Abortion

I guess I don't understand your response. Never mind, though, because we're getting off-topic.

I had pretty well forgotten about this thread. Kind of not interested anymore. However there are statements you make which I feel the need to correct as they imply a misunderstanding of my argument (as well as some aspects of the law). Whenever the state forces a parent to do something because the state knows better, that is replacing parents with the state. Only by imagining that to mean in all aspects does it become actual hyperbole as no nation will want to spend the money to actually take care of children, even if it straps parents down with rules on how children must be raised. Notice the above is a contradiction. You start correctly enough. The state exists to protect certain rights of people from other people. But then that does not mean that the state knows better than anyone. It is the others that desire protection and so create the state to supply the protections, not the state choosing it for them.That certainly can be done, but it is not how this nation was founded. State Paternalism was odious to the founding fathers. And this entirely begs the question. Who can best determine what is in the "best interest" of a child? Where are these "obligations placed upon" parents coming from? The State? Society? God? Who?And the fact that something is made criminal, does not at all justify the fact that it was made criminal or that the state knows better. Yes, it probably depends on the services. Therein lies the hypocrisy. Those not fitting with the norm will be judged abusive, no matter what actually happens to a child physically or mentally. Those fitting with the norm, will be judged not abusive, no matter what happens to a child physically or mentally.As soon as we begin to let the state usurp the rights of the parents, we are simply dictating that whatever the popular cultural trend is for child rearing is enforced. It is breaking down the freedom of religion and speech by using the backdoor scare tactic of "children". Those parents who deny medical treatment to their children are in many cases not "neglecting" their children at all. They believe that they are doing exactly what must be done for their children. It would be gross neglect for their eternal wellbeing, to submit to a transitory medical aid.I understand a state wishing to take care of children where the parents simply do not wish to care. The question is what happens when the parents absolutely do care, but their idea of proper care is in direct conflict with that assumed by the majority of the population?Can the state really take a side and say there is no such thing as an eternal soul, or that there is and it knows that the parent's version of reality and religion is incorrect? Just because it "has been ruled" does not make it consistent, nor correct. All the above says is that there is a judicial track record of denying the possibility of spiritual reality when it comes to parents and kids, if/when what parents want conflicts with the norm. It of course has nothing to do with actual health of kids.Innoculations do cause death in children. It is demonstrable that children do and will die of innoculations. A parents choice to do this, or not, has a real world effect on the physical well being of the child. So if a parent chooses not to have it done because of religious, rather than practical concerns, there is a difference?Reconstructive surgery on a child is purely aesthetic, and completely puts the child's life at risk. Yet parents are allowed that choice, if a child's looks do not meet the norm and so society feels okay with that choice.Deciding not to breast feed actually has a measurable effect on the health of children, including intelligence (iirc). Yet some do not because of religious reasons, yet this is "understood" because of cultural acceptance that the body (especially sex organs like breasts) are "bad" and "dirty", even among agnosts and atheists. Indeed over breast feeding (for a long time) and taking pleasure from it is criticized and in some cases punished, despite no indication that there is any harm done.Circumcision, while not necessarily a health hazard (as in it would be rare to die from), is purely ritual genital mutilation. It is allowed, despite its direct consequence to general health... it is mutilation.How about foot binding? Or neck stretching? That's funny. No, there are plenty of kids that go without food and medicine within the US and because the parents are trying to provide, they are not taken away and cared for. Of course the better solution would be not to take them away and simply provide the caring family with a means to properly care for them.You have avoided my point with a joke. If the state has a duty to secure rights of children , and things like education and medicine is a right that children have, then the state is most certainly NOT fulfilling its duties, and indeed is walking away from such duties.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Whenever the state forces a parent to do something because the state knows better, that is replacing parents with the state.

---

A minor clarification:When you say that abuse and neglect laws mean that "the state knows better" than the parents it sounds as if the state is pushing something strange and bizarre into the home. Not the case. Who here thinks that children should not be fed? Who here thinks that the child should be denied medical treatment on the whims of the parents? I don't think many people will disagree that if parents disagree with the state on this issue, the state does, in this case, "know better".

quote:

---

The state exists to protect certain rights of people from other people. But then that does not mean that the state knows better than anyone. It is the others that desire protection and so create the state to supply the protections, not the state choosing it for them.

