Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 226 of 286 (462396)
04-02-2008 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Stile
04-02-2008 7:47 PM


Ugh, I cannot let this accusation go unchallenged...
You (msg 210): Of course this single case is currently allowed under some unique laws in the US. But that's why we're discussing it, because it's an anomaly.
Me: You then move on to assert that laws in 44 states, which are shown as being upheld within papers opposing such laws, are an anomaly.
You (msg 225): I never did, and never would assert such an obvious falsity. What I asserted as the anomaly was that parents are generally punished for not providing medical care to their children, except for this anomaly where the parents plead a christian-religious defense.
I apologize for being somewhat sloppy with my writing, it could have been clearer, but much more clear is that you are reversing yourself.
Single case, unique laws, anomaly. There is no way of reading your original statement as you have just described. If you had not had "this single case" as your subject, perhaps one could stretch the sentence to mean what you are saying, and somehow dismiss my statement as putting words in your mouth. But that is not the case.
It is not a single case, an anomaly. That is inherently a fact when you have such laws (unique= 88% ?), and they are upheld in several cases beyond the most recent one in the OP.
My argument still stands exactly as it did in It's about protecting the rights of minors (Message 152)
And of course it always will. That is what happens when a person merely repeats ad nauseum their original statement.
Yes, people are free to decide what they will on either side.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Stile, posted 04-02-2008 7:47 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Stile, posted 04-03-2008 8:42 AM Silent H has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 227 of 286 (462397)
04-02-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Silent H
04-02-2008 7:18 PM


Re: simple is as simple does
Silent H writes:
I find it interesting that you make this "victory" claim, within a thread based on the fact that many have not sided with you already. And for that matter, why did you feel it necessary to post in this thread at all if you are so convinced the majority agrees with you and would never think otherwise? Was this gloating? Cheerleading? I don't get it.
If you disagree with what I have to say then focus on that or don't reply at all, but don't make me the focus of your discussion. The topic's in the title.
As I said, I only posted because I thought the important goal was getting lost in the details. There are plenty of other people here willing to discuss the details, this is the hottest thread at present, you don't need me. As I've made clear on a number of occasions and on a variety of topics, I have little interest in arguing against positions with little chance of gaining much traction.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 7:18 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 12:13 AM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 228 of 286 (462409)
04-03-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Percy
04-02-2008 9:05 PM


Re: simple is as simple does
Mr. Percy...
If you disagree with what I have to say then focus on that or don't reply at all, but don't make me the focus of your discussion.
There was more than the single paragraph you quoted from my post. The first in particular dealt with what you said, and the one you quoted as "focused" on you I would suggest was attacking your claim of how few would care about my "little details" rather than you yourself.
Pretty much my whole point was to address the concept that reaching a goal is not hinged on details. I find it strange to consider the fact that a policy which does not attain a goal desired, as an insignificant detail.
From your first post in this thread (msg 2)...
Once you've decided a line must be drawn against some religious practices, no matter how sincere, then it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that medical care for treatable conditions can never be denied, and that courts, not parents, should decide.
This has been in dispute by me. Intriguingly I almost mentioned the same anecdote regarding God having answered the prayers with medicine in my opening post. Yet we fall to different sides on this issue, as what you have claimed is impossible is not. There are differences between taxes and child sacrifice, and not using modern medicine. That a line can be drawn somewhere does not mean it must shift to anywhere.
But you go on from this to say something which is where the details become manifest...
This unfortunately puts parents at odds with both the legal establishment and law enforcement, with all the messy outcomes that such entails, including incarceration, fleeing jurisdictions, etc. But we as a society cannot ignore our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, regardless of their unfortunate choice of parents.
Our stated responsibility (and you are not the only one who has made this claim) has a very specific focus. You have restated this mandate as creating policies to reduce child mortality.
With that in mind, it is not an insignificant detail that a certain policy will not in fact protect anyone, much less the most vulnerable. And worse still taking this mandate with the idea that the line must be drawn at its maximum, I do not see how abortion rights are protected. Fetuses are routinely viewed as the most vulnerable members or our society... by a very large portion of our society. But we can ignore that abortion issue as wonk stuff.
This is the direct question: How will removing these exemptions reduce child mortality? If they cannot, then how is that part of achieving said goal?
And as an extension: Why should we not focus on provision of aid that would certainly reduce such mortality?
It seems just as unfortunate for a child to have chosen a parent who is poor, or has gotten the wrong insurance policy (willing to deny service for profit).
If you don't wish to answer this that is fine, but I want it to be clear that these statements of yours and so these questions were and remain my focus... not you.
I have little interest in arguing against positions with little chance of gaining much traction.
Which again begs the question. How does it have little chance of gaining traction when this position is already part of law in 44 states and there are people supporting them?
As it is the ratio of posters for and against the position are not that far apart in this thread. Let me analogize this...
If a person began arguing for teaching creationism in science class, I don't think his argument that "the goal is to find the truth about the universe" would fly very far, especially if he were to add that discussing methods of how to find it were "little details", and further that it didn't really matter what scientists say because he knows most people believe in God's Bible and so won't care about such details anyway.
It would seem much flimsier still, when it could be pointed out that current law is against teaching creationism in public school, and he is the one requesting the change.
Thank you

