wanna steal your kids.

Entire country is a fucking sham.

There's stuff like this too:

 

[MrDawn]

Entire country is a fucking sham.

I find it funny that a majority of Christian Conservatives who are anti-choice want to deny women abortion rights, push them to squeeze out more kids, cancel birth control to force people to have kids that they don't want, rather than promote adoption and improve and fix the foster care system for children. And then people wonder why there are children living in homes getting abused because their parents never wanted them. I think it's just creating more problems.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Something I typed up shortly before Row v Wade got reversed:

If you are hoping and 'praying' for Roe v Wade to be overturned so that you can perch yourself up on that high and mighty anti-abortion throne...

You're not allowed to complain about people who need government assistance in order to care for their unwanted child, so that kid doesn't have a miserable childhood.

You better be willing to allow those single mothers you're forcing to have kids to be able to have affordable access to daycare so they can work while also caring for the child.

You better be willing to allow for all contraceptives to be made easily and freely available for all people.

You better first in line at the adoption clinic. And if you can't afford to acquire another child, you better be willing to donate money to orphanages so that those kids are able to live decent lives.

You better be willing to allow those kids that grow up to get free basic college education (like at the community college level).

You better be willing to help those parents pay for the medical bills for childbirth.

You better be willing to allow parents who give birth to handicapped kids (either mentally or physically) to be given the support they need to help raise that child.

You're not allowed to complain about any of the tax increases that are needed to allow the above to happen.

___

If you're not willing to accept any of the above, you're not allowed to complain about "killing children". Either you make it so that the kids you're forcing to be born to not have a miserable existence, or you allow potential parents to avoid bringing said child into a miserable existence.

Oh, and you're DEFINITELY not allowed to complain about any thing if you're middle class or richer. Abortion laws affect the impoverished more than anyone else. Children only makes it more difficult for people to escape poverty and no child should ever be born into poverty.

 

[MrDawn]

You're not allowed to complain about people who need government assistance in order to care for their unwanted child, so that kid doesn't have a miserable childhood.

I've noticed that when a lot of anti-choice supporters argue, they never acknowledge women with life threatening pregnancies (ectopic pregnancy) or rape victims. They evade those arguments and move the goal posts. They just target women who use abortion as a means of birth control and I think that's what is wrong with the anti-choice argument. Especially the Christian side of it because their holy book isn't pro-life at all. Far from it.

 

[Kat]

I've noticed that when a lot of anti-choice supporters argue, they never acknowledge women with life threatening pregnancies (ectopic pregnancy) or rape victims.

Well it kinda makes sense if you really believe that getting an abortion is equivalent to murdering a baby. In that case, why would there be an exception for rape? (I do not believe this and think it's horrible, but it's an internally consistent stance to take.)

All pregnancies have the potential to be life threatening. Being pregnant is dangerous. Giving birth is dangerous. There are many medical treatments and drugs you can't have while pregnant. Post partum depression is quite common. No pregnancy is safe for the mother.

They just target women who use abortion as a means of birth control and I think that's what is wrong with the anti-choice argument.

Do you think abortion is only morally okay if the pregnancy is due to rape or threatens the life of the mother? Is using it for birth control wrong? IMO this distinction reinforces the idea that abortion is wrong and equivalent to killing a baby, and it's only justified in extreme cases.

I mean, using abortion as a primary means of birth control is stupid for a lot of reasons, but I don't find it unethical.

 

[Raine]

I find it funny that a majority of Christian Conservatives who are anti-choice want to deny women abortion rights, push them to squeeze out more kids, cancel birth control to force people to have kids that they don't want, rather than promote adoption and improve and fix the foster care system for children. And then people wonder why there are children living in homes getting abused because their parents never wanted them. I think it's just creating more problems.

Like the internet says, The Cruelty is the Point.