---

The very fact that the state discourages and offers punitive action to individuals that compromise the rights of others shows that the state has authority over those individuals, vested in it by the consent of the People. The rights themselves are self-evident and attributed to a more abstract source, Nature's God, and it is left to us as individuals to read into that title whatever we wish.I stand by my point, that in criminal issues the state does in fact "know better", not only than the accused but also those who would take justice into their own hands. This is why we have a court system. Sometimes this is wishful thinking, but the assumption is necessary to maintain civil and orderly society as opposed to lawlessness and vigilantism.Were it not so, the court system would have no validity. A court system that cannot distinguish between right and wrong is moot. A defendant could merely walk in, tell the state that he knows better, and go home.

quote:

---

And this entirely begs the question. Who can best determine what is in the "best interest" of a child?

---

When the parents fail in their duties, then the state has the authority to protect the interests of the child. In this case, since parents failed, the burden falls upon the state. This does not make the state all-knowing, but it is a utilitarian necessity.

quote:

---

Yes, it probably depends on the services. Therein lies the hypocrisy. Those not fitting with the norm will be judged abusive, no matter what actually happens to a child physically or mentally. Those fitting with the norm, will be judged not abusive, no matter what happens to a child physically or mentally.

---

I should have been more explicit. "What happens at the services", rather than "what was taught at the services" is a reference to physical or sexual abuse. Beyond that, I don't care what theology is taught, it is irrelevant to the issue.

quote:

---

Those parents who deny medical treatment to their children are in many cases not "neglecting" their children at all. They believe that they are doing exactly what must be done for their children. It would be gross neglect for their eternal wellbeing, to submit to a transitory medical aid....Can the state really take a side and say there is no such thing as an eternal soul, or that there is and it knows that the parent's version of reality and religion is incorrect?

---

The US government does not have authority to rule on the existance or non-existance of God(s) nor can it favor a specific creed.The court's authority does not overlap into whatever spiritual realms may lay in wait for us in the great beyond. But the court's authority does exist in our physical world. To invoke religion in the courtroom is like invoking it in science: it's non-falsifiable, and if judges should be restrained for fear of Providence in one case who is to say that judges should not consider religious tenets in all rulings? The court cannot see a child that died of medical neglect as a martyr to the faith, but can only see it through naturalistic eyes: a child that died as a result of neglect. To do otherwise would violate the Separation Clause.As a closing thought, it's interesting that you mentioned the Founding Fathers.

quote:

---

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prevented] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or practices. Clearly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the States.

---

(Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Writings, 1906).How do you like that last sentence? Maybe we should leave these guys out of it for the time being.

quote:

---

You have avoided my point with a joke. If the state has a duty to secure rights of children , and things like education and medicine is a right that children have, then the state is most certainly NOT fulfilling its duties, and indeed is walking away from such duties.

---

I was under the distinct impression that it is a Federal offense to deny (at least) emergency healthcare to those that cannot pay, that there are charity hospitals that at least try to help poor kids, that there are entitlements that help to a certain extent, and that there is an option of adoption and charitable assistance from the community. In truth I haven't research this enough but I know there are signs in conspicuous locations in hospitals that support my first sentence outright--you cannot be legally turned away from emergency healthcare because you can't pay.Having said that, helping poor kids with profound medical problems is an entitlement I find really difficult to oppose (if we actually need it), and I'm hardly a supporter of welfare projects. I don't think it is one that would be used terribly often, probably only by well under 1% of the population.This message has been edited by gene90, 11-03-2005 04:07 PM

quote:

---

(especially sex organs like breasts)

---

As an aside...Breasts are "mommy parts" in many cultures, and are not considered sex organs at all in those cultures.Unless you are going to consider all of the skin of a person a "sex organ" (which I actually do), it isn't really accurate to call breasts a sex organ. Their original and main purpose is to nourish young and we are taught (or not) through our culture to respond sexually to them.There is an interesting hypothesis floating around that explains why human female breasts are so much larger than most other mammals. It seems that when we used to locomote mostly on four legs, the female buttocks and actual genitals were the main sexual attractant to the male, but when humans became bipedal, all of that was far less prominent. As a result, breasts became a surrogate buttocks.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-03-2005 04:29 PM

