User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 54

  1. #31
    Member Llenyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahara View Post
    I think they should have that right, just because the parents religion forbids that medical treatment, why should the child be allowed to die?
    I'm still on the fence on this issue. On the one hand, there is the sanctity of life, and it is not totally unprecedented for a court to step in when inaction is harmful (eg cases of child neglect and malnutrition). On the other hand, medical procedures are far more invasive than feeding a child. There is the possibility of a slippery slope as Oberon posted; what else would the government try to impose. But also, medical procedures carry some risk. What happens if there is situation in which a child is likely (but not guaranteed) to die without a procedure, the parents refuse, the courts order it, then the child dies during surgery?

  2. #32
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    So parents should still have the right to make decisions regarding the welfare of their child, as long as they make the decision the state wants them to make?

  3. #33
    Senior Member Sahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llenyd View Post
    I'm still on the fence on this issue. On the one hand, there is the sanctity of life, and it is not totally unprecedented for a court to step in when inaction is harmful (eg cases of child neglect and malnutrition). On the other hand, medical procedures are far more invasive than feeding a child. There is the possibility of a slippery slope as Oberon posted; what else would the government try to impose. But also, medical procedures carry some risk. What happens if there is situation in which a child is likely (but not guaranteed) to die without a procedure, the parents refuse, the courts order it, then the child dies during surgery?
    First off, the slippery slope thing is not necesssarily something that will happen, maybe, maybe not. Why would creating one good rule have to lead to other more invasive rules? Does this always happen?

    Secondly, I guess I am back on the fence again, there is always the risk that something like what I bolded out will happen. (it just felt right, I hate seeing people being hurt in anyway)

    I just know that I don't like religion to interfere with the right to life, to freedom and protection. If someone is refusing medical care on the grounds that their religion forbids it, it just seems so stupid.
    "No one can be free of the chains that surround them"

  4. #34
    Senior Member Sahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon67 View Post
    So parents should still have the right to make decisions regarding the welfare of their child, as long as they make the decision the state wants them to make?
    Isn't that what the West is like anyway?

    If a parent wishes to batter their child, but the state is against it, do you support the right of the parent to batter the child? Then why do you support a JW's right to refuse life saving procedures?

    Anyway I think personal experience of own parents is clouding my judgement on this one so I shall desist. My F is shining through.
    "No one can be free of the chains that surround them"

  5. #35
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Sahara, I don't accept that what I'm talking about is necessarily a "slippery slope" situation, though it may appear that way at first glance.

    Let's say you adopt a policy that the state may enforce the administration of medical treatment to children over the religious objections of the parents.

    Having done that, now the nuance of the policy depends on definitions. What does the state say "religious objection" means? What does the state decide is "life saving"?

    You'd think these definitions would be obvious, but I come from a country where government decided that, for school lunch purposes, ketchup was a vegetable. Such a government could easily decide that your objection to anything they thought your kid needed was an unreasonable religious objection.

    Be careful whom you give such power...it may one day be used against you.

  6. #36
    Member Theory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    This political correctness that plagues liberal perspectives is ultimately cowardice. We used to have a right to remain silent, but now it's a duty for fear of offending others. In America, white people are often not allowed to voice their opinions of other people without being deemed racist (i.e., NAACP is a cultural advancement organization, NAAWP is racist, even though it is clear that white people are often more discriminated against than so-called minorities).
    This is going back a little ways, but thank you for bringing this up. I'm glad I'm not the only American who notices this. I'm all for racial and cultural equality and all that, but it has almost turned into a reverse-racism now. People have been taught to walk around with chips on their shoulders, and so they get offended at every single little thing that could possibly be deemed "racist." I'm not sure how it is with other countries, but a lot of people around here look for excuses to be offended, which is ridiculous.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Sahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon67 View Post
    Sahara, I don't accept that what I'm talking about is necessarily a "slippery slope" situation, though it may appear that way at first glance.

    Let's say you adopt a policy that the state may enforce the administration of medical treatment to children over the religious objections of the parents.

    It appears that they do this anyway:

    Judge backs transplant for baby

    Do you think this is a fair decision by the courts?

    Although I understood your last post, and I agreed with it, I still feel relief that this little baby will get the appropriate help, inspite of her parents religious objections.

    It's the religion OVER medicine aspect that is bugging me, no myth should be allowed to put children, who can not choose for themselves, lives in danger.
    "No one can be free of the chains that surround them"

  8. #38
    It's always something... PuddleRiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    2,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon67 View Post
    When it violates civil or criminal law, within the jurisdiction of that law, the individuals practicing the custom should be subject to the penalties of the law.

    There's a better theoretical answer, but the above will do to go on with until we've worked it out.
    Now that's a religion I can believe in.
    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay one invincible summer."
    ~~~~
    A Christian's life may be the only Bible some people ever read.
    ~~~~
    "The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them" Maya Angelou.
    ~~~~
    I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" Gandhi
    ~~~~

  9. #39
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahara View Post
    It's the religion OVER medicine aspect that is bugging me, no myth should be allowed to put children, who can not choose for themselves, lives in danger.
    Yes, but what is myth exactly?

    You would choose medicine over religion...but in the process you've also chosen government over family. I think the goodness of government is far more mythical than religious beliefs. Of course, I come from a culture where religious beliefs only rarely oppose the welfare of children.

    On another, more personal note, I would like to have my foreskin back. It was cut off when I was a baby because the medical establishment thought it was beneficial to do so.

    Talk about myth...

  10. #40
    Senior Member Sahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon67 View Post
    Yes, but what is myth exactly?

    You would choose medicine over religion...but in the process you've also chosen government over family. I think the goodness of government is far more mythical than religious beliefs. Of course, I come from a culture where religious beliefs only rarely oppose the welfare of children.

    On another, more personal note, I would like to have my foreskin back. It was cut off when I was a baby because the medical establishment thought it was beneficial to do so.

    Talk about myth...

    Circumcision Reversal (Foreskin Restoration) You can semi do that now.

    I'm not set on choosing government over family, of course I would rather parents made all choices for their children, however I am supportive of measures in which when a childs life is compromised, the government steps in.

    Not for any other reason. I think it's a reasonable stand to have, I would be interested in hearing other suggestions on how to handle it if a childs life is in danger like the article I posted that offer an alternative way as like I said I am not totally set.
    "No one can be free of the chains that surround them"

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] How idyllic is your life, How idyllic is your spirit?
    By Alienclock in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-10-2013, 05:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO