Secularists urge no vote on childrens rights referendum

Onesimus

joseph brand wrote: »

The difference here is this, as Catholics we are ''invited'' to participate in Catholicism and in so doing we accept all we are taught and live it. we are not ''forced'' to participate like we are by the state if we vote Yes to this referendum. The Church are not the parents of my child, neither is the state the parents of my child, but they will be if I sign my right away to be a parent and act in the best interests of my children. Thats what you fail to recognize.

The state however will be the one doing all the ''forcing'' on the Irish nation because they deem it to be all in the best interests of the child.

The state are not the parents of my child. I am. I refuse to sign away my right to be a parent to the state on November 10th and will be voting NO.

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

The state are not the parents of my child. I am. I refuse to sign away my right to be a parent to the state on November 10th and will be voting NO.

Will you be leaving the state if it's a 'yes' vote? :pac: Bit of a genuine question as you believe that you'll be losing your rights as a parent.

pauldla

Onesimus wrote: »

The difference here is this, as Catholics we are ''invited'' to participate in Catholicism and in so doing we accept all we are taught and live it. we are not ''forced'' to participate like we are by the state if we vote Yes to this referendum. The Church are not the parents of my child, neither is the state the parents of my child, but they will be if I sign my right away to be a parent and act in the best interests of my children. Thats what you fail to recognize.

The state however will be the one doing all the ''forcing'' on the Irish nation because they deem it to be all in the best interests of the child.

The state are not the parents of my child. I am. I refuse to sign away my right to be a parent to the state on November 10th and will be voting NO.

Is that an ironic use of "invited"? I was never invited to be a Catholic, I was told I was a Catholic. Officially, I still am a Catholic, and it seems there is not much I can do about it.

Is the key phrase in your post not 'and act in the best interests of my children'? Your right to be a parent is not going to be taken away, as far as I can make out.

folan

Onesimus wrote: »

The state however will be the one doing all the ''forcing'' on the Irish nation because they deem it to be all in the best interests of the child.

the state has been elected by the people to represent them. the state has a duty to look out for every citizen, be them of voting age or not.

currently, there are a minority of parents who do nothing in the interests of their children, but in their own interests. there are a minority parents who have children to boost their incomes by claiming CA.

in cases like these, the state has very few powers to work in the benefit of the child.

Dades

Onesimus wrote: »

The difference here is this, as Catholics we are ''invited'' to participate in Catholicism and in so doing we accept all we are taught and live it. we are not ''forced'' to participate like we are by the state if we vote Yes to this referendum.

Not really on topic but I'm reminded that a lot of children that are forced to participate in Catholicism by the church and the State.

expectationlost

remember when this thread was about Secularists urge no vote on childrens rights referendum

Obliq

folan wrote: »

there are a minority parents who have children to boost their incomes by claiming CA.

Yes, remember what this thread was about, but how do you let this go unquestioned?
I don't think I've seen a more stupid comment, even on the abortion thread.

To folan: I've never called for a citation before, but I am now. That's pretty outrageous tbh, when child benefit to me spells the difference between me heating the house for my children or not. Get a grip on reality why don't ya :mad:

folan

Obliq wrote: »

To folan: I've never called for a citation before, but I am now. That's pretty outrageous tbh, when child benefit to me spells the difference between me heating the house for my children or not. Get a grip on reality why don't ya :mad:

Obliq,

Agreed. What I said was wrong, and stupid. I apologise because when i re-read what I said even i thought what is there was insulting.

to try and clear up what I meant, and to be sure that there is no confusion, what i meant to reference was the following type of mentality, and to stop it at all costs, and ensure that such things are done for the childs benifit only.

To demonstrate what i mean, i offer a pretty recent example of the type of attitude which I believe exists to child benefit:

http://www.thejournal.ie/centra-childrens-allowance-apology-withdrawal-beer-offer-508398-Jul2012/

and a thread from boards more recently where it is said

Got a call today from a traveler girl in Cashel which is a town very close to me. Could hear a load of kids screaming/beating/cursing at each other in the background. She seemed very interested in it but turned around and said can you hold it until child benefit day

found here

What you have said is true.

I am against the mentality and abuse of childrens allowance, which is abuse itself.

Apologies again.

