Should parents be allowed to Microchip their kids?

[cubby]

Yes... no.
That is what I meant about being careful about ting civil law with experience mostly in common law.
In civil law it does not come down to what the courts rule the way it does in common law.
But if you are a lawyer you are pobably aware of this. You can probably look up the relevant details and even some rulings with much less efford than me.

I do, that's why I asked for your information, and provided mine.

Regarding consent. You still seem to assume (after being told it is not the case) that if a child is not able to give or refuse consent for something an adult could consent to that in such a case the legal guardians automatically hold the right to decide consent for that matter in their stead. This is not true.
As shown by the example of parents not being able to give consent for their toddler to have sex with someone.

Did you not read my response? Are you responding to someone else here? I pretty nicely laid out my reasons. The example of consenting to something illegal is just, well, stupid (because you repeated it). If you don't have anything better to contribute, then please don't. Also, I'd appreciate you responding to my point - that parents get to decide all kinds of things for children that are legal. Chipping would be another example of this.

You have not demonstrated that the chip "only helps without harm".

In fact I have, given certain assumptions.

So you as a lawyer are here to get layman opinions on the matter for later consideration?

Um . . . no. I was just pointing out my status a lawyer to help, and show that I understand some legal systems and that I do not understand others. Which is why I (misguidedly) asked for your help.

In the U.S. because kids haven't been chipped, there is no governing legal precedent, and therefore it's not decided. I think we're having a communication break down here. I know it's different in Europe. I just don't know how.

I raised a possible objection based on basic physical and technological principles.
I have studied and work in physics and informatics, and have served in the militray in a capacity that involved radio-telecommunication and the security and protection thereof.

Um . . . ok? I'd love to hear more. You didn't provide any data or reasoning, just made broad generalization without bothering to explain your expertise. Lessen learned for next time maybe? Give me more detail - I'm sincerely curious.

Your ad hominem attack and appeal to authority (as a lawyer on technological matters) is as blatant as it is misguided.
Are you being paid money to promote these chips? Otherwise why the apparent investment in eclaring them harmless and generally helpful?

I was just responding to you and your good/bad arguments. To answer a rather ridiculous question, no, I'm not getting paid to promote "these chips". I just haven't heard a good argument against them yet. So far it's all been emotional.

[Shadowferal]

So many pages of stupid in this thread.

Irony, is what's for breakfast.

Mutilation and indoctrination. Crazy stuff. :/

And very legal.

[Nfinitii]

Yes, but obviously when the kid turns 18 they have the right to make the parents remove it or get it removed.

[Raone]

Yes, you did. That statement is pure emotion - you're ranting about what's good for the child is good for the parent, when all reason and logic say otherwise. Unless you're going to actually address the examples you've been provided where that isn't the case. Are you going to do that? Or just keep repeating your emotional, and baseless, mantra.

I'm just playing devil's advocate because I feel both sides of a story always need to be discussed, I gave some examples as a child may need to find their parent like being lost or being chased where those split seconds could mean the difference between getting kidnapped or finding their way to their parents but you kinda ignored them, this is especially true when a parent has multiple children and may not know their child is missing for 10 minutes. I mean a simple magnet could destroy the chip or wonk out its GPS. Also I haven't seen a good example of why you think it isn't true but that is probably why arguing on the internet usually goes no where because its harder to explain things.

First of all, no, they won't automatically find out. Santa is your example? Really? Of course they could find out, but that's not the point. Are you going to explain this to a 2-year-old? Good luck!

Again my examples were of older children not 2-4 year olds (as they would most likely never find out till 7+). I only used Santa as a small example (probably shouldn't have used it since that is the only part you seem to have read) but my main example was playboy, I mean you could use how children learn about sex or any other example as to why a child will find out around 10~ years old as it gets passed around from older siblings.

Why 10? Why not 11 or 9? I'm sincerely curious. I also respect your choice if you don't choose to do it for your children.

I just said 10~ (the ~ is ment to mean around that age not the actual age since every child ages differently) cause it's around the preteen age when they are slowly turning from children into young adults and have to learn to be more independent. If a preteen says they don't want it in them and a parent forces it on them then what? This could honestly REALLY mess with them.

[Mistame]

Irony, is what's for breakfast.

And very legal.

Something being "legal" doesn't necessarily make it "good" or even acceptable.

[cubby]

So many pages of stupid in this thread.

OP: No, just no.

False.

More importantly, bodily autonomy.

