|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Children aren't property.
Sure they aren't...
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:57 PM |
|
|
A government is legally obliged to protect its citizenry from having its rights violated. That is why there are police stations, jails, fire stations, etc.
If there is a mute crippled person in your backyard and you let them slowly starve to death instead of calling for help, you can - and should - be charged for it. Inaction is not necessarily synonymous with neutrality.
A child is a citizen and the government does have the right to intervene if a parent is purposely allowing them die, for the same reason it has the right to intervene if somebody is trying to stab somebody in the face with a rocket launcher. Parents have designated authority over their children but they are not their property.
edit: Okay, looks like I took too long to post. Just call me Captain Redundant.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can believe you have that right all you want, Binabik. A judge is not going to really care about your beliefs when there is a dead child that could have easily been saved. You would most likely be slammed for child neglect, child endangerment, possibly lose any other children you have to the state, and face prison time. Not a smart move.
F*** the judge, f*** the law and f*** the government. If they overstep their bounds then they are the enemy and will be treated as such. I've been in jail several times in my life, I know the drill. Whether or not I go to jail is completely irrelevant. I don't change my beliefs just because it's convenient.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 09:01 PM |
|
|
@Bin
It's my religious belief that on the 17th of September, my 3 year old child should drink cyanide. If Yarpog, god of ferns, loves her, she'll survive. The goverment has no right to interfere.
Correct?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 09:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
F*** the judge, f*** the law and f*** the government. If they overstep their bounds then they are the enemy and will be treated as such. I've been in jail several times in my life, I know the drill. Whether or not I go to jail is completely irrelevant. I don't change my beliefs just because it's convenient.
BOOM BADA BOOM!
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 09:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't change my beliefs just because it's convenient.
It's inconvenient to change your beliefs to save your child's life?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A child is a citizen and the government does have the right to intervene if a parent is purposely allowing them die. Parents have designated authority over their children but they are not their property.
Never heard of a living will? The thing where the hospital/doctors have a legal obligation to let a person starve to death? A living will is a different situation, but the point is where do you draw the line? A DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) is similar when it comes to drawing lines. It's all about asking the patient (or usually a family member) where to draw the line and which medical procedures the doctors can and can not perform to save a life. How far do we go in saving lives? Is there a limit? SHOULD there be a limit? And WHO decides?
@OD, I meant the inconvenience of going to jail.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 09:30 PM |
|
|
@Bin:
But we're not talking about a person deciding how extensively they want to be cared for before the doctors "pull the plug". A person can screw themselves as much as they want. We're talking about parents dictating the lives of their children. Children are not inanimate extensions of their parents' wills. They are sapient beings and separate individuals.
I don't consider the idea of allowing parents to deny their children blood transfusions as being philosophically much different than the idea of allowing husbands to rape their wives. In either case, you're establishing one person as being the property of the other.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 10:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We're talking about parents dictating the lives of their children
In the cases I mentioned, yes we ARE talking about that. With both a living will and DNR it is a different situation. But there is something in common with what we've been talking about. In both cases the legal guardian (usually the parents) decides which medical procedures to use and which to not use. In both cases the parents decide to either use or not use procedures that can save the child's life.
In the case of the DNR, if the child's life is saved, that child may even have a fully functional and full-length life with no adverse affects from their brush with death. Yet the parents can withhold that treatment. In Ohio, the hospital even has a legal obligation to present the DNR to the parents (or potentially someone else).
The entire point is about lines. Where do you draw them and who decides? What's the difference between using defibrillators to stimulate the heart back to beating and swapping the blood supply? And the question I keep asking, who decides? With defibrillators the heart has stopped and some people consider that already dead, but that's an arbitrary definition. The child may have a much more ordinary and healthy life after using defibrillators than he/she would have after a blood transfusion. And he/she would almost certainly have a better life after defibrillation than after an organ transplant.
It's all about lines and where to draw them. And more importantly who decides. Virtually any parent in this situation would be agonizing over it. People act like it's some willy-nilly decision by uncaring parents.