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 04-02-2008 9:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 04-03-2008 8:41 AM Silent H has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 229 of 286 (462410)
04-03-2008 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Silent H
04-02-2008 3:57 PM


Hey guys. I've read through this whole thread with much interest and have decided to jump in (against my better judgement, probably, but here goes).
H writes:
Flies Only writes:
can you assure me that Madeline's parents were not whimsically praying?
No, this is why I would like to stay away from particulars of that case, which might change with time. If a police investigation found out that they were just making shit up, and didn't believe in prayer, or take measures to figure out what they ought to do in prayer (i.e. take that seriously) then they ought to be hit with neglect charges.
If one wants to take on the role of doctor, even witch-doctor, you better be serious about it or face the charges for malpractice.
Why do the particulars of this case make it any different from any other death through prayer only? The question posed to you (by FO and by Mod as well, I believe) was how does anyone know how they were praying or what they were praying for?
They could have been praying for God to take her to heaven. They could have been praying too little or not hard enough. They could have not been praying at all!
How does one determine that they are "serious about it" since they decided to "take on the role of doctor"/healer? The point is that one cannot do that.
Just as in the case of the woman who was told to breastfeed and her baby died due to malnutrition, the parents should have realized that their daughter was not getting any better through all their (supposed) praying and then taken another course of action. Their intentions may have been all well and good in the beginning (just like the breastfeeding mother), but there should come a point when well intentioned, but ignorant, parents realize that their child is going to die without an alternative.
Parents who beat their children with the "good intention" of saving their soul from the corruption of sin that would be inevitable without the beatings are not protected by the law under religious freedom or the "integrity of the family," nor should they be, so how is letting your child die with "good intentions" any different?
The parents who kept their foster kids in cages said that they were only doing it to "protect" them and the other kids. Good intentioned, I'm sure, but still cruelty and they were prosecuted and sentenced (too lightly IMO). Of course, they weren't doing it for religious reasons, but their intentions were supposedly good, so what gives?
And then we have cases like the woman in Texas who beat her sons to death because God told her to kill them. Who are we to say that He didn't? She's obviously mentally ill (to me and the experts), but who are we to say that?
My answer is that we have evidence that she was mentally ill and no evidence for God actually talking to people, just like we have evidence that medicine works (in most cases, and especially in the case of Madeline Neumann) and no evidence that prayer works.
So, in the majority of cases, the religious excuse just doesn't cut it when it comes to affecting another person. Why are cases like the one in the OP different?
I would agree to some degree with the Reynolds decision, but not completely. I understand the limit on practices which involve infliction of harm to others. This would include children in most cases. There is a difference between that sort of activity and choosing not to use certain methods which are deemed harmful or repellent to religious belief.
But, how are they different? That is what you have failed to answer (I'm not sure if the question has been directly posed to you in this thread, but I am asking it now).
I agree that there is a degree of difference, just as in the difference between murder and negligent homicide, but what exactly is the difference between sacrificing a child in the name of religion or just killing your kid because "God said so" (murder) and letting your child die with or without "good intentions" (negligent homicide) in the name of religion?
In both scenarios, the parents probably thought that they were doing what was best (and who are we to mess with family integrity??). So, tell me why one should be prosecuted and one should not.
You are right that people do not have the right to harm another based on their personal belief system. I think the saying goes that my right to swing my fists around ends at the point of some other person's nose. We are all on the same page with regard to this point and so there is absolutely no way that you can beat your wife for burning anything, except perhaps one of your body parts... and that only if you did not ask her to do so first.
The only exception to the rule above is children. Minors do not have the same rights as those of the age of majority. This is an accepted fact and has been so from the beginning of our nation. Someone must make decisions for them, and can make decisions which they do not like (against their will) as well as those which can present physical risk to their lives. The question is regarding who is given this authority, or at least in which cases and why.
You are right. Someone must make those decisions for minors and it is usually the parents and properly so, most of the time. However, the point that others have been making is that we, as a society, have granted the government the power to step in when the parents either cannot make competent decisions (they are addicts, mentally ill, etc) or when they are causing objective harm to their child.
This happens all the time, H. Children are taken away from incompetent and/or abusive parents and the parents are prosecuted and in those cases which are not caught before a child's death, the parents are prosecuted.
What I have raised, is a serious question to that assertion of role, obligation, and mandate. There really is a serious inconsistency in making that claim, and having as the first order of business taking on people that are well meaning, but of a different belief system (which we would regard as ignorant). And a much greater inconsistency when the argument is that we should go after such people, while giving full pass to people who are not well meaning at all when they make the exact same decision.
I decided to raise this inconsistency based on a bizarre passage within one of molbio's cites where faith in profit was overtly given a free pass by the article writers.
Flies Only writes:
