Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 286 (462357)
04-02-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by teen4christ
04-02-2008 4:22 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
The issue is whether society as a whole should allow children to do these things or not.
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.
Some children want to smoke, drive, drink, etc. We as a society have already established that children are not capable of making sound decisions on those things and therefore should not be allowed to make those decisions on their own. How is deciding to die any different?
The difference is in not allowing someone to do something versus making someone do something.
Second, you are implying that faith healing is as effective as modern medicine and therefore should be held in the same light.
No I'm not
You are making a strawman argument. Nobody is saying that we should force people from not relying on faith healing. What some people are arguing is that religious people ought not to have the right to force faith healing, which I think is pretty clear that it is an ineffective method of treatment, upon others, especially the youngest members of our society
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?
Are you arguing that one's reilgious freedom should supercede someone else's right to live?
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).
People here have been using the word "right" to mean legal right.
I'm not so sure about that. I haven't been and I don't think Stile is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by teen4christ, posted 04-02-2008 4:22 PM teen4christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by teen4christ, posted 04-02-2008 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 212 of 286 (462358)
04-02-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Modulous
04-02-2008 4:20 PM


Hi Mod,
I agree that anecdotes are not particularly pertinent, and was not comfortable discussing my own examples (which could have been more detailed). I will add yet another as it adds to this particular point of decline and suffering.
One person was CS and there was a combination of cancer and bowel obstruction. The person ended up in a hospital for monitoring but denied essentially all assistance. Despite the great pain, this person was quite satisfied from that particular vantage point that this was the right way to die. And while I was not there for the end, I was surprised how little pain the person appeared to be suffering.
This isn't about a child that is almost certainly going to die being allowed to go peacefully versus a protracted and degrading few weeks.
I wish we could move beyond visceral qualities. Many medical procedures which are beneficial are not "peaceful" and can involve very protracted and degrading weeks of suffering... and may still end in death. Granted that is not the case with insulin shots, but the point remains that the question on the table is not simply about pain or physical degradation.
Some people value the integrity of the body, for many different reasons. This can be from a purely secular concept of "naturalism", to religious concepts that God does not want them monkeying with his creation. If they are ill, then it is his will, or the natural course of things. We all suffer and die, and medical attempts at elongating that life or reducing suffering are ultimately futile. Perhaps less on the suffering than the elongation. In any case it is not only futile but to totally miss the important points of how one is to live.
Worrying about mortality and suffering is to cling to the physical, which is manifestly unimportant. Ironically this goes as well for the secular naturalists, who in a way could I suppose be worshiping a form of Gaia (whether they acknowledge it or not).
That a child would die is tragic, to interfere with that process, besides prayer that the destiny of that child is not death, would be viewed as compounding that tragedy, perhaps by creating real harm in the afterlife as well. Obviously where people truly believe in things like resurrection and eternal life in heaven, shedding one's mortal coil is insignificant.
Whereas I do not share such beliefs, I truly feel the need to respect such in a diverse society, and the gov't limited from passing judgment on those same beliefs.
I'm not sure a case can be built to deny a child food or water on religious grounds (for a limited, but often lethal amount of time) and I don't see how medical intervention is any different than food or water.
Well that is what people do to those who are comatose. I personally view medicine as different from food and water as those are common necessities of the body. Medical procedures are not common bodily functions... regardless if they become necessities at some particular instant.
Obviously we are treading on a fine line of distinction.