We seem to be arguing past each other. Let's get this straight right now, I personally do not know of a spiritual realm, and have serious doubts that receiving temporal medical aid could endanger a person's spiritual health. Thus I am not arguing my position because I believe that it is reasonable to want to deny such aid and that asking for such aid is "bizarre".I am trying to make a very real point here, and that has much to do with the fact that we have not accurately defined what children are or what rights they hold, as well as when a state should be able to negate first amendment rights and deny individual citizen's beliefs.You may argue what the practice has been, but that is begging the question. Up until the Civil War the practice of the courts had been slavery supportive and the definition of a class of people as property. Indeed even up through the 20th century entire groups had been considered less than holders of full rights with that being upheld in courts.I want to move away from arguments which rely on precedent or "normalcy" as justification. That is what was used for slavery and hunting down witches, as well as oppression of minorities outside of overt persecution like those two cases.What are children? If they are not equals to adults, and parents are in fact the legal guardians allowed to impress upon them their own ideals, and not just those of society, then there is a line where state's cannot cross.The argument so far has been recognition of welfare (health) of the children is where the line (if any exists) evaporates. But what I have just got done doing is showing the rather arbitrary nature of that concept. It is based on contemporary norms, and not actual judgements of harm.Yes in the case of parents denying aid to their children where they might immediately die, we are talking about real harm. But then they are not simply neglecting the children, but rather disagreeing with the actual degree of harm done given their worldview as well as the degree of aid recieved. And as we see with things like innoculations, breast feeding, and circumcision, we do allow similar degrees of harm to befall children as long as it is culturally accepted... which the former types simply do not have. Courts DO NOT judge right and wrong. I have no idea where you got that idea. We take onto ourselves rights for ourselves and create a system to protect those rights. Whoever invents a system to decided what is best for themselves is an idiot, and soon a slave. That goes much faster if they endow that system with the "ability" to judge right and wrong.In secular law, citizens decide how to protect the rights that they have. Those that violate the rights of others come into conflict with the system. They are merely judged guilty or not guilty of the transgression, and an action is taken against the transgressor.The question is whether parents have rights over the children, or if children have their own rights. If so how are they endowed and protected? So far it seems rather arbitrary and rather an excuse for the state (the majority) to intrude on a family in order to micromanage parenting. Again this begs the question. You cannot answer a question of who can best determine best interests, by saying that parents do not when they fail in their duties.Okay, where is this list of duties? Who made them up? Why do spiritual needs which are not popular have no merit in them? And conversely why do spiritual or moral needs which are popular have merit despite evidence that they harm children? I'm sorry but we allow ritual genital mutilation on a mass scale as well as sexual deprivation and hatred of the body which leads to psychological problems later in life including (sometimes) further mutilation of the body. But as long as it is Xian and Jewish I guess that is okay. Whereas if it includes physical or sexual pleasure (which abrahamists despise as well as most western cultures having been influenced by them) their rituals would be shut down asap.Thus we are not concerned with actual harm, only harm that society perceives based on cultural expectations.But let's address theology. Wouldn't it be a concern if the theology taught was that medical help should be denied? How about starvation to cleanse the soul? Exorcism? Early marriage or sexual contacts? Polygamy? Then how do you explain their upholding moral's laws? Those are patently based on nonnatural concepts, and wholly on spiritual or "psychological" (very loosely used) issues.Furthermore, what you are arguing in practice is a denial of religious beliefs of the parents, and perhaps the child. That is saying that as far as the state is concerned, all parties are wrong and the state does in fact reject spiritual health as a valid concern. Despite not believing in such a thing myself, I do find it disturbing that the state should be able to say such a thing to an individual, including a parent.And indeed I have yet to get to the issues of whether the child wants it or not. That's interesting though I don't believe much will be found of him supporting states using the power he says was relegated to them.Interestingly I do know that you could get many quotes from him and other founding fathers blasting the idea that the govt should pay for things like medical treatments. Thus I know I will end up in conflict with them on some social welfare issues.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I'm sorry but we allow ritual genital mutilation on a mass scale as well as sexual deprivation and hatred of the body which leads to psychological problems later in life including (sometimes) further mutilation of the body. But as long as it is Xian and Jewish I guess that is okay. Whereas if it includes physical or sexual pleasure (which abrahamists despise as well as most western cultures having been influenced by them) their rituals would be shut down asap.