Next, we can address the issue of Universal healthcare coverage and the elimination of HMOs and other stupid systems that are based primarily on the bottom line and run on greed, rather than any real concerns about the health of their "members". How would that be?
I think that would not make any sense. It would be almost by definition backwards, if the express intent is to reduce child mortality. The threat of faith based denials of service, and so deaths, is not significant compared to the other cases. So why start there? Also, there has been no explanation of how such efforts would stop such deaths from occurring in the first place.
It also starts from an inconsistency of a claim that the gov't has interest X which would mean Y should be addressed, yet the proof that the gov't has interest X is not proven (or made with any consistent evidence) until after Y is addressed.
Further, and more important, the other cases can be addressed without granting powers to the gov't which could lead to further intrusions many would not want. I cannot draw a line from provision of service and making sure people get their money's worth of service, to denial of things such as abortions or stem cell research. I can draw a line from allowing gov't to reduce child mortality over the belief systems of the parents, to those later cases.
Why start with the least effective case, that would save the least number of lives, and introduce the most problematic policy shift for gov't?
Well, for starters, that is the topic of this thread.
You are the one who brought up US healthcare and its failures. That however, is OT.
Although it would be interesting to discuss (and I would hazard a guess that those in favor of repealing these laws would also favor either universal healthcare or a revamp of the system to provide better and more affordable care without allowing insurance companies to be the final arbiter in order to profit), it does not need to be shown that the gov't, as it currently stands, has a demonstrable interest in saving children's (or anyone else's) lives in order to discuss the OP. The argument is that it should (and, again, I would hazard a guess...).
For what it is worth, I am a proponent of universal healthcare in this country and I would argue that the gov't should have an interest in saving as many lives as possible, including those like Madeline Neumann.
Also, there has been no explanation of how such efforts would stop such deaths from occurring in the first place.
Well, there is also no explanation of how laws against murder or child abuse or negligence or anything else actually stop such things from happening "in the first place," except, perhaps, through deterrence, but that doesn't stop us from having laws against such things and prosecuting the people who break these laws.
Why have laws if people are just going to break them anyway?
Fail.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 3:57 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 2:54 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 230 of 286 (462412)
04-03-2008 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 12:58 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Or whatever? How about specific individuals? People who are unable to sustain their own life are inferior in their right to life, so therefore everyone who is able, is superior to them in their right.
Show me that everyone has an equal right to life without just saying that without knowing that they don't, we must assume that they do.
Well, since no one has stated the obvious to you, yet, I will say it.
Under the US Constitution everyone has the same right to life.
Since we are talking about US laws, I think that this is quite relevant.
No one here needs to demonstrate that this child had an equal right to live to you. It is guaranteed under our Constitution.
The onus is, therefore, upon you to demonstrate that she (or anyone else you deem "inferior") has less of a right to live.
No, the point was that people are advocating that this girl should have been forced to receive insulin because she has a right to life, however, if this took place before insulin was invented, they wouldn’t be able to advocate that. So does she really have that right to life if the insulin isn’t available?
That is irrelevant since the right to life in this country is guaranteed under the Constitution. Before insulin was utilized as a treatment for diabetes, there wasn't much anyone could do (except pray and it didn't work back then either) and, therefore, no one could blame the parents or anyone else for the death of a child. We have progressed since then and there are viable treatments for children like Madeline Neumann. Her right to live was always there, no matter when she was born, but now we can do more to help her live.
The girl’s life was going to end at that time by default. She died when she did because the parents chose to not accept the medical treatment, not because they prayed for her. Their action didn’t end her life, their inaction did.
How do you know the praying didn't kill her? God could have been really pissed off that they were praying for their kid instead of taking her to a doctor and decided to kill her instead of heal her. How do you know?
Yes, that's a silly argument, but it was only to illustrate the inanity of yours.
But molesters and killers are doing an action, these parents did an inaction. They didn’t kill their child, they allowed their child to die naturally.
Everyone dies naturally without some sort of "intervention" (I believe you used that term in another post). Children cannot feed themselves (before a certain age). Do you propose that we not prosecute parents who do not feed their children. What if they just wanted their kids to bypass all the sin and suffering experienced in an earthly life and go directly to heaven? What if a child required a feeding tube or required a special diet that the parents refused to provide?
It's called negligence and it should be illegal.
Yes, parents should be the first source, but when they fail, they should be held to account, regardless of their "good intentions."
People who cannot live have no “right” to live. We don’t have to do everything we possible can to make people live as long as possible.
Wait...are we in ancient Sparta? Let's just toss all the diseased and handicapped people off a cliff since we have no obligation to help them live. Or, at least, let's not stop their parents from doing it since we, as a society, have no obligation to help those who cannot help themselves because their parents always know what is best.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:25 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 231 of 286 (462422)
04-03-2008 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Silent H
04-03-2008 12:13 AM