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 207 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2008 4:20 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2008 7:10 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 213 of 286 (462360)
04-02-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 4:31 PM


Re: The right to live
In the case of minors, we leave it up to the parents to make the decisions for their children. The government steps in when laws are broken.
Yes, I agree.
And yes, I agree that the current laws say this particular incident is just fine and dandy.
I'm arguing that this is inconsistent, and should be changed.
If by someone's religion, they want to opt out of some specific medical treatments, then they have the religious freedom to do so.
And I totally agree with you.
If we're talking about adults, which we're not.
We don't all have same drive/desire/want(need?) for happiness/life. What makes you think we do?
Some people will go so far as to canibalilize their dead friend to stay alive while other will burn themselves to death as a simple protest.
What are you talking about?
For some people happiness/life is canibalizing their dead friend to stay alive while for others it's burning themselves to death as a simple protest.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
We can't identify which one is "better", or which is "more important". Therefore, to remain rational, all subjective life-decisions are of equal-importance.
And, no one (yet, anyway) is capable of showing why they should get to remove another person's pursuit of whatever-they'ed-like-to-do-with-their-life ("happiness").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 4:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 4:58 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 286 (462362)
04-02-2008 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Stile
04-02-2008 4:46 PM


Re: The right to live
For some people happiness/life is canibalizing their dead friend to stay alive while for others it's burning themselves to death as a simple protest.
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.
We can't identify which one is "better", or which is "more important". Therefore, to remain rational, all subjective life-decisions are of equal-importance.
How did you get here from there. We're talking about how people's rights to life are or are not equal.
And, no one (yet, anyway) is capable of showing why they should get to remove another person's pursuit of whatever-they'ed-like-to-do-with-their-life ("happiness").
No one is arguing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Stile, posted 04-02-2008 4:46 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Stile, posted 04-02-2008 7:14 PM 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 215 of 286 (462364)
04-02-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Stile
04-02-2008 4:40 PM


Re: Back to the issue
Goodbye Stiles,
You began well with beginning to identify terms. There were issues which we could start working on, due to lack of clarity or common agreement.
Then you once again repeated your OP. When a person has indicated that your OP is insufficient, repeating it endlessly is a form of ad nauseum. That is yet another form of logical fallacy.
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.
While I would agree that such decisions by parents are an anomaly, that is not the same as such cases being upheld being an anomaly.
And there are other instances of parents denying the rights of children which are routinely not punished, including making decisions which result in death. These often include decisions which decide for medical procedures, which result in death.
That you decide to press that point by handing me patently ridiculous cases does you little credit.
I'm confident they can decide which of us requires education.
Unlike you, I am not talking to an audience. I am trying to talk to you. While I have confidence most can figure out who is ignoring the source of communication problems, what difference does that make?
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.
If you wish to take that as an insult you need to respond to for some audience, then that is your choice. I am talking straight to you.
That said, I cannot continue attempting dialog in this manner. It is eating up way too much time with no forward momentum.
Good night and good luck, sir.

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 210 by Stile, posted 04-02-2008 4:40 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Stile, posted 04-02-2008 7:47 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 233 by Admin, posted 04-03-2008 8:50 AM Silent H has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 216 of 286 (462365)
04-02-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 4:41 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Catholic Scientist writes
quote:
Minors are allowed to drive.
I didn't say minors. I said children. Are you saying that 11 year-olds are allowed to drive, at least in some parts of the country?
quote:
I think if you can operate a motor vehicle, you can decide if you want a medical treatment or not.
Same question.
quote:
The difference is in not allowing someone to do something versus making someone do something.
What? Again, you are playing the semantic game.
Suppose I hold a rock over your head and let it drop on you. You could argue that I intentionally dropped, through my action, the rock onto your head. I could also argue that I simply brought the rock to a place that just happened to be above your head and then, through my inaction, allow the rock to fall back to Earth.
Your semantic game is getting boring.
[quote]I wrote
quote:
Second, you are implying that faith healing is as effective as modern medicine and therefore should be held in the same light.
[/quoet]
No I'm not
Well, yes you did. You are claiming that the parents' choice of prayer over modern medicine was a legitimate effort in trying to do the best for their daughter. If I didn't know better, I'd say you are comparing faith healing to modern medicine as if they are on equal grounds.
quote:
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?
Again, we may never know what she really wanted, considering they isolated her from the rest of the world. Some people would call this brainwashing.
I remember watching on the discovery channel a couple years back about this Christian cult that promoted sex with children as a way to recruit people. The leader of the cult was finally arrested and charged with child molestation and all of that. The most disturbing thing was some of the children (10-15 year-olds) "rescued" from this cult were so brainwashed that they insisted there was nothing wrong with having sex with adults to recruit them into the faith. Even after the cult leader was imprisoned, the remaining members of the cult continued to practice this underaged prostitution. They got around the law by moving to other countries like countries in South America and Africa.
The point is I saw interviews with several of these really young children that couldn't wait to have sex with adults as a way to bring them closer to God.
At some point we have to question whether these children ought to be able to make these decisions on their own, especially when we know for a fact that they were brainwashed into believing these things.
quote:
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).
Again, we may never know what this girl really wanted, since she was isolated from the outside world and was brainwashed by her parents. At some point, we really have to question whether these children can actually make sound decisions.
quote:
I'm not so sure about that. I haven't been and I don't think Stile is.
Then ask him what he meant.
Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 4:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 6:07 PM teen4christ has replied