---

"Ritual gender mutilation on a mass scale""Sexual deprivation and hatred of the body"Both of which "lead to psychological problems later in life"References to "Abrahamists"The claim of special treatment for "Xians" and "Jewish" traditions.Interesting choices of language, to be sure.This message has been edited by gene90, 11-03-2005 06:00 PM

So I've heard. However nonemergency healthcare can and does get denied, thus pushing the poor into positions where they are faced with the worst cases, rather than preventative medicine which could have removed all risk.Second the poor do not necessarily have easy access to this "free" medical care. And when they finally get it are faced with long waits with others that are poor. I had a friend waiting hours in a bad situation, because she was poor. Here's the deal, there is simply no way of justifying full socialized medicine at this point in time. As medicine is now practiced, very high tech and very high education (which means money), costs are beyond anybody but the wealthy and can even destroy the financial well being of a wealthy person if the problem is dire enough. That situation is no good for society as well as the individual.Right now we have insurance schemes, HMOs. All that is is socialized medicine, with the downside of costing more, getting less coverage, and still leaving people out in the cold.In other words everyone at this point in time, even hard core Reps, are for socialized medicine. The only question is where they want the money and control to go, the people getting covered, or corporate entities.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

In other words everyone at this point in time, even hard core Reps, are for socialized medicine. The only question is where they want the money and control to go, the people getting covered, or corporate entities.

---

This could be an interesting discussion, but probably best for another time.

??? I was being clinical, objective.Are circumcisions ritual gender mutilation or not? If not what do you describe them as? In any other culture that is exactly what they would be classified as.Xians and Jews are Abrahamists, right? What is wrong with this classification for both?Also, you are denying that Xian and Jewish concepts are NOT part of our laws? Perhaps you can explain our marriage laws, and up until very recently our anti gay laws. What they consider wrong often gets treated as harmful, whereas what other cultures consider wrong are not considered harmful. So yes, Abrahamic religious concepts get special treatment.Yes, most Abrahamic traditions teach sexual deprivation and hatred of the body. Where am I wrong in that assertion? Having grown up in a rather liberal Xian denomination the teachings were still quite body and sex negative. Unlike other cultures, there is an emphasis on teaching the flesh as being sinful and sex as dirty, unless placed within very rigid ritual confines.And yes, such things do lead to psychological problems later in life. Sexual deprivation, and hatred of sexuality, has been shown to have a very great negative impact on people. Do you need studies on this? I believe I have already posted them elsewhere at EvC.What I find interesting is that you picked up on that instead of the greater points being argued.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't approve of your use of rhetoric in this case. If you wanted to say "circumcision", you could have called it "circumcision".I'm not interested in that kind of debate, and would prefer to drop it before we start slinging loaded terms.Another problem I have is how you jumped on me for saying that courts define "right" and "wrong". You said that they penalize those that harm the rights of others. Is it "right" or "wrong" to deprive others of their rights?As for where the line is that the state can't cross, usually that ultimately goes to a jury to decide. If they think the state is out of bounds they can acquit or nullify. If not, they can convict. It's an imperfect system, I agree. In a perfect world parents would always do what's best for their children. In our (imperfect) world there are a few extreme instances where intervention is necessary to prevent physical harm from coming to a child.Would a jury rule that circumcision is child abuse? In the same sense as starvation, for example? I doubt it.Therefore to run to circumcision, or "genital mutilation on a massive scale" to compare to denial of medicine is hyperbole.This message has been edited by gene90, 11-03-2005 06:28 PM

"Circumcision" is the loaded term; it's loaded with the idea that "religious expression" means that you can perform a painful, traumatizing, cruel, risky, and entirely needless cosmetic procedure on a male infant's genitals for no medical reason whatsoever.So, yeah. Let's not use the loaded terms. If we're mutilating a child's genitals for purposes of religion, let's call it what it is - "ritual genital mutilation" and not employ the term that tries to spin that reality away. Do victims of abuse immediately agree that they've even been abused? Rarely.

quote:

---

Do victims of abuse immediately agree that they've even been abused? Rarely.

