Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

Minors are allowed to drive. I think if you can operate a motor vehicle, you can decide if you want a medical treatment or not. The difference is in not allowing someone to do something versus making someone do something. No I'm not You've got a strawman too. I'm not saying that they should be allowed to force her to rely only on faith healing. What if it is what she wanted? No, I'm saying that if they want to die (not receive medical treatment), then you can't force them to remain alive (receive medical treatment). I'm not so sure about that. I haven't been and I don't think Stile is.

Now your playing the semantic game....Happiness and life are not one thing.Caniblizing their friend was not a pursuit of happiness, it was an instinct to survive.Burning yourself to death is not a pursuit of life. How did you get here from there. We're talking about how people's rights to life are or are not equal. No one is arguing that.

No That doesn't even follow.BTW, children are minors... I think an 11 year old is capable of operate a motor vehicle... You can stop replying at any time But its not a semantics game.If you drop a rock on my head then that is the action. However, if a bird drops a rock towards my head, and you do not push me out of the way, then that is an inaction.It seems pretty simple to me.If someone wants to harm a themself, I can see stopping them. But if someone wants to not prevent something from naturally happening to them, then I think you have less of 'right' to make them prevent it.Does that really not make sense? Yes (well I didn't say best), but if you didn't read my quotes out of context, you would have realized I was talking about it in a legal manner. Legally, it was OK. All this brainwashing stuff is speculation on your part. Sure. Do you think it is impossible for this girl to have come to this decision on her own? He and I seem to both understand what we meant. You're the one who stepped in and confused the issue.

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. Honestly, I don’t care.

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? 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. Dying from not eating is not a 'natural' death. Sustaining yourself is a part of being alive. Getting chemicals injected into you is not. 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.

---

That does not follow.

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.

I meant that I don't care if the government allows another exemption like your example. I'm more worried about them eroding people's religious freedom.

Correction... It was not reprehensible. But now it is.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

The parents didn’t kill their child, the child died naturally from diabetes.If you are a Christian Scientist and think that medical treatment is a sin, or if you’re an Orthodox Humanist and think that medical treatment goes against the good of the species, then I don’t think the government should force you to give medical treatment to your child because they are interfering with your religious freedom and the sovereignty of your family. I think the government should be able to interfere with some religious practices but I don’t think they should be interfering with this one in particular.If these people are right, then the government would be doing a terrible thing to them. If they are wrong, the government is still doing a bad thing to them in removing their religious freedom and family sovereignty.The repercussion of allowing it is the death of this young girl. But she died from natural, albeit preventable, causes. Had this happened 500 years ago, it would be a non-issue. But now that insulin has been invented, we should be able to force people to take it? I don’t think so. No, it rests on whether or not people think it is reprehensible (which when they do usually results in them being illegal). There is no absolute standard of reprehensibility, its all relative to the time and place and the whims of the people.Some think that forcing this girl to take insulin is reprehensible. Some think that NOT forcing her is. But we can’t say for sure. I think we should leave it up to the family to decide when the issue is cloudy like this.Something like beating the child to death, we can agree is reprehensible, and the government should step in and stop it. But something like this, in which 44 of 50 states allow it, isn't certainly reprehensible or not. The argument is in response to claims like yours that these parents killed their child, which they didn’t. They didn’t do anything to kill their child. They let nature, or their god, take its course and offered prayer that she would live. So they didn’t do “nothing”, but they didn’t do "something that killed her".