My favourite is "Kill them all. God knows his own."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you determine when is the appropriate time to take a child away from the parents?
Before they die instead of after.
Should children of parents of certain faiths be removed just in case?
If there is a reasonable chance of them dying (or suffering serious injury), yes.
Do you understand that in some faiths people are ok with letting their children die because they go to whatever God they worship? Do you have the right to violate that belief?
Yes, and yes. In fact, if I'm acting to save the life of the child, I have not only the legal right not only to violate that belief, but to kill the parent if necessary. It's called, formally "alter ego defense."
If so, what gives you the right to violate that belief?
If you believe in a rights-are-given framework, the laws of nearly every country in the world. If you believe in rights-exist-ab-initio, then rights aren't "given." If you believe in the common law framework, the common law.
At what point does your belief trump the belief of others?
At the point when I reasonably believe that this action is necessary to protect a third party. Even if I'm wrong, if my belief is reasonable, it trumps yours. (Look it up. See, for example, New York Penal Law section 35.15.) The usual example is that if I happen across two actors practicing a mugging scene and I ignorantly act to defend the victim,... I'm in the clear, legally speaking.
Some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of "for your own good".And even more horrible things have been done in the name of "my religion says I have to". Your point is?
When you've decided that "I'm right" covers any action you feel the need to take, you are not any better.
When you've decided that "I'm right" covers any action you feel the need to take, you are not any better.
Except he said he feels "I see a child in danger" covers any action he needs to take specifically to protect the said child. That's a lot more restrictive than your representation of it.
Sorry but you're wrong. Parents are allowed to raise their children according to their faith. Calling it brainwashing or indoctrination just so you can assume control when you think it's bad is wrong.
Not too long ago, a baby died because its vegan mother didn't know how it needed to be fed.
A bit further back, a kid died because his religious parents refused to take him to the hospital, since they believed in "faith healing".
Abusive parenting is abusive parenting. I don't care if they hide behind religion or claim the voices in their head made them do it. You do what's best for the child, not the parents.
A parent abusively beating their child is not even remotely the same as a parent and their child living by a moral code that doesn't allow certain treatment options. No matter how much you'd like it to be so.
When you've decided that "I'm right" covers any action you feel the need to take, you are not any better.Except he said he feels "I see a child in danger" covers any action he needs to take specifically to protect the said child. That's a lot more restrictive than your representation of it.
Someone certainly described refusing treatment options based on religious beliefs as abuse, and it wasn't me.
A parent abusively beating their child is not even remotely the same as a parent and their child living by a moral code that doesn't allow certain treatment options.
Sorry, you lost me with "killing children" = "moral code."
You're right. It's silly of me to believe that "don't let children die" should be a constant in our society. What do we have laws for, anyways?
When you've decided that "I'm right" covers any action you feel the need to take, you are not any better.Except he said he feels "I see a child in danger" covers any action he needs to take specifically to protect the said child. That's a lot more restrictive than your representation of it.
Especially since the assessment of the danger and the proposed action also need to be "reasonable," which restricts things still further. And the court system is prepared to make binding decisions about "reasonableness" when opinions differ.
You're right. It's silly of me to believe that "don't let children die" should be a constant in our society. What do we have laws for, anyways?
As far as modern libertarian belief seems to go, we have laws to protect sociopaths from the consequences of their sociopathy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone certainly described refusing treatment options based on religious beliefs as abuse, and it wasn't me.When you've decided that "I'm right" covers any action you feel the need to take, you are not any better.Except he said he feels "I see a child in danger" covers any action he needs to take specifically to protect the said child. That's a lot more restrictive than your representation of it.
Yes. It was, in fact, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Jehovah's Witnesses vs. King County Hospital, 1967. Federal Supplement 278, 309 U.S. 598, 278 F. Supp. 488, 1967, 488-508. Before that, they said it in Prince vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1944. 321 U.S. 804, 64 S. Ct. 784.
A parent abusively beating their child is not even remotely the same as a parent and their child living by a moral code that doesn't allow certain treatment options.Sorry, you lost me with "killing children" = "moral code."
I'm not surprised that:
1. That's what it actually equates to for you.
2. You got lost.
To both you and thejeff, religion is a moral code that people choose to live by. In strictly religious families, parents raise their children to believe as they do. In the United States there is even a law that protects this right. To say that parents can’t have their children follow their beliefs, even if the children want to, is to label a religious upbringing as indoctrination. You are saying that parents aren't allowed to do that because the child isn't old enough to know any better. I honestly would be thrilled if this happened as it might lead to the eradication of religion, but it is not within my rights to refuse others theirs. It’s really kinda sad that you actually believe that people choosing to live by their religion are literally killing their kids.