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


Message 217 of 286 (462368)
04-02-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 3:18 PM


Like you said, its about their right to religious freedom.
Except that religious freedom alone does not cut the mustard. As has been established, your constitutional freedoms only extend to the point of not affecting the lives of others. Once you start affecting other lives, limitations can be placed. The argument cannot be just 'religious freedom' but it needs tell us why in this specific case religious freedom should over-rule the physical welfare of a specific kind of person under the care of a specific group of people with a specific set of religious beliefs. After all - many religious parents don't belong to a certain church or religious community and they therefore don't get to have their religious freedoms protected in the case of medical neglect.
As a Catholic, I was allowed to consume alcohol before I was 21, as long as it was done during mass...
As a Brit I was allowed to consume alcohol upon reaching the age of five years old as long as it was in extreme moderation, under the supervision of my parents, at home and my parents would be held liable should I suffer any ill-effect.
Sure, leniences are allowed - but if someone had a religious belief that sacrificing the first born to protect the youngest - I'm sure you'd be keen to draw the line way before allowing that? Whereas taking a sip of red wine before 21 years old isn't a big deal so the line can be drawn after that.
Thus, we need a line somewhere between "You can drink a small amount under the legal age in small quantities during a religious ceremony" and "Child sacrifice". The question is, can it be argued that the line should be drawn so that medical negligent homicide is OK? So far there are only two arguments coming forth:
1: Religious freedom. This argument doesn't help us establish the limits of religious freedom.
2. The current law contains the exemption. This argument is useless in determining whether or not we should have such an exemption and if we shouldn't work to having the exemption removed.
It just not so cut and dry that we can easily say that these people were certainly wrong, and they should be punished for what they did.
Or didn't do. And I agree. I have insisted upon using words like 'sticky wicket' and 'grey area' and 'difficult' as often as possible. The reason I started debating you in the first place was because your Message 149 was implying the issue was 'cut and dried' by simply asing 'Why doesn't a parent have a right to refuse medical treatment on their child?'.
I think we have advanced in the discussion enough to conclude that you agree that a parent, under some circumstances does not have the right to refuse medical treatment (without subsequently being charged and tried for doing so). Where we have a problem is that there could be two identical set of circumstances, but because the parent belongs to a certain group in one case - that parent has the right to refuse medical treatment and the other one does not.
Seems a little wrong to me.
Is it clear-cut that these parents definitely should be punished? No. However, there are cases in which the parents have been been punished for doing completely reasonable things because the law holds that the parent holds ultimate responsibility for the welfare of their child. The parent who followed doctor's advice, who was denied access the medical care she was entitled to, was still held liable for negligence when it turned out the doctor's advice was wrong because it was held that parent still has responsibility.
If that parent with a sincere belief about the best way to care for her child should face a jury, I can think of no reason why the parents of Miss Neumann should not face a jury. Whether or not they deserve punishment lies with the jury. Like with any crime, there are many possible mitigating factors and I think that religious belief can be one of them.
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 so - then you surely want the law changed to reflect this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:13 AM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 286 (462372)
04-02-2008 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by teen4christ
04-02-2008 5:05 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
I didn't say minors. I said children. Are you saying that 11 year-olds are allowed to drive, at least in some parts of the country?
No That doesn't even follow.
BTW, children are minors...
quote:
I think if you can operate a motor vehicle, you can decide if you want a medical treatment or not.
Same question.
I think an 11 year old is capable of operate a motor vehicle...
quote:
The difference is in not allowing someone to do something versus making someone do something.