---

You didn't answer the question, Crashfrog.Would a jury in the United States likely rule that circumcision is child abuse?

quote:

---

"Circumcision" is the loaded term; it's loaded with the idea that "religious expression" means that you can perform a painful, traumatizing, cruel, risky, and entirely needless cosmetic procedure on a male infant's genitals for no medical reason whatsoever.

---

I didn't know that circumcision was a religious ordnance when done on infants. (EDIT: actually Jewish males are exposed to it as infants, I stand corrected).Now, Crashfrog, if circumcision is bad what do you call denial of medical treatment? Do you think that an American jury would tend to treat these two as exactly the same?This message has been edited by gene90, 11-03-2005 06:38 PM

A woman having her labia and sometimes clitoris clipped off is correctly termed circumcision. In this nation it would be referred to as ritual genital mutilation.A woman with her feet bound so as to be tiny, would not be called "binding" but ritual mutilation.That is of course what both are and that is a clinical term, not rhetoric. The reason I did not use circumcision is because that is a loaded term in this society, loaded to mean acceptable and understandable. You are actually arguing that I should use loaded terms rather than clinical ones which have a negative connotation due to their accuracy. It is neither right nor wrong. Indeed such concepts are irrelevant. It is illegal. There is a world of difference between morality and legality. Or at least there was supposed to be.Before you start acting like I am being disengenuous please understand that I really do operate using a moral system with no concepts of right and wrong as you just used them. This is not a joke. In some areas yes, and in some no. In Western society it is mostly no, and that simply underscores what I am pointing out.That society can look at a patently physically harmful act and declare it not harmful, while insisting that another harmful act must be stopped because they agree it is, shows the arbitrary and hypcritical nature of our current system.It is imperfect to be sure. And worse than that it uses ethnocentrism to justify its conclusions as well as damn conclusions of others. And worse still, it uses claims that it is doing what it does in the name of children and children's rights in order to get justification, when it can be shown rather conclusively that these are not actually what is being protected. Rather it is societal expectations of how children should be raised in a "normal" way.Its not so much the imperfection that I hate, but the selfdeception I'm expected to swallow for how and why it renders the judgements it does.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Crash got there first and he got it right. The nature of your dodging is becoming more apparent. What jury in the MidEast would rule female circumcision as child abuse?What does appealing to the norm of a society being upheld by a system mean, when the argument you are facing is a criticism that a system is simply upholding norms? Who are you trying to kid? First of all I didn't even say religious, though crash certainly was correct in mentioning the religious aspects. At this point in time it is RITUAL, which can be just as much secular as religious. Foot binding in China was ritual and had nothing to do with religion.Okay but what about circumcision. Without question it is ritual, and its basis is in religious ritual. That it has become societal ritual over time does not change anything.And yes many times it is still done in the name of religion. There is no legal health ordnance that children must be circumcized for some valid purpose. Parents must choose. Jews are generally not choosing it just to go with the flow. It is part of their religious heritage, as it is for many Xians.Do you need me to quote the Bible on this?Now, Crashfrog, if circumcision is bad what do you call denial of medical treatment? Do you think that an American jury would tend to treat these two as exactly the same?[/qs]The point is that if an American jury's reason for making a decision were in upholding children's rights, specifically those of health, they would judge them both the same. Other than degree, what is the difference?By the way, can you tell me when an infant has given their consent to have that pointless operation? We currently jail people for touching an infant sexually, even just once. Yet cut it up and that is right because an infant can't consent? How does that make sense?This message has been edited by holmes, 11-03-2005 06:51 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)