Re: simple is as simple does
Silent H writes:
There was more than the single paragraph you quoted from my post. The first in particular dealt with what you said,...
I'm not interested in discussing the particulars with you.
...and the one you quoted as "focused" on you I would suggest was attacking your claim of how few would care about my "little details" rather than you yourself.
You accused me of posting unnecessarily, gloating and cheerleading, so I suggested you steer your focus away from me and onto the topic, which I still think is a good idea.
Which again begs the question. How does it have little chance of gaining traction when this position is already part of law in 44 states and there are people supporting them?
I was referring to the notion that religious freedom should take precedence over a child's right to life. I don't believe that notion will ever gain much traction, and I doubt the laws you're referring to state it this way. One of the dangers of well-intended legislation is unanticipated outcomes, and the Neumann case is one of them.
As I once again feel the most pertinent point is getting lost in the details, let me state it again: A child's right to life is of overarching importance and takes precedence over almost all other considerations one can imagine.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 12:13 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 1:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 232 of 286 (462423)
04-03-2008 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Silent H
04-02-2008 9:00 PM


The Main Topic is Caring for Minors
You asked for clarity, and I gave you clarity. Then you argue that my original position wasn't clear enough? We already knew that, that's why you asked for clarity.
Actually, you didn't even ask. You assumed I meant something that hadn't been discussed at all yet, and took off from there. So I then clarified on my own behalf.
Silent H writes:
Single case, unique laws, anomaly. There is no way of reading your original statement as you have just described. If you had not had "this single case" as your subject, perhaps one could stretch the sentence to mean what you are saying, and somehow dismiss my statement as putting words in your mouth. But that is not the case.
Again, this is a very minor issue, and has no effect on our debate at all. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which of us has a communication problem, and which of us is trying to focus on the main topic.
And of course it always will. That is what happens when a person merely repeats ad nauseum their original statement.
If you're having trouble communicating your side of the debate, please refrain from trying to lay blame on me.
My stance, again, is yet unchallenged by any point you have brought up. Here it is again, if you care to attempt in addressing it:
Stile in MSG 225 writes:
1. All people have an equal right to choose to live their life the way they desire.
2. In the case of minors, they are possibly too weak and/or immature to make these decisions themselves. Therefore, parents/guardians make those choices for them. However, when a parent/guardian chooses to use an un-validated method to care for their children, when validated methods are available, and this puts the child's "right to choose to live their life the way they desire" at risk (for example... they die) then the parent should be punished.
Note how their is no mention of "anomaly" or anything about the state of current laws. This is a minor issue that has no effect on my position. I'll concede the point altogether, if it will make you feel better. I do not need to talk about the state of current laws to support my position.
Silent H writes:
Yes, people are free to decide what they will on either side.
Hope you find what you're looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 9:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 2:02 PM Stile has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 233 of 286 (462424)
04-03-2008 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Silent H
04-02-2008 5:04 PM