What? Again, you are playing the semantic game.
Suppose I hold a rock over your head and let it drop on you. You could argue that I intentionally dropped, through my action, the rock onto your head. I could also argue that I simply brought the rock to a place that just happened to be above your head and then, through my inaction, allow the rock to fall back to Earth.
Your semantic game is getting boring.
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?
You are claiming that the parents' choice of prayer over modern medicine was a legitimate effort in trying to do the best for their daughter.
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.
Again, we may never know what she really wanted, considering they isolated her from the rest of the world. Some people would call this brainwashing.
I remember watching on the discovery channel a couple years back about this Christian cult that promoted sex with children as a way to recruit people. The leader of the cult was finally arrested and charged with child molestation and all of that. The most disturbing thing was some of the children (10-15 year-olds) "rescued" from this cult were so brainwashed that they insisted there was nothing wrong with having sex with adults to recruit them into the faith. Even after the cult leader was imprisoned, the remaining members of the cult continued to practice this underaged prostitution. They got around the law by moving to other countries like countries in South America and Africa.
The point is I saw interviews with several of these really young children that couldn't wait to have sex with adults as a way to bring them closer to God.
At some point we have to question whether these children ought to be able to make these decisions on their own, especially when we know for a fact that they were brainwashed into believing these things.
All this brainwashing stuff is speculation on your part.
Again, we may never know what this girl really wanted, since she was isolated from the outside world and was brainwashed by her parents. At some point, we really have to question whether these children can actually make sound decisions.
Sure. Do you think it is impossible for this girl to have come to this decision on her own?
quote:
I'm not so sure about that. I haven't been and I don't think Stile is.
Then ask him what he meant.
He and I seem to both understand what we meant. You're the one who stepped in and confused the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by teen4christ, posted 04-02-2008 5:05 PM teen4christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by teen4christ, posted 04-02-2008 6:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 257 by FliesOnly, posted 04-04-2008 8:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 219 of 286 (462375)
04-02-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 6:07 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Catholic Scientist writes
quote:
BTW, children are minors...
All children are minors. Not all minors are children. Semantic game...
quote:
I think an 11 year old is capable of operate a motor vehicle...
Ok...
quote:
Does that really not make sense?
Try to think of what we've been talking about in regard to the little girl. Her parents never took her to a doctor since she was 3. They pulled her out of public school. They isolated her from the rest of the world. By doing all of these, they put her in danger of illnesses going undiagnosed. This is comparable to me holding a rock above your head. She became mortally ill. This is comparable to the rock slipping out of my hand. Her parents refused to let her have proper medical care. Instead, they relied on faith healing. This is comparable to me not warning you about the rock or push you out of the way and instead rely on God to help you. She died. This is comparable to the rock hitting your head.
It was the parents that put her in the situation in the first place. And through their inaction, they allowed her to die slowly, over a month no less.
quote:
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.
I agree, and legally it was ok to put black people in chains and make them do forced labor. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is just.
quote:
All this brainwashing stuff is speculation on your part.
Do you or do you not agree that it was brainwash?
quote:
Sure. Do you think it is impossible for this girl to have come to this decision on her own?
What decision? The fact is we don't know what she really wanted and may never know since she had already been isolated from the world.
In short, I don't think there's really not much else we can talk about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 220 of 286 (462376)
04-02-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Silent H
04-02-2008 4:19 PM