Mutilation and indoctrination. Crazy stuff. :/

A child gains basic human rights at birth. This includes bodily autonomy. While this doesn't mean that they have the "right" to get tattoos at 5, it does protect them from unnecessary bodily harm. You can't just say that you wanted a girl and have a doctor cut off your little boy's bits. With the exception ensuring their well-being (vaccines, etc), a child absolutely has the right to not be violated.

Because 2-year-olds consent to surgery all the time, right?

This is a perfect example of abandoning all logic for baseless emotional arguments.

[Hilhen7]

Yes, but obviously when the kid turns 18 they have the right to make the parents remove it or get it removed.

Provided they even become aware of the device / the parents actually tell them they had the device inserted.

[Shadowferal]

Something being "legal" doesn't necessarily make it "good" or even acceptable.

I think you guys tried that in San Francisco. And never did I see Christians, Muslims, and Jews, in complete alliance with each other against your ilk.
It got me all misty-eyed...

[cubby]

I'm just playing devil's advocate because I feel both sides of a story always need to be discussed, I gave some examples as a child may need to find their parent like being lost or being chased where those split seconds could mean the difference between getting kidnapped or finding their way to their parents but you kinda ignored them, this is especially true when a parent has multiple children and may not know their child is missing for 10 minutes. I mean a simple magnet could destroy the chip or wonk out its GPS. Also I haven't seen a good example of why you think it isn't true but that is probably why arguing on the internet usually goes no where because its harder to explain things.

So, I thought your example of a parent getting chipped so their child could find them was interesting. To argue against myself, that is a pretty logical idea. Assuming that the child could use the necessary tools required to find the parent. I actually like the idea, but, ironically (and your head will now explode), I don't want to be chipped.

Again my examples were of older children not 2-4 year olds (as they would most likely never find out till 7+). I only used Santa as a small example (probably shouldn't have used it since that is the only part you seem to have read) but my main example was playboy, I mean you could use how children learn about sex or any other example as to why a child will find out around 10~ years old as it gets passed around from older siblings.

I read the whole thing, lol. You're equating the birds and the bees (sex ed) with chipping knowledge. There is an extremely valid point to be made that if it exists, kids will know about it, even if the parents don't want them to - Playboy being a perfect example. However, until that time, say around 10-12ish, they won't. And that's 10-12 years of increased safety and possibly a little more peace of mind.

I just said 10~ (the ~ is ment to mean around that age not the actual age since every child ages differently) cause it's around the preteen age when they are slowly turning from children into young adults and have to learn to be more independent. If a preteen says they don't want it in them and a parent forces it on them then what? This could honestly REALLY mess with them.

Ah, here we are. Gotcha re 10~. I could see a lesser age than 18 as being "of consent". That could be an interesting topic.

[Mistame]

Because 2-year-olds consent to surgery all the time, right?

If a child needs an appendectomy, etc, it's pretty obvious that it's necessary for their well-being. Read better.

This is a perfect example of abandoning all logic for baseless emotional arguments.

I can assure you, there's no "emotion" involved. It's a pretty rational and logical deduction. Bodily autonomy begins at birth, albeit with some limitations. The right to not be mutilated without reason is part of that.

I think you guys tried that in San Francisco. And never did I see Christians, Muslims, and Jews, in complete alliance with each other against your ilk.
It got me all misty-eyed...

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Noradin]

You're adding shitty context that was never there.
Child safety is ever been foremost...stop trying to score points over an argument that doesn't exist.

You made the point that it was the decision of the parents, always.
I pointed out that this is not true.
Children have rights, some of them protect them against actions of their parents/legal guardians.

In the case of this chip I have cited some constitutions that ban using these chips on others, and no parents do not get to consent for their kids in this case where these constitutions are concerned.

For them to even be considered you would first have to present a scientific study on all their effects--including possible reactions of criminals and abuse--that sows them to be beneficial. Then you would have to make a case that they are beneficial for the child in question and that the benefit outweights the risk by a margin deemed resonable.

Only after you have established those do the parents get the opportunity to consent.

Of course there is an exception: If your recognised faith demands it.

[cubby]

you have been watching black mirror havent you?

on topic: gonna go with No. policing and enforcing does not make good, decent or innovative individuals, in my opinion. Maybe when they are kids though, like the first few months of them getting their first driving licsense, just in case nothing terrible happens or they dont do something stupid in euphoria and harm others. but besides that...i dunno i cant see it being beneficial.

That was a brutal episode.

Are you saying ok with chipping when they are young? I'm not quite following and I don't want to make any assumptions.

[Shadowferal]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Your response to circumcision. (San Fran tried to ban it..."tried" being the operative word.)

You made the point that it was the decision of the parents, always. I pointed out that this is not true.