Obliq

folan wrote: »

Obliq,

Agreed. What I said was wrong, and stupid. I apologise because when i re-read what I said even i thought what is there was insulting.

to try and clear up what I meant, and to be sure that there is no confusion, what i meant to reference was the following type of mentality, and to stop it at all costs, and ensure that such things are done for the childs benifit only.

To demonstrate what i mean, i offer a pretty recent example of the type of attitude which I believe exists to child benefit:

http://www.thejournal.ie/centra-childrens-allowance-apology-withdrawal-beer-offer-508398-Jul2012/

and a thread from boards more recently where it is said


found here

What you have said is true.

I am against the mentality and abuse of childrens allowance, which is abuse itself.

Apologies again.

Alright - your apology was gracious, so that's good, ta. However

a) I think that's possibly the first time the attitude of "they're having kids for the child benefit" has ever been proven by citing Centra's insane sales pitch. Y'know, after I have clothed (2nd hand), fed (everything from scratch - no instant meals), washed (with yes, paid for hot water) and heated (the CB also covers petrol for the chainsaw, luckily) my children, I bloody well deserve a glass of wine. Anyone who is getting CB is supposed to spend it on the children, but it really gets my goat when apparently only those who don't depend on the CB aren't called into question as to how they spend it - the attitude being "Well, you smoke and drink and we're paying for that, so it's not on" compared to "Well, you smoke, drink and work, so we won't judge you on how you spend the CB".

b) Can you perhaps tell me how in this day and age a tv isn't a necessity when rearing a bunch of small children? I would be out like a shot with the CB if mine broke (as it would even take priority over all the phone/electric/gas/heating/car bills). I'm sure there are some who live without television quite happily, but my kids have an xbox and favourite cartoons. Because I am poor, I should do without one? Again, it gets right up my nose when the only lump sum that is available for big stuff like bills, or breakdowns of equipment is "meant for the children". Yes, and that's who it goes to via the effective living of my life as a parent. Ever try running a home with children in it without electricity? I make no f**king apologies for spending CB whichever way I see fit as a parent, and I'm a damn good one.

c) Goes something like - the amount of times I have heard how people have children for the CB makes me want to spew.

End of. Please learn something from this. Now I'll get back to the OP.

Victor

folan wrote: »

I am against the mentality and abuse of childrens allowance, which is abuse itself.

I think the example of the TV demonstrates that she wasn't willing to buy the TV and leave the children go hungry if she didn't have the money just yet.

Just because someone buys XYZ on the day they receive a particular payment doesn't mean that payment is always and/or exclusively put towards XYZ.

dunkster

I would find it impossible to trust our inept and corrupt government or the war mongering U.N. with the fates of our children. The proposed amendment does too little and gives our untrustworthy state [happy to lie and give our resources & sovereignty away] and outside organizations [U.N. E.U. happy to allow U.S. to bomb Bosnia Libya and anywhere the U.S has issues with]. Promises are made and broken shamelessly by the above so why would we believe that our leaders have pure altruism in mind when it comes to our children. I will be voting no for the sake of our children and parents. It will be voted through, as we the sheeple will believe the utter rubbish spewed out by our compromised main media sources on most topics. Thanks for sites like Boads.ie, it's a great venting resource and great entertainment. Peace.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

Given that there are plenty of irresponsible and uninformed parents around who refuse to follow basic medical advice in respect of vaccines, it's appropriate that the state reserves the right to step in and disallow potentially infectious children into schools where they can infect the children of parents who do follow medical advice.

Erm, if the vaccine works, how would the other children be infected?
But that's just in passing. If you really don't know why consent is needed for medical treatment, you're not going to learn it now if you've nailed your colours to the mast on with a silly argument.

What I'm finding is this referendum is revealing that a lot of people don't really comprehend what the nature of a State is, this peculiar beast which simultaneously limits and upholds our rights.

In any event, I'm voting no as a case has not been made for Constitutional reform - pretty much like what Mr Spicer is saying.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, if the vaccine works, how would the other children be infected?

That right there is why your opinion is less valid than others'.

Gbear

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, if the vaccine works, how would the other children be infected?

There's a thing called herd immunity.

Once you immunise above a certain % of children, those that can't take the vaccine (for health reasons) are effectively kept safe because the level of immunisation is so high.

If you have too many people not getting vaccinated it not only puts them at risk but also those who can't get vaccinated.

dunkster wrote: »

I would find it impossible to trust our inept and corrupt government or the war mongering U.N. with the fates of our children.