I didn't reply because I thought I could convince you, but because it seemed like the important goal was getting lost in the details. I can see you want to discuss the details, but there seem plenty of others more than willing to do this with you.
I'm not myself interested in a detailed discussion because your position doesn't worry me. This is not because I think you can be persuaded out of it, but because I don't think enough people to make a difference can be persuaded into it. For most people, concern for the wellbeing of children is just too important a consideration, and all your little details just aren't going to matter to them.
What I do not have confidence in, is when a mandate is given to the gov't that it may interfere in the sovereignty of the family, and judging the decisions of parents by the community's belief system, that we have a way of putting the cork back on that genie.
The genies been in and out of the bottle so many times he's got a revolving door.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 4:19 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 7:18 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 221 of 286 (462381)
04-02-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Silent H
04-02-2008 4:43 PM


Some people value the integrity of the body, for many different reasons. This can be from a purely secular concept of "naturalism", to religious concepts that God does not want them monkeying with his creation. If they are ill, then it is his will, or the natural course of things. We all suffer and die, and medical attempts at elongating that life or reducing suffering are ultimately futile. Perhaps less on the suffering than the elongation. In any case it is not only futile but to totally miss the important points of how one is to live.
Worrying about mortality and suffering is to cling to the physical, which is manifestly unimportant. Ironically this goes as well for the secular naturalists, who in a way could I suppose be worshiping a form of Gaia (whether they acknowledge it or not).
That a child would die is tragic, to interfere with that process, besides prayer that the destiny of that child is not death, would be viewed as compounding that tragedy, perhaps by creating real harm in the afterlife as well. Obviously where people truly believe in things like resurrection and eternal life in heaven, shedding one's mortal coil is insignificant.
And we come to our actual area of agreement. I might still have a problem with it, and may still argue against it - but I would much prefer a system of law where this kind of thinking was allowed for all and not just certain categories of religious believers. If the thinking behind the law was applied universally rather so selectively, I would have less of a problem with it. While there may be problems with allowing universal exemptions where a parent can refuse to medically treat a child if they have a belief that it is for the best then at least it wouldn't be so damned discriminatory.
Perhaps we could one day find ourselves facing Orthodox Humanists who believe that not using medical intervention is for the good of the species. Either we allow them the same rights as members of established churches to carry out their beliefs within their family unit or we deny both groups.
I personally view medicine as different from food and water as those are common necessities of the body. Medical procedures are not common bodily functions... regardless if they become necessities at some particular instant.
Obviously we are treading on a fine line of distinction.
Indeed, so fine a line I don't feel like arguing the toss on its exact placing. I think medical treatment should be considered in a similar way to food, I can see the kind of argument that would be produced to dispute that claim and some possible refutations to those arguments. I foresee a muddy and difficult technical discussion ahead here, and will be perfectly happy to shake hands at this point with disagreement but understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 4:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 7:31 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 222 of 286 (462383)
04-02-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 4:58 PM


Re: The right to live
Catholic Scientist writes:
Now your playing the semantic game....
Happiness and life are not one thing.
You are missing the point. A person's right to life and pursuit of happiness is just a phrase that basically means... "a person's perogative to live their life by their choices".
I will stop using the word "happiness" and start describing it as "a person's right to live their life by their choices."
As you can see, it fits your two examples a lot better:
Canibalizing their friend was that person's right to live their life by their choices. (And the same with choosing to die and not canibalizing their friend).
Burning yourself to death is a person's right to live their life by their choices. (And the same with choosing not to die in such a way).
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
We can't identify which one is "better", or which is "more important". Therefore, to remain rational, all subjective life-decisions are of equal-importance.
How did you get here from there. We're talking about how people's rights to life are or are not equal.
I didn't jump at all. Each person's "right to live their life by their choices" is equal to everyone elses simply because we cannot identify which one is better or which is more important.
If you could identify a better, or more important one, then equality certainly would not be the case.
But we can't, it's impossible (as far as I'm aware) to say that one person's decision on how to run their life is better or worse than any other person's.
And, in the case of minors, we protect them until they are no longer too weak or immature to make these decisions on their own.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
And, no one (yet, anyway) is capable of showing why they should get to remove another person's pursuit of whatever-they'ed-like-to-do-with-their-life ("happiness").
No one is arguing that.
Then no one is arguing against me. Because this is all I'm saying. "Pursuit of happiness", "right to live", "everyone is equal" ...these are all just phrases which mean no one is capable of showing why they should remove another person's pursuit of whatever-they'ed-like-to-do-with-their-life.
That is all I've been attempting to say since my post where I accidentally replied to you instead of a general reply. With the addition that minors are unable to care for themselves, so we (the government) enforce care for them until they are able to make these decisions on their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 4:58 PM 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 223 of 286 (462384)
04-02-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Percy
04-02-2008 6:32 PM