When I went through this and had to make the decision, the last step was to spend some time on the phone with the doctor. He wanted to make sure I fully understood the ramifications of my decision. The nurse was standing next to me waiting. The very second I hung up the phone her arms were around me in a bear hug. She KNEW what I had just done and was ready for it. I'm sure she's seen it hundreds of times before. If you ever go through it yourself, I guaranty that you will have a different attitude about some of these things. You might not change your mind about it, but you'll at least have some understanding of what any parent is going through. You will have some understanding of the agonizing decision they must make. And maybe most importantly to the subject at hand, you will realize just how extremely personal that decision is.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 10:07 PM |
|
|
Binabik: I partially disagree, mainly because I think denying a child the chance to become fully sentient when it is a really simple matter to save that life, is quite bad.
Well, beyond that, I will not debate it, mainly because you belive in your belief, and find it reasonable. Good luck attempting getting a working society some time into the future 
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 12:10 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:20, 17 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
The big question is who decides? My stance is that unless there is overt abuse, then it's not the role of the government to decide such things.
should the parents have that power? what makes biological parents better to care about their children than anyone else?
Quote:
Children aren't property.
it's not a bad point, I think it could be easily proved than children are treated that way by their own parents in many aspects.
I read that some parents having an ill child sometimes conceive another child so that they can get healthy cells from him to heal the 1st child. is that morale?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 02:44 AM |
|
|
Argue a divorce. You'll quickly learn that children are property.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 03:12 AM |
|
|
what do you mean? that they are treated that way by their parents, or that legally they are considered the property of someone?
slavery was a legal way to possess someone too.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 03:19 AM |
|
|
Legally, no, they are not property. Realistically, they are.
Sometimes it's like watching two dogs fight over a scrap of meat.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 04:04 AM |
|
|
I hope that those who think the State is more qualified to make decisions about their children than they are never have kids.
@BaklavaQuote:
How can you not believe in blood transfusions for crying out loud.
Of course I donn't have a problem with blood transfusions. I just have a problem with a tyranical government dictating the medical procedures people will be reqired to go through.
The politicians are generally clueless about how to run their own lives much less run the lives of others.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with the state god.
Sure it do3es. The loony politicians think they have a right to order people around. They are supposed to be public servants, not dictators. At least in a democratic type of government. Unfortunately the longer a politician is in office the more he thinks he is a god entitled to dictate the smallest details of a person's life.
Children "belong" to the parents in that it is the God given (or natural, if you prefer) duty and right of a parent to raise their child. They love their children and seek what it best for them. What the parent thinks is best and what some loony politician/judge thinks is best may differ. It is the opinion of the parent that matters. The parents have a better view of what is in the interest of the child than a loony politician does.
@Keksimaton
It is a scary though that you think the government owns you.
@blizzardboy
Quote:
Children are not inanimate extensions of their parents' wills.
Children are not inanimate extensions of the State. Children who are mature enough to make their own medical decisions should do so. Otherwise a family member (the parents if available) should be the ones making the decision, not some politician. It is a family matter and the family may see the situation as involving more than just a medical decision.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 08:26 AM |
|
|
No offense to anyone, but this thread has developed in a pretty scary way.
People, and that includes Jehova's Witnesses, should check more on what blood actually is, instead of believing strange things about it.
Factually a blood transfusion is comparable with giving oxygen. Blood is a substance the body regenerates permanently, that's why you need these things only when you (temporarily) lost too much, usually in an accident or crime.
(There are illnesses that inhibit this ability of the body, but that is a different case.)
For me, with the medical situation beimng what it is for a very long time now (and blood transfusions are a very, very old medical practise), everyone not giving their consent to it, should be charged with murder, because that's what it is. If a child needs a blood transfusion, and the parents don't consent for whatever reasons, they should be charged with murder. They can ruin their own life any way they want, but superstition should not lead to children unnecessarily dying.
Blood transfusions are in NO way comparable with an organ transplantation, and have absolutely nothing to do with any borders or limits. It's like pulling dsomeone out of the water and giving first aid and mouth-to-mouth respiration. You could just as well believe that the soul rests in the breath, and if a person breathes the life back into another one, they are doing strange things with the soul. It's just superstition.
For the rest, the really hard decisions, I would suggest to open another thread, please.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 01:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Legally, no, they are not property. Realistically, they are.
Sometimes it's like watching two dogs fight over a scrap of meat.
so that's what I said
Quote:
Children "belong" to the parents in that it is the God given (or natural, if you prefer) duty and right of a parent to raise their child. They love their children and seek what it best for them. What the parent thinks is best and what some loony politician/judge thinks is best may differ. It is the opinion of the parent that matters. The parents have a better view of what is in the interest of the child than a loony politician does.