Moderator Note
Silent H writes:
That you did not understand what a hidden premise was, is rather clear. And of course you will know without question whether you have taken a course in elementary logic or not. If you have not, then I would recommend it so that you will not make such errors in the future and will improve your ability to analyze your own arguments.
Please keep your focus on the discussion and not on any supposed deficiencies of your opponents. If you feel you are having a problem with any message or person, please post a note to Windsor castle.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 5:04 PM Silent H has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 286 (462432)
04-03-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Modulous
04-02-2008 5:50 PM


I think these people should be allowed to let their child die naturally if they feel that undergoing some medical treatment will taint their child's soul.
An example.
Let us say that a medical treatment would give a child a near 100% chance of surviving and that withholding that treatment would mean the child has a 90% chance of dying. But the parents believed that medical treatments would taint the soul you believe that they should not be punished.
Would you also agree that the following parents should not be punished?
In this case the parents believe that water taints a child's soul during the first four days of a female child's 7th year on earth. Let us assume that a 6 year old has a 90% chance of dying after being without water for four days, and a near 100% of living if given water.
I assume that you would want the government to let this religious community continue to practice their religious ceremonies unharassed?
If there was enough people that believed this to warrant a law in 44 of 50 states, then yeah, I would want the government to let this religious community continue to practice their religious ceremonies unharassed.
If so - then you surely want the law changed to reflect this.
Honestly, I don’t care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2008 5:50 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 10:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 04-03-2008 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 235 of 286 (462433)
04-03-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2008 10:13 AM


If there was enough people that believed this to warrant a law in 44 of 50 states, then yeah, I would want the government to let this religious community continue to practice their religious ceremonies unharassed.
Miscegenation laws were on the books in a majority of the states (30/50) before Loving v. Virginia.
44/50 is no excuse for reprehensible behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:28 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 286 (462434)
04-03-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Jaderis
04-03-2008 1:31 AM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Show me that everyone has an equal right to life without just saying that without knowing that they don't, we must assume that they do.
Well, since no one has stated the obvious to you, yet, I will say it.
Under the US Constitution everyone has the same right to life.
Since we are talking about US laws, I think that this is quite relevant.
Fail.
I was talking about a natural right as opposed to a legal right. A contitution establishing a legal right for people is not evidence that the natural right exists.
Care to try again?
No, the point was that people are advocating that this girl should have been forced to receive insulin because she has a right to life, however, if this took place before insulin was invented, they wouldn’t be able to advocate that. So does she really have that right to life if the insulin isn’t available?
That is irrelevant since the right to life in this country is guaranteed under the Constitution. Before insulin was utilized as a treatment for diabetes, there wasn't much anyone could do (except pray and it didn't work back then either) and, therefore, no one could blame the parents or anyone else for the death of a child. We have progressed since then and there are viable treatments for children like Madeline Neumann. Her right to live was always there, no matter when she was born, but now we can do more to help her live.
Re-respond under the impression that we are talking about natural rights, not legal rights.
Naturally, she didn't have the right to live past 11 years.
Everyone dies naturally without some sort of "intervention" (I believe you used that term in another post). Children cannot feed themselves (before a certain age). Do you propose that we not prosecute parents who do not feed their children. What if they just wanted their kids to bypass all the sin and suffering experienced in an earthly life and go directly to heaven?
Dying from not eating is not a 'natural' death. Sustaining yourself is a part of being alive. Getting chemicals injected into you is not.
It's called negligence and it should be illegal.
Well, if the Orthodox Humanists take over and say that any medical treatment is negligent to the good of our species so it should be illegal, are you gonna jump on their bandwagon too?
Like I said:
quote:
We don’t have to do everything we possible can to make people live as long as possible.
Wait...are we in ancient Sparta? Let's just toss all the diseased and handicapped people off a cliff since we have no obligation to help them live. Or, at least, let's not stop their parents from doing it since we, as a society, have no obligation to help those who cannot help themselves because their parents always know what is best.
That does not follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Jaderis, posted 04-03-2008 1:31 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 286 (462435)
04-03-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by molbiogirl
04-03-2008 10:23 AM