Not only do they not promote adoption, they actively push back against it. They don't want gay couples to adopt children, I'm sure they don't want non-conforming people to have/adopt kids, I'm sure the idea of financially well-off single individuals women wanting to adopt would blow their fucking minds. They basically just want to control women and have an endless supply of manual labor slaves, and they've never been particularly subtle about it.

The fact that the Supreme Court Justices (Alito or Thomas, Google isn't helping with vague recollection and I can't be bothered to keep shooting in the dark at the moment for a source lol) said as much openly was... certainly a novel approach. Refreshing, in a way. Before the bile started to come up.




People that are "Pro-Life" but also in favor of the Death Penalty, are super pro-military (industrial complex), deny people basic essentials for life, etc., deserve to be knocked the fuck out.

 

[Mark]

The other part is there is no place for the kids to go. There is not nearly enough good foster homes. People these days extended family are strangers to them. There are stories of them putting kids in offices to sleep because they have no place to put them and they had to take them from their home because the conditions were so bad.

The whole thing is an absolute nightmare. Once a family is in this system it's almost impossible to get out of it.

The long term solution has to be about education and access to birth control. Access to community that gives these kids and their parents another chance at a real support system.

Kids are legally seen more as property of their parents than a human being. They have so few rights. All their parent has to do is declare they are homeschooling their kid and they have electively taken that kids right to an education away. They don't even have to prove their kid is learning anything. Child labor is legal if you are working for your parent. I used to see this one more growing up in farm country. There was some kids we barly saw at school because they always had to stay home and work the family farm.

Every child born should have a right to food, shelter, and education and that should be supported by the people (aka the government). It should be equal education for all. No more private schools or charter schools. All the money and resources go into the same education system. All money for schools should be allocated evenly and not based on zip code. Good healthy food supplied to all the children for free (via tax payer money). We know that's best. We've seen so many other countries do it with great success.

Does no child get left behind if all the children are getting left behind?

On a side note, one of my biggest red flags of other parents are those people who want a baby because they love babies or just want to take care of a baby. People are babies for a very short period of time. People are kids for only a short period of time. 18 years is about 20% of a persons life. Your kid is going to be an adult for most of the time you know them. So raise them to be a good adult. I swear once their kids start having their own personality these people want nothing to really do with their own kids anymore.

Fucking killed it. Point by point.

All pregnancies have the potential to be life threatening. Being pregnant is dangerous. Giving birth is dangerous. There are many medical treatments and drugs you can't have while pregnant. Post partum depression is quite common. No pregnancy is safe for the mother.

Life is also the leading cause of death, though. Although something is dangerous, it is still something women were biologically designed to do… but it doesn’t mean she HAS to, which is where people don’t make that distinction between their wants and her needs.

Do you think abortion is only morally okay if the pregnancy is due to rape or threatens the life of the mother? Is using it for birth control wrong? IMO this distinction reinforces the idea that abortion is wrong and equivalent to killing a baby, and it's only justified in extreme cases.

Well, for the sake of what you were just saying about safety… think about the risks associated with induced miscarriage or the extraction, and then the risks associated with if that woman chooses to procreate down the line. I’d hate to sound crass, but people can’t just keep a vacuum handy because they don’t wanna use another form of contraception. It creates personal risks for the patient, risks for the patient’s offspring if they choose to reproduce later in life, risks for the doctors and facilities in the form of liability… thus driving the healthcare industry further into a for-profit model. It’s definitely a snowball effect, and with that begs a morality question… is it worth creating that snowball just so Becky doesn’t have to use a condom? As someone who has seen the sociopathic tendencies of several women who nonchalantly treat abortion as birth control as well as having several friends with reproductive failures, diseases, etc… it pains me to see one woman treat abortion like getting her butthole bleached while another cries herself to sleep because she cannot bear children. As someone who has also seen great kids raised by shitty parents and great people unable to have kids… it bothers me on that level as well. Religious or political reasons? Pfft. Fuck politics and books when my memories have the faces of people on both sides and how it effects them.