No. You added shit, because otherwise you had less of an argument than you imagined.

[StayTuned]

I'm not even sure you read this before you posted it. Nothing is correct here. When you're ready for the conversation, feel free to join us. There is no logical reason not to chip your child (assuming it's removable later).

Yea yea sure. Lets pretend that any child is always at danger of being abducted.

A chipped child can be wrapped in tinfoil and there goes your protection.

You want a serious answer? Parents with chipped children might be inclined to not guard their children as they should, because the chip could trick them with a false sense of safety.

And tinfoil is easily available.

[Shadowferal]

Yea yea sure. Lets pretend that any child is always at danger of being abducted. A chipped child can be wrapped in tinfoil and there goes your protection. You want a serious answer? Parents with chipped children might be inclined to not guard their children as they should, because the chip could trick them with a false sense of safety. And tinfoil is easily available.

Back when I was part of security for a particular venue, I recall countless times when a child would wander away...to be found later, harmless but a bit scared.

[cubby]

If a child needs an appendectomy, etc, it's pretty obvious that it's necessary for their well-being. Read better.

So parents can make choices for the safety and well being of their child, even if it involves the body? Gotcha - thanks for making my point for me. Perhaps you should think better next time.

I can assure you, there's no "emotion" involved. It's a pretty rational and logical deduction. Bodily autonomy begins at birth, albeit with some limitations. The right to not be mutilated without reason is part of that.

Of course there is - that's all you have. You already admit there are limitations to "bodily autonomy". Now we're just discussing why you don't "like" the idea of chipping. We aren't discussing any logical reasons against it - at least none that you are bringing up.

Nothing about your arguments have been logical or rational. If you're holding some back, now would be the time to bring them up. So far all you have is "bodily autonomy", with some exceptions. Lol.

[StayTuned]

Back when I was part of security for a particular venue, I recall countless times when a child would wander away...to be found later, harmless but a bit scared.

So the solution isnt better parenting awareness, its surgically implating a device that can be used to track down human beings? Lets also not pretend that there arent any parents who could potentially just never tell their child its been chipped, keeping track of every move they make - forever.

Hacked GPS locations can give potential criminals the exact locations of their targets. Assuming the child is mostly with their parents, you are creating a perfect movement record of the whole family.

The whole idea is retarded. Just keep an eye on your child and it wont be abducted that easily.

[cubby]

Yea yea sure. Lets pretend that any child is always at danger of being abducted.
You want a serious answer? Parents with chipped children might be inclined to not guard their children as they should, because the chip could trick them with a false sense of safety.

I could see it providing a false sense of security, but that just goes back to the individual parent and how they use the tech.

A chipped child can be wrapped in tinfoil and there goes your protection.
And tinfoil is easily available.

The "blocking" issue is the first real argument I've heard against this entire issue. And that still doesn't account for when kids get lost. Also, are we giving abductors a "kidnapping kit", with tinfoil and a how-to-block-trackers kit?

(on a side note, would it really just take tinfoil to block it?)

[Jonnusthegreat]

Parents can already perform invasive surgery on kids, I don't see this being any different.

[Mistame]

Your response to circumcision. (San Fran tried to ban it..."tried" being the operative word.)

Still unsure how that's relevant. I simply stated that something being "legal" doesn't necessarily make it OK. I mean, it's "legal" to eat your own shit but I wouldn't recommend doing it.

So parents can make choices for the safety and well being of their child, even if it involves the body?

Yes, again, with limitations. For general safety, etc, sure. When it comes to the child's bodily autonomy, then only to protect them from an imminent threat to their health.

Of course there is - that's all you have.

There's really not. Maybe you're projecting. /shrug

You already admit there are limitations to "bodily autonomy".

Of course there are. A child isn't capable of determining whether or not having a life-saving surgery is a good idea or not, or whether the long-term benefits of vaccination are worth a few minutes of pain. But a chip is not protection from an imminent threat to the child's health. Its primary purpose would be a quality-of-life upgrade for the parent(s).

Let's take another example, shall we? Pierced ears. They should only be allowed if the child agrees. If the child does not agree, or they're too young to agree, then it should not be allowed and should be considered child abuse. If you want, you can make a similar argument in favor of a chip and say that if the child agrees then it's OK and I'd have to concede that point. Regardless, a child does have rights in that regard.

We aren't discussing any logical reasons against it - at least none that you are bringing up.

Nothing about your arguments have been logical or rational. If you're holding some back, now would be the time to bring them up. So far all you have is "bodily autonomy", with some exceptions. Lol.

I really can't be held accountable for your inability to parse logic.