simple is as simple does
Hello percy,
For most people, concern for the wellbeing of children is just too important a consideration, and all your little details just aren't going to matter to them.
I was not discussing "little details". The fact that such mortalities would not be prevented is a rather crucial detail to your stated goal, isn't it?
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.
But I will agree that for many people, and I would say close to a majority, the shrill cry of "the children!" results in many knee jerk responses with little effective results. Certainly little attention to detail... which is crucial to actually meeting goals.
The genies been in and out of the bottle so many times he's got a revolving door.
Fair enough, perhaps I should have said I have no confidence we'd have an easy way of getting the genie back in before he's done a lot of pointless damage.
Every time he's been out, it's been a mistake. And its tough getting back in. But then people get thinking of these really simple goals, and the genie starts looking good. Details, so boring, so complicated. Leave the details up to him. Pop! Zonk!
I recognize you do not wish to discuss them, so I will not press you on that point. Just don't play like they are unimportant... whether people care about such things or not.
Thank you once more.

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 220 by Percy, posted 04-02-2008 6:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 04-02-2008 9:05 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 224 of 286 (462385)
04-02-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Modulous
04-02-2008 7:10 PM


Yes, I think we have reached a proper conclusion, even if a split decision.
Certainly we agree that any special privilege type laws, or treatment of laws in a biased way toward one group, is discrimination. As the law in the OP is stated, it does seem a bit biased though it wouldn't have to be acted on in that way. My guess is (when making the law) most people just had no clue anyone else but faith-based people would deny certain medical care.
Perhaps we could one day find ourselves facing Orthodox Humanists who believe that not using medical intervention is for the good of the species.
Although not using that title, we already have them. Mainly you'll see them as major anti-inoculation advocates. The actress Lisa Bonet was on the march for that for a while. Rather ironically so was River Phoenix. Oh to hear him protest all that medical immunization, interfering with our natural living... then he dies of an injected overdose.
I foresee a muddy and difficult technical discussion ahead here, and will be perfectly happy to shake hands at this point with disagreement but understanding.
Absolutely. I really should have answered your posts first.
Have a nice evening.

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 221 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2008 7:10 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 225 of 286 (462389)
04-02-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Silent H
04-02-2008 5:04 PM


Re: Back to the issue
Silent H writes:
There were issues which we could start working on, due to lack of clarity or common agreement.
If you no longer care to carry on your side of the debate, I can't force you to.
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.
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.
That you decide to press that point by handing me patently ridiculous cases does you little credit.
I'm confident that the reader is quite capable of deciding who deserves credit in our discussion.
Unlike you, I am not talking to an audience. I am trying to talk to you. While I have confidence most can figure out who is ignoring the source of communication problems, what difference does that make?
And I am talking to you. The difference is I do not try to suggest that you personally take logic courses or improve your education. Again, I'll leave it to the reader to decide who's position needs more clarifying and support.
That said, I cannot continue attempting dialog in this manner. It is eating up way too much time with no forward momentum.
Like I said the last time you hinted at no longer continuing our discussion, my posts will not disappear. Feel free to come back and reply any way you see fit at any time that is convenient for you.
My argument still stands exactly as it did in Message 152
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.
Good night and good luck, sir.
Hope you find what you're looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 5:04 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 9:00 PM Stile 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