Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

MrPudding

Bus77II wrote: »

If that's the case then it's still not a court matter in my opinion. Adults must make decisions of upbringing between themselves, otherwise a primary carer should be given precedence. Do you not agree?

In some cases, like this one for example, apparently not. I am not sure what age you are, or what kind of life experience you have had, but I am going to have to assume that you aren’t very old and don’t have a lot of life experience.

It is quite common for people to have very different ideas about how a child should be brought up. In the vast majority of cases these differences are worked out between the relevant parties. It is unfortunate, but a fact of life nonetheless, that sometimes these differences cannot be worked out. There can be various reasons for this, but the reasons are not so important. If you have a child with someone and they want to do something that goes against your strongly held beliefs and that person cannot be reasoned with, nor are they willing to compromise, then what do you do?

Why should the views of the primary care giver be given precedent? What if the mother and father split up and the mother was given custody, she then subsequently became a Jehovah Witness. The child then got sick and needed a blood transfusion. The mother, the primary care giver, does not want the child to have the life saving transfusion but the father does. Should the mother’s wishes be given precedence now?

To say that people should be able to work it out amongst themselves and if not the primary care giver’s wishes should take precedence is a very simplistic view that in an ideal world might work. In the real world, however, with all the different personalities and beliefs that people have it is just not realistic.

I personally find it quite sad that a dispute of this nature ended up in court but at the same time I an happy for this route to be available to people should they feel they need to use it.

MrP

Bus77II

[QUOTE=MrPudding;76423785 I am going to have to assume that you aren’t very old and don’t have a lot of life experience.[/QUOTE]
It would probably be the later because I'm getting on a bit now.

MrPudding wrote: »

Why should the views of the primary care giver be given precedent? What if the mother and father split up and the mother was given custody, she then subsequently became a Jehovah Witness. The child then got sick and needed a blood transfusion. The mother, the primary care giver, does not want the child to have the life saving transfusion but the father does. Should the mother’s wishes be given precedence now?

I knew this was coming, a moral dilemma.

I hazard that the majority of people would go with the blood transfusion, therefore it is up to our people and legislators to set precedence and law. I'm not against taking the bull by the horns when it comes to a wish or belief.

But what if it was not life or death and something a bit more silly. What if the parents were dedicated nudists and believed that people should be free of clothes no matter what. But they break up, the father now feels clothes are the way to go. The judge reckons there's no real need to make a decision and it should be left to the child to decide when they are older. Would you be happy with that as a parent? As either the the dedicated nudist or the reformed clothie?

MrPudding wrote: »

To say that people should be able to work it out amongst themselves and if not the primary care giver’s wishes should take precedence is a very simplistic view that in an ideal world might work. In the real world, however, with all the different personalities and beliefs that people have it is just not realistic.

I personally find it quite sad that a dispute of this nature ended up in court but at the same time I an happy for this route to be available to people should they feel they need to use it.

Well, I originally said a third party, a ''counsellor'' should have been brought in as an alternative, in the hope that a bit a reason, decision and acceptance might grow between them. But, perhaps that's the biggest ideal of all.

C'est la vie!

MrPudding

Bus77II wrote: »

It would probably be the later because I'm getting on a bit now.

Aren't we all...;)

Bus77II wrote: »

I knew this was coming, a moral dilemma.

Of course, you can't have a decent conversation about religion or opinion without a good old moral dilemma.

Bus77II wrote: »

I hazard that the majority of people would go with the blood transfusion, therefore it is up to our people and legislators to set precedence and law. I'm not against taking the bull by the horns when it comes to a wish or belief.

I would like to think most people would. But the issue is not so much with the "thing" itself, more with what do you do when other avenues of discussion and negotiation have failed.

Bus77II wrote: »

But what if it was not life or death and something a bit more silly. What if the parents were dedicated nudists and believed that people should be free of clothes no matter what. But they break up, the father now feels clothes are the way to go. The judge reckons there's no real need to make a decision and it should be left to the child to decide when they are older. Would you be happy with that as a parent? As either the the dedicated nudist or the reformed clothie?

The judge will make the decision, based on rationality and things that are provable, what is best for the child. Baptism is a cultist ritual. it has no impact on the child, at least not in Australia, so a decision did not have to be made.

Whether or not a child was to wear clothes could actually impact the child, so I would expect the judge would be more likely to make a decision. And like the blood transfusion I would expect that decision to be based on the welfare of the child rather than simply what the primary care giver wanted.

Bus77II wrote: »

Well, I originally said a third party, a ''counsellor'' should have been brought in as an alternative, in the hope that a bit a reason, decision and acceptance might grow between them. But, perhaps that's the biggest ideal of all.

C'est la vie!

Like I said earlier, we don't know what these guys tried prior to going to court, but I would be really surprised if the court was the first port of call. It is expensive and judges really don't like it when people come to them and there are other options available to them.

The fact of the matter is, sometimes people will simply never come to an agreement about certain things. When that is the case there has to be someone to make the final decision. In our society, and many others, that final arbitrator is a judge, or judges, in a court. Yes, it is sad that family disputes come to this, but as you say, that's life.

MrP

eire4

It is very sad that we have here another example of parents who use a child as a proxy in their own fight. Having said that I agree with the judges decision and do not think any child should have baptisim imposed on them as a child.

recedite

Bus77II wrote: »

Adults must make decisions of upbringing between themselves, otherwise a primary carer should be given precedence. Do you not agree?

It would be great if the adults always agreed, but when they don't both views have to be taken into account. Your solution effectively gives a veto to the primary carer, ie a reason to never agree with the other person, because in the absence of an agreement, they would automatically get their own way every time.

The interesting thing about this case is the court decided that where there is a disagreement between parents concerning which religion the child should formally join, the answer and the default position is "none".