Are you also against the right of people to commit suicide to end their suffering? If someone has a degenerative disease that causes pain every day, can they want to die to end it? Is it ok if the person is 80? How about 30? How about 12?
Someone certainly described refusing treatment options based on religious beliefs as abuse, and it wasn't me.When you've decided that "I'm right" covers any action you feel the need to take, you are not any better.Except he said he feels "I see a child in danger" covers any action he needs to take specifically to protect the said child. That's a lot more restrictive than your representation of it.Yes. It was, in fact, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Jehovah's Witnesses vs. King County Hospital, 1967. Federal Supplement 278, 309 U.S. 598, 278 F. Supp. 488, 1967, 488-508. Before that, they said it in Prince vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1944. 321 U.S. 804, 64 S. Ct. 784.
Is your argument that the Supreme Court said so, therefore it's good?
Are you also against the right of people to commit suicide to end their suffering?
One thing's for sure: I am against murder-suicides where parents take their children with them.
There is a difference between raising your children to follow your beliefs and murdering them by refusing to allow them the treatment they need. One is left alone by the law. The other gets you convicted of manslaughter or worse.
You're right. It's silly of me to believe that "don't let children die" should be a constant in our society. What do we have laws for, anyways?As far as modern libertarian belief seems to go, we have laws to protect sociopaths from the consequences of their sociopathy.
Can't tell if bashing libertarianism. I don’t care if you do as I'm not a libertarian, but that is the sort of nonsense that draws the mods in to shut down a thread.
Are you also against the right of people to commit suicide to end their suffering?One thing's for sure: I am against murder-suicides where parents take their children with them.
There is a difference between raising your children to follow your beliefs and murdering them by refusing to allow them the treatment they need. One is left alone by the law. The other gets you convicted of manslaughter or worse.
This is also the type of nonsense that is bound to get a thread locked.
Thankfully not everyone believes what you do.
That link better work, that was a pain to type on this thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is also the type of nonsense that is bound to get a thread locked.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to offend the "let's kill some kids" crowd? Wait, what?
It’s really kinda sad that you actually believe that people choosing to live by their religion are literally killing their kids.
Except sometimes they actually are doing exactly that. You seem to be very keen to let them do so.
It’s really kinda sad that you actually believe that people choosing to live by their religion are literally killing their kids.Except sometimes they actually are doing exactly that. You seem to be very keen to let them do so.
Keen? No. I think they're crazy. But I believe that you're not free unless you're free to be wrong.
I also believe that people who are determined to commit suicide should be allowed to do so regardless of the circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keen? No. I think they're crazy. But I believe that you're not free unless you're free to be wrong.
You're still dodging, though. You and I agree they're free to be wrong for themselves. Where you disagree with me (and everyone else except the JWs and some other assorted cults) is in saying that they should be free to inflict that on defenseless children as well.
I also believe that people who are determined to commit suicide should be allowed to do so regardless of the circumstances.
Again, I'm mostly with you there. But I strongly disagree that people who are determined to commit homicide should be allowed to do so, under just about any circumstances.
Are you also against the right of people to commit suicide to end their suffering?One thing's for sure: I am against murder-suicides where parents take their children with them.
There is a difference between raising your children to follow your beliefs and murdering them by refusing to allow them the treatment they need. One is left alone by the law. The other gets you convicted of manslaughter or worse.
This is also the type of nonsense that is bound to get a thread locked.
Thankfully not everyone believes what you do.
That link better work, that was a pain to type on this thing.
I think we all agree that the parent's religous concerns should be heeded as long as it's relatively safe to do so. If doctors are coming up with new and better ways to do so, limiting the number of cases where there is a conflict, that's great.
But it's in those extreme cases, some of which are actually simple, low risk procedures, that the ethical conflict lies. And when it comes down to that, I'm going with keeping the child alive everytime. An adult patient, of sound mind when he made the decision? That's his choice.Also bear in mind that Witnesses aren't the only example, though they're probably the most common one. There are other sects that reject far more modern medicine than the Witnesses do.
Sure, I don't know off hand but I'd guess at lease the Amish and Hasidic Jewish (they are the extreme orthodox, yes?).
Among the most disturbed of the groups is the scientologists. They provide their own health care, typically based on vitamins. In particular, they hate psychiatry and refuse to let their own have such care. In one case, a young woman with (IIRC) growing psychosis STARVED TO DEATH while they had her locked in. There are other examples.
I think you guys have gone so far off the rails it isn't funny. I thought we were talking about treatment for the depressed and/or autistic here, not religion. This thread is going to get locked sooner rather than later, and that's a loss- I thought we were getting somewhere for once!