I mean, using abortion as a primary means of birth control is stupid for a lot of reasons, but I don't find it unethical.

You probably would if you were somewhere where it was prevalent. You don’t seem like someone that would generally be in the orbit of the kind of people referred to when speaking about abortions as contraception, because those kinds of people would wear on a level-headed person like you fairly quick.

 

[Christina]

This is something that bothers me and I really think Mark is using it for effect, but a lot of people dont know. Most people think of surgical abortion shen they think of abortions. Most abortions are medical abortions. Up to 11 weeks you can take a combination of pills that just pretty much induces a miscarriage. This is actually a fairly safe thing and can be done at home. Matter of fact there are organizations that will help to just ship you the pills.

The trope of abortions causing a woman to be infertile, is done to scare woman into not getting them. Yes it is a risk but it is a small risk, especially if the woman is able to have proper healthcare.

This need to scare woman into what we want of them has caused a serious lack of education into their healthcare. For example, a lot of people don't know until you want to make a baby or become pregnant that the first 2 weeks of pregnancy is just your normal cycle before you have been ovulating. We could from the last period the woman has. If you get an abortion at 6 weeks you've only had a fetus in there for about 3 or 4 weeks. Most pregnancy tests can't tell you are pregnant until a week after a missed period. That would be week 5. Most doctors wont even see you until you've gone 6 weeks without a period because the chance of a chemical pregnancy is so high. A chemical pregnancy is an extremely early miscarriage. Women have these and dont even know because it just seems like your period was a little late or maybe you ovulate early.

As a woman who just went through early menopause the amount we are not taught about our hormones and what they do in our bodies is huge with real repercussions. For every stage of life women go through, we are constantly fighting to just know the truth and know our real options.

I am happy to see that we have finally come far enough to start breaking the tabu on even talking about woman's health. We have both a girl and a boy and both of them will learn and understand woman's health because woman are half the population and it effects everybody.

Ok getting off my soup box sorry.

 

[Mark]

This is something that bothers me and I really think Mark is using it for effect, but a lot of people dont know. Most people think of surgical abortion shen they think of abortions. Most abortions are medical abortions. Up to 11 weeks you can take a combination of pills that just pretty much induces a miscarriage. This is actually a fairly safe thing and can be done at home. Matter of fact there are organizations that will help to just ship you the pills.

Yep, you got it. I’m decently informed for not having the parts myself, but… I’ve also been the guy sitting in the parking lot waiting for a friend to complete her third surgical abortion because she waited too long to make a decision because she was basing it around her boyfriend at the time who wasn’t the father. More often than not, indecisiveness or just simply not noticing pregnancy that early on has played a role in most of the surgical abortions I reference in these conversations. Admittedly, my view is gonna be influenced by that, but I’m well aware that not all women treat it that way. I just knew a LOT of shitty people over the years. Couple that with only having a daughter, and my experience with watching her birth involving watching her crown, turn purple, and have to remain stoic supporting my ex while watching them frantically pull my daughter out and remove the umbilical cord from her neck… I have a very strong opinion supporting women’s rights, but I also have an equally strong disdain for those rights being, for lack of a better word, exploited. Look at that poor girl in Ohio or whatever Midwest state it was that had to go through all that shit to get an abortion after being raped… meanwhile, Becky from the club can just waltz right on in and get one because of the city/state she lives in… while Jennifer can’t even get pregnant and has been trying for years.

The trope of abortions causing a woman to be infertile, is done to scare woman into not getting them. Yes it is a risk but it is a small risk, especially if the woman is able to have proper healthcare.

I’ve unfortunately known quite a few women, who all had procedures done at the same facility, who all faced similar reproductive complications at different stages later in life, so I guess that can vary depending on accessibility and quality of treatment no different than dental work or anything else.