The war mongering UN? What. The. ****.

If there's any criticism of the UN it's that they're not war mongering enough and haven't stepped in quickly enough in places like Syria and Libya and are hamstrung into inaction resulting in the deaths of thousands.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, if the vaccine works, how would the other children be infected?

Because the vaccine for measles, for example, is around 85% effective which is why you take that particular one in two doses, separated by a period of time. Also, a certain percentage of people can't take the vaccine for various reasons (age, compromised immunity, allergy etc) and other people need to be aware of this as they're at high-risk of infection. And, as gbear points out, you need a vaccination rate of at least 95% -- herd immunity -- to ensure that the disease can't propagate in a population, once an infection starts.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Deleted User wrote: »

That right there is why your opinion is less valid than others'.

And I've the same vote - it's a bitch, isn't it.

Gbear wrote: »

There's a thing called herd immunity.

robindch wrote: »

<...> a certain percentage of people can't take the vaccine for various reasons <...> And, as gbear points out, you need a vaccination rate of at least 95% -- herd immunity -- to ensure that the disease can't propagate in a population, once an infection starts.

Ah, yeah, I'm aware of herd immunity. I'm not even particularly saying that vaccination is a bad idea - the remark you are focussing on is, predictably, the side issue where I'm pointing to a careless justification for advocating a yes.

The key issue is that, if this referendum weakens the need for medical practioners to obtain consent, it's a bad thing and we need look no further for a reason to vote "no". We already have provision that protects children from gonzo decisions by parents; we even have a decision that allows doctors to force medical treatment on adults, on grounds of the child's right not to be deprived of parents.

That said, I haven't generally seen advocates of a Yes vote justifying the amendment on grounds of the need to secure herd immunity by compulsion. I'm not sure it's an argument that would float, outside of quite limited groups of people. I think ye need to take a step back, and think it out again. "Kathy Synnott is agin it, so it must be good" is not a sound principle on this occassion.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The key issue is that, if this referendum weakens the need for medical practioners to obtain consent, it's a bad thing and we need look no further for a reason to vote "no".

The referendum and the wording assert that the state should consider the needs of children first. That's a reasonable thing to do, given that there's no such guarantee in the constitution at the moment and legislation and practice tends to favor "family" first, then mothers, fathers and kids in that order.

It is certainly possible to spin the wording to suggest that children will be forced to vaccinate, but, without checking, I imagine that this interpretation is probably compatible with the existing constitution too. In either case, events over the last few years suggest that the law doesn't have any major problem forcing medical procedures upon unwilling patients.

So, I'm going to call this item a complete red herring. Basically, exactly what you'd expect from Ms Sinnott.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

The referendum and the wording assert that the state should consider the needs of children first. That's a reasonable thing to do, given that there's no such guarantee in the constitution at the moment and legislation and practice tends to favor "family" first, then mothers, fathers and kids in that order.

That's not actually the situation. There actually isn't any constitutional block that obstructs childrens' rights; there's no real need for this referendum. The only concrete difference is that it could make it slightly easier for a tiny amount of children to be adopted. But, that said, adoption outside the natural family is a practice that belongs back in the Jurassic period; somewhere like 1950s Ireland, where you've a steady supply of frightened, preganant, young women with no access to abortion.

robindch wrote: »

It is certainly possible to spin the wording to suggest that children will be forced to vaccinate, but, without checking, I imagine that this interpretation is probably compatible with the existing constitution too. In either case, events over the last few years suggest that the law doesn't have any major problem forcing medical procedures upon unwilling patients.
So, I'm going to call this item a complete red herring. Basically, exactly what you'd expect from Ms Sinnott.

Well, in fairness, you did give it legs. Incidently, the "PKU" case means we can be pretty sure that the present wording means that doctors do need to obtain consent from rational, dutiful, parents before delivering routine medical treatment to children. Which is exactly as it should be.

Once you change the Constitution, it raises some doubt over previous case law. That's why we shouldn't prick around with the Constitution without sound reason. And this is exactly what's happening now - the Constitution is being pricked with, for no sound reason.

oldrnwisr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And I've the same vote - it's a bitch, isn't it.Ah, yeah, I'm aware of herd immunity. I'm not even particularly saying that vaccination is a bad idea - the remark you are focussing on is, predictably, the side issue where I'm pointing to a careless justification for advocating a yes.