I'm not sure parents know better. unfortunately, until he reaches a certain age, a child isn't able to take decisions
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 01:25 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:25, 17 Sep 2010.
|
@Elodin
What you said for the government can be directly applied to parents. They often can't control their own lives, and being members of a dangerous cult that believes they'll go to hell if they get a blood transfusion is, at least for me, proof of that. Someone needs to protect the children from mentally unstable parents, and since children can't do it themselves, there are organizations that do that - and they influence the government to take steps to protect its citizens' lives, like it should. Public servants and stuff.
What's next, the state-god controls our lives when it arrests an incestuous pedophile?
Children have the right and freedom to live and not to be directly or indirectly murdered by a cult. But not only do you disagree with this and think that anyone thinking like that is a puppet to some kind of state god, you actually hope they will never have children.
You are the most embarrassing thing to happen to Christianity since the Catholic Church.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 02:09 PM |
|
|
Well try this one Elodin: I thought it was a funny thought to think silly thoughts of the government and the scary thought is that you thought that my thoughts were results from a serious thought process.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 17, 2010 04:22 PM |
|
|
@Baklava
Quote:
@Elodin
You are the most embarrassing thing to happen to Christianity since the Catholic Church.
You seem to be frustrated by the facts. But throwing personal insults my way will not change the facts. I get it. You support the State-god principle and I don't.
Quote:
What you said for the government can be directly applied to parents. They often can't control their own lives, and being members of a dangerous cult that believes they'll go to hell if they get a blood transfusion is, at least for me, proof of that.
Ah, but one of the "State-god" believers said worshipful things about the State-god being the best choice for making decisions about children. I believe in parental rights. The parents have the duty, responsibility, and right to raise their children. Such rights existed before the existence of the State. Paternal rights do not come from the State, they come from God (or nature if you are an atheist.)
If a parent believes that getting a blood transfusion results in going to hell then, yes, he will most likely refuse a blood transfusion for his child. He makes such a decision with the best interests of his child in mind. Oh, and I'd like to see you prove that a blood transfusion won't send someone to hell. You should learn to respect the right of others to believe things that you don't. Not everyone has to believe what you believe or live how you want them to live.
I realize materialistic atheists are blind to the spiritual aspects of existence and think that only material aspects of life exist. They have the right to live their life pretending that such is true. The more sane of us realize that there is more to life than the material and make decisions factoring in all that we know about both the material and spiritual aspects of life. I don't know if you are a parent but parents weigh their decisions about their children's health very heavily.
People should be able to live their own lives according to their own beliefs without interference from the politicians who think they are gods. I see nothing wrong with blood transfusions but it is tyrannical for a government to force a blood transfusion on a person or on his family.
Government is a necessary evil. It should be kept small and limited. It should have nothing to do with dictating religious beliefs and practices or forcing medical procedures on anyone. Like I said before, children who are mature enough to make their own medical decisions should do so. Otherwise a family member (the parents if available) should be the ones making the decision, not some politician who thinks he has the right to control their lives.
@JJ
Quote:
If a child needs a blood transfusion, and the parents don't consent for whatever reasons, they should be charged with murder. They can ruin their own life any way they want, but superstition should not lead to children unnecessarily dying.
Of course some atheists call belief in anything by the material superstition but that is only because they are ignorant of spiritual things.
Doctors are only supposed to offer medical ADVICE. They can't dictate that a procedure be done. And doctors make mistakes and sometimes think procedures are necessary when they are not.
I had an uncle who had cancer. The doctors told him unless he had an operation he would be dead within a year. If he had the lung removed he might survive a few years. My uncle refused the operation and lived another 20 years. If some liberal loon had forced the operation on my uncle he would have been murdering him. There are cases of doctors advising a woman to have an abortion because they said the baby would be born dead in which the mother did not heed the advice of the doctor and the baby was born healthy.
I think that if a politician or judge says he has the right to make medical or religious decisions for others rather than letting the child or guardian make the decision he has proven himself to be a tyrannical loon unworthy of having authority over a pile of cow manure. If somehow he manages to force such a decision on someone before he is thrown out of office he should be executed if the people affected wish it to be so or incarcerated for the length of time that they dictate. Such judges and politicians may think they are gods but they are not.
Unfortunately it seems many liberal politicians and judges are control freaks with delusions of grandeur..
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