Among the most disturbed of the groups is the scientologists.
There's a reason the Germans condsider them an illegal cult.
And the dutch and the greek, I seem to remember.
Keen? No. I think they're crazy. But I believe that you're not free unless you're free to be wrong.You're still dodging, though. You and I agree they're free to be wrong for themselves. Where you disagree with me (and everyone else except the JWs and some other assorted cults) is in saying that they should be free to inflict that on defenseless children as well.
I also believe that people who are determined to commit suicide should be allowed to do so regardless of the circumstances.Again, I'm mostly with you there. But I strongly disagree that people who are determined to commit homicide should be allowed to do so, under just about any circumstances.
If separated from the parents, what decision would the child make? How old do they have to be before that decision will be honored? Based on the belief that giving a person blood from someone else fundamentally changes who they are, what happens to the child if the parents won't take it back?
I am no expert either. *shrugs*
I think you guys have gone so far off the rails it isn't funny. I thought we were talking about treatment for the depressed and/or autistic here, not religion. This thread is going to get locked sooner rather than later, and that's a loss- I thought we were getting somewhere for once!
It's a question of forced treatment and when, if ever, it should be done. It turned to religion because there are a number that always refuse certain treatment types. This leads to either no treatment or forced treatment.
If separated from the parents, what decision would the child make? How old do they have to be before that decision will be honored?
They have to be legally considered adults—as in, age of consent. That's how it works for a lot of things.
Based on the belief that giving a person blood from someone else fundamentally changes who they are, what happens to the child if the parents won't take it back?
Well, first, phew! Good thing the child wasn't raised by such terrible parents who would not only willingly sacrifice their child's life but would abandon them for being unwillingly administered a blood transfusion!
Second...foster care, adoption, etc. The same as what we do for any case of child abuse.
If separated from the parents, what decision would the child make? How old do they have to be before that decision will be honored?
They have to be legally considered adults—as in, age of consent. That's how it works for a lot of things.
Based on the belief that giving a person blood from someone else fundamentally changes who they are, what happens to the child if the parents won't take it back?Well, first, phew! Good thing the child wasn't raised by such terrible parents who would not only willingly sacrifice their child's life but would abandon them for being unwillingly administered a blood transfusion!
Second...foster care, adoption, etc. The same as what we do for any case of child abuse.
As we were initially on the subject of mental disorders, can any of the experts figure out what's up with our pal here? I'm sensing anger and hostility.
Is your argument that the Supreme Court said so, therefore it's good?
Nope. My argument is that it's good, so therefore the Supreme Court said so.
If separated from the parents, what decision would the child make? How old do they have to be before that decision will be honored? Based on the belief that giving a person blood from someone else fundamentally changes who they are, what happens to the child if the parents won't take it back?Keen? No. I think they're crazy. But I believe that you're not free unless you're free to be wrong.You're still dodging, though. You and I agree they're free to be wrong for themselves. Where you disagree with me (and everyone else except the JWs and some other assorted cults) is in saying that they should be free to inflict that on defenseless children as well.I also believe that people who are determined to commit suicide should be allowed to do so regardless of the circumstances.Again, I'm mostly with you there. But I strongly disagree that people who are determined to commit homicide should be allowed to do so, under just about any circumstances.If separated from the parents (or other adult acting as such), the child won't be treated unless it's a life-threatening emergency. That holds true for any child under legal age. In such a case, if an older child conveys her beliefs they may be considered, but in a life threatening emergency it's not likely.
The child's wishes are legally irrelevant. Do we not give a toddler a shot because she's screaming in protest?
If the parents won't take her back, at least she's alive.
Alive, but potentially shunned from the only society she has known. I don’t know if JW parents would take it that far. I can guess that the child wouldn't be welcome to worship anymore at the least. I guess I'll have to do some searching later.
As we were initially on the subject of mental disorders, can any of the experts figure out what's up with our pal here? I'm sensing anger and hostility.You're arguing for letting children die for religious reasons. That has a tendency to create anger and hostility in many people.
And that's a really nasty passive aggressive attack there. You might want to back off.
And I'm getting beat up from all sides about it without going crazy with anger. If people cannot at least attempt to stay calm then maybe just hit the favorite button. I'm fully aware that I'm in a vanishingly small minority in regards to some things. I don’t feel the need to get angry at everyone who doesn't agree with me.
As we were initially on the subject of mental disorders, can any of the experts figure out what's up with our pal here? I'm sensing anger and hostility.
Interesting point. You know who else made interesting points? Hitler.
And I'm getting beat up from all sides about it without going crazy with anger.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if I should be using acid and fire rather than reasoned arguments. I think it'd be more effective and save me some time. ;)