The key issue is that, if this referendum weakens the need for medical practioners to obtain consent, it's a bad thing and we need look no further for a reason to vote "no". We already have provision that protects children from gonzo decisions by parents; we even have a decision that allows doctors to force medical treatment on adults, on grounds of the child's right not to be deprived of parents.

That said, I haven't generally seen advocates of a Yes vote justifying the amendment on grounds of the need to secure herd immunity by compulsion. I'm not sure it's an argument that would float, outside of quite limited groups of people. I think ye need to take a step back, and think it out again. "Kathy Synnott is agin it, so it must be good" is not a sound principle on this occassion.

OK, just a quick recap of the sequence of events here. This whole line of arguments began with the rather silly list of fears posted by Onesimus which included:

Onesimus wrote: »

3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.

to which Robin replied:

robindch wrote: »

The point about vaccines, btw, is worth noting. At the moment, the state allows parents to refuse to vaccinate their kids while also allowing them to attend school, where unvaccinated kids are a threat to the health and welfare of other students. I believe the USA won't let kids into a school unless they can present a full vaccination record, and good on them for doing so.

Now, while I agree with you that there is some provision for this situation already through the Child Care Act:

18.—(1) Where, on the application of a health board with respect to a child who resides or is found in its area, the court is satisfied that—

(b) the child's health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected, or

(c) the child's health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected,

and that the child requires care or protection which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order under this section, the court may make an order (in this Act referred to as a “care order”) in respect of the child.

I'm not sure how far this provision would stretch in dealing with a major public health issue such as one caused by lots of parents deciding to be morons and not getting their children vaccinated.

The thing is though that the point raised by Onesimus is not a valid reason for voting No in the first place. As Robin points out it is a red herring, so your argument while valid is misdirected.

Oh, and for the record, IMO, none of Onesimus' points are valid arguments for a no vote. At best they are scaremongering, tenuous arguments based on appeals to fear and consequences and written using emotive language and rhetoric.

mikhail

Gbear wrote: »

There's a thing called herd immunity.

Once you immunise above a certain % of children, those that can't take the vaccine (for health reasons) are effectively kept safe because the level of immunisation is so high.

If you have too many people not getting vaccinated it not only puts them at risk but also those who can't get vaccinated.

My understanding is that the vaccines also don't work 100% of the time, meaning that herd immunity is important even to vaccinated kids.

recedite

I have noticed a definite pattern from previous referendums;
The govt. sets a date for the vote, and then sits back. Time passes and journalists demand to see the proposed wording, so the ministers responsible eventually cobble something together at the last minute, with minimal public consultation. It tends to be excessively wordy, and at the same time ambigious, so that different interpretations are possible.
A constitution should just state certain ideals in simple language. The wordy stuff should appear in subsequent legislation.
An alliance of "No" voters then forms, comprising those who oppose the changes, those who think they don't go far enough, and those who always say no, whatever it is.
On the day, the referendum scrapes through, and I don't bother to show up.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not sure how far this provision would stretch in dealing with a major public health issue such as one caused by lots of parents deciding to be morons and not getting their children vaccinated.

I've started so I'll finish. Apart from the case of an adult Jehovah's Witness being forced, despite to her religious objections, to accept a blood transfusion on grounds that her child might otherwise be orphaned, the only situation that I'm aware of that medical treatment can be forced on a conscious, rational person is where they have an infectious disease. The "PKU" case rules out the possibility that treatment can be forced on someone simply on the basis of medical opinion. Hence, if Irish people collectively decided not to vaccinate their children, there's no law to force them to. It would be rather strange if their was.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, and for the record, IMO, none of Onesimus' points are valid arguments for a no vote. At best they are scaremongering, tenuous arguments based on appeals to fear and consequences and written using emotive language and rhetoric.

I wouldn't fully accept that, as changing the Constitution always creates a doubt as to what happens next until caselaw interprets the new wording. A little scaremongering isn't a bad thing, if it makes people think.
But the primary thing people need to think themselves out of is the subtle suggestion that "Yes" is the natural choice, and someone needs to produce reasons to vote "No". The "Yes" side are the ones with a case to make, and they haven't made it yet. If Onesimus' is scaremongering, the "Yes" side are grandstanding.

EyeOnTheBall

3rkfiv.jpg

Sarky

Why?