[SilverElfin]

If they want to homeschool, yes that is their fundamental right. Not everyone has to share the same culture or knowledge or way of life. As for food - do you think all Arab households should behave their children taken away when they withhold food for religious fasting?

[BugsJustFindMe]

> do you think all Arab households ... religious fasting

Assuming you mean Muslim households and not Arab households, since not all Arabs are Muslim (today is the day you learn about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith and even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_Middle_East), everyone still eats during Ramadan, they just do it at night.

[Tadpole9181]

Religious fasting is not starving and home schooling is not "no school". You didn't address the marriage thing either.

I take that to mean you understand the point?

[SilverElfin]

I understand that you don’t understand that religious fasting is literally “withholding food” - which you had a problem with until you flip flopped apparently. Sigh.

[Tadpole9181]

I didn't amuse your goal-moving example because it's not related and you're not bringing it up in good faith.

I have never met in my entire life, in America, a family that engaged in religious starvation fasting. Not Catholic, not Jewish, not Muslim. Their fasting rules were eating bland food or only at certain times of the day. And it's for a limited period of time.

But if a family makes a child go without eating for any prolonged period of time not for a medical necessity (pre-surgery, for instance), yes, they should get a a check-in from social services.

And to go even further, if you only feed your child bad foods on purpose - like only bread and potatoes every day, when you can afford real food and diversity - you should also get a visit from social services.

I seriously don't get why you're defending people like the Turpins. Do you genuinely not understand why these laws are necessary and why it is pivotal we have basic protections for children from their parents? You don't even need to look past Hollywood with Honey booboo and Justin Bieber and all that lot to see how dangerous parents can be, let alone the insidiousness and commonality of the lower-profile cases.

Again, a number of sitting members of legislation in 2025 are arguing that children as low as the age of 12 should be allowed to be married off to adults who then (if they haven't already) rape them. And that child cannot legally get divorced without their parent's consent!

In one hearing the politician admitted to knowing an example! So you can't even say "well it never happens."

I can't believe it needs to be argued: in any just and equitable society, children have a right to a basically healthy upbringing. That means socialization, education (both physical and mental), healthcare, nutrition, and protection from those who would do them harm.

They are not "lesser people" or property of their parents. It is a practical reality that some of their rights must be ceded because they are incapable, but their parents are meant to be guardians and not owners.