Miscegenation laws were on the books in a majority of the states (30/50) before Loving v. Virginia.
44/50 is no excuse for reprehensible behavior.
Sure it is. It makes it not reprehensibile.
In your opinion it is, and your welcome to that.
Before Loving v. Virginia, people didn't think miscegenation laws were reprehensibile.
Its all relative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 10:23 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 1:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 238 of 286 (462439)
04-03-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2008 10:13 AM


But then they came for the apathetic Catholics....
Honestly, I don’t care.
For someone that doesn't care about the exemption, you have spent a lot of time discussing it. If you genuinely don't care and don't see why you should care then there is no point continuing the discussion. I'll just refer you to Martin Niemller and leave it there: At first they eroded the right to life of children of certain religious families, and I didn't speak up because I am not a child of certain religious families...
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 12:30 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 286 (462440)
04-03-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Modulous
04-03-2008 12:09 PM


Re: But then they came for the apathetic Catholics....
For someone that doesn't care about the exemption, you have spent a lot of time discussing it. If you genuinely don't care and don't see why you should care then there is no point continuing the discussion.
I meant that I don't care if the government allows another exemption like your example.
I'll just refer you to Martin Niemller and leave it there: At first they eroded the right to life of children of certain religious families, and I didn't speak up because I am not a child of certain religious families...
I'm more worried about them eroding people's religious freedom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 04-03-2008 12:09 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Modulous, posted 04-03-2008 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 255 by FliesOnly, posted 04-04-2008 7:56 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 240 of 286 (462447)
04-03-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Percy
04-03-2008 8:41 AM


In an attempt to wrap this up...
1) I understand you are not interested in discussing the particulars. My last post (I believe last two) stated as much. I was not, and am not, asking you to do so. I simply clarified what I had been stating and what the outstanding arguments were. You need not feel you have to respond to them and I am not asking you to.
2) I did not accuse you of anything. The comments regarding gloating and cheerleading were sarcastically rhetorical as I certainly did not think you were doing such. I had pointed to where your actions did not seem consistent with the inevitable victory claims for your position, and these two questions highlighted that. As in, if you did feel so confident, your posts made no sense except perhaps as those? And I finished by saying I don't get it.
3) And once again...
I was referring to the notion that religious freedom should take precedence over a child's right to life. I don't believe that notion will ever gain much traction, and I doubt the laws you're referring to state it this way.
... I have stated to you directly that my position is NOT that religious freedom alone takes precedence over a child's right to life.
So we do agree. The gov't should be making policies that reduce child mortality, and the religious freedom alone should not take precedence over a child's right to life.
A child's right to life is of overarching importance and takes precedence over almost all other considerations one can imagine.
And not only do I agree with that, but I would expand that to ANYONE's right to life is of overarching importance and takes precedence over almost all other considerations one can imagine. That is of course one of the primary rights anyone would take for themselves in a social contract which I have made clear across all posts at evc is what I view as the basis for our Constitutional law.
That said, "almost" is a critical qualifier. I have stated the issues which come into play, and they are NOT merely 1st amendment issues. There are additional Constitutional and practical considerations on any particular piece of policy.
For example in an analogous situation, the above (even if reduced just to children) is not thought reasonable by many to allow for provisions within the Patriot Act, and a removal of Habeas Corpus. Criticisms of such policy directed toward the above goal are based on Constitutional and practical concerns.
Yes these are all reduction to details. So fine. We are in agreement on every broad stroke you have made and the discussion is forced to the particulars which you do not want to discuss, which is where our difference on this particular issue lies.
Fine, end of discussion.
Pax.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 04-03-2008 8:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 04-03-2008 3:25 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024