This need to scare woman into what we want of them has caused a serious lack of education into their healthcare. For example, a lot of people don't know until you want to make a baby or become pregnant that the first 2 weeks of pregnancy is just your normal cycle before you have been ovulating. We could from the last period the woman has. If you get an abortion at 6 weeks you've only had a fetus in there for about 3 or 4 weeks. Most pregnancy tests can't tell you are pregnant until a week after a missed period. That would be week 5. Most doctors wont even see you until you've gone 6 weeks without a period because the chance of a chemical pregnancy is so high. A chemical pregnancy is an extremely early miscarriage. Women have these and dont even know because it just seems like your period was a little late or maybe you ovulate early.

I wonder if a lot of this has to do with the shift in education, too. Sex-Ed kinda became more about STD/STI education more than reproductive education from the start.

I am happy to see that we have finally come far enough to start breaking the tabu on even talking about woman's health. We have both a girl and a boy and both of them will learn and understand woman's health because woman are half the population and it effects everybody.

Ok getting off my soup box sorry.

Agreed, very surprised to see not only women’s physical health but mental health for everyone begin to be taken seriously in our lifetime. Two different topics, but both were neglected for far too long.

 

[Kat]

Well, for the sake of what you were just saying about safety… think about the risks associated with induced miscarriage or the extraction, and then the risks associated with if that woman chooses to procreate down the line. I’d hate to sound crass, but people can’t just keep a vacuum handy because they don’t wanna use another form of contraception. It creates personal risks for the patient

This is not unethical. Subjecting somebody else to risks against their will can be unethical (such as forcing someone to be pregnant), but subjecting yourself to risk is fine (ethically, but may still be inadvisable).

, risks for the patient’s offspring if they choose to reproduce later in life,

Women do not owe future offspring a perfect uterus.

risks for the doctors and facilities in the form of liability… thus driving the healthcare industry further into a for-profit model.

This is such a stretch! You could say that about any somewhat risky activity, like skiing. Or intentionally having kids.

Obviously people should use protection (and it's probably not the woman objecting to the condom). I'm not advocating for anybody to use abortion as a primary means of birth control. It is riskier (even if it's pretty safe and hormonal birth control also has health risks), less effective (what if you don't realize in time or can't get treatment), more expensive, etc. But that's true of lots and lots of things that nobody would consider morally wrong, just silly.

You probably would if you were somewhere where it was prevalent. You don’t seem like someone that would generally be in the orbit of the kind of people referred to when speaking about abortions as contraception, because those kinds of people would wear on a level-headed person like you fairly quick.

That's a sweet sentiment and I'm sure they would wear on me, but not for the reasons you think. I had a couple friends who ended up with a kid because they had sex a few times, didn't get knocked up, so figured it was fine to keep doing it. Yes, it's frustrating! But the alternative to people like that having abortions is them having kids they don't want and probably won't properly care for, and that's much worse.

I have a very strong opinion supporting women’s rights, but I also have an equally strong disdain for those rights being, for lack of a better word, exploited. Look at that poor girl in Ohio or whatever Midwest state it was that had to go through all that shit to get an abortion after being raped… meanwhile, Becky from the club can just waltz right on in and get one because of the city/state she lives in… while Jennifer can’t even get pregnant and has been trying for years.

Becky having easy access to abortion isn't the problem there, and it has no effect on Jennifer's ability to get pregnant. The raped girl should have easy access to a safe abortion, but so should Becky who got knocked up being dumb at the club, and so should Jennifer in case she does get pregnant and it goes wrong.

I’ve unfortunately known quite a few women, who all had procedures done at the same facility, who all faced similar reproductive complications at different stages later in life, so I guess that can vary depending on accessibility and quality of treatment no different than dental work or anything else.

Are you sure the two things are related? Reproductive complications are common in general. Being poor (I'm guessing this is the case based on context, correct me if I'm wrong) will raise the odds of it due to environmental factors which negatively affect health in general. Most people don't talk about it, but I'm guessing women willing to share they've had an abortion are more likely to share that too, so it might just seem like it happens more to them.