|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 17, 2009 01:19 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:32, 17 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The parents nor the son are Christians. They follow a Native American (Indian) religion.
OK, JJ, I'll grant you that they claim to be both Catholic and followers of a Native Amerian Religion. I don't see how Chrisitanity and shamanism can mix but that is not my decision on how they try to blend 2 religions. That is their decision. Not yours. Not a pope of the state religion.
I would not personally call someone a Christian who is trying to practice 2 different religions because Jesus said you can't serve two masters.
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Here is a website about the Native American religion.
http://www.nemenhah.org/
The fact is the article says the boy made the decision. The boy said he is following his religion.
Now, it is legal in many states for a 13 year old girl to have an abortion without parental consent because of her supposed right to control her own body even if it means killing the baby in her womb. If a 13 year old girl can have an abortion without parental consent why can't a 13 year old boy refuse medical treatment with parental consent? Do girls have a right to control their body but boys don't? Wouldn't that be gender bias?
And why does the boy not have the freedom to practice his religion that the Constitution says he has?
It does not matter how "informed" you or the judge thinks his decision is. I doubt a 13 year old girl is totally informed about the implications of an abortion but the law and abortion rights groups have no problem with 13 year old girls aborting babies.
Maybe religion is the only thing tha matters to the boy and he is basing his decision on that. Who are you to say he can't base his decision solely on his religion? Again, are you saying that your religion is the right religion and all decisions everyone makes should be base on your religion (or the religion of the judge?)
It would not matter if the doctors said chemo had a 100% chance to cure the boy. No one should be forced to undergo a medical treatment they don't want.
And what if the all-knowing state restrains the boy and forces medical treatment on him and he dies?
Will restraining the boy and forcing medical treatment on him cause psychological damage? It will certainly cause him to resent the government.
What is next? Will a judge order everyone to exercise because medical science says it is good for them? Should the state send officers to eveyone's house and make them exercise?
We are back to the question. Where do you draw the line? What can the state-god order you do that is against your will "for your own good." Who is the oracle for the state-god?
The "fraud" seemed to be that he was "practicing medicine without a license" by "advocating natural remedies."
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 01:26 PM |
|
|
I really wish you would stop it with the State-god, state-religion Elodin. Not everything has to be about religion. I agree with you that people should not be forced to undergo medical treatment however. Like for instance blood transfusion. Sometimes it can save a person's life, but there are those who refuse blood transfusions.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 01:38 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:39, 17 May 2009.
|
Quote:
I really wish you would stop it with the State-god, state-religion Elodin. Not everything has to be about religion. I agree with you that people should not be forced to undergo medical treatment however. Like for instance blood transfusion. Sometimes it can save a person's life, but there are those who refuse blood transfusions.
This is exactly about religion and the right of a citizen to practice his religion even when the state disagrees. The Bill of Rights was to protect religion that the state disagrees with! If the state agrees with the religion it would not have to be protected.
If the state is imposing its own religious beliefs, is not that a state religion? And the state seems to be placing itself as the "god" by overriding the religious beliefs of the citizens.
I would think that may be "stong language" like others use "agianst" religion but within what is acceptable. But if I am forbidden to use the terms I will stoop using them. I just hope others will be forbidden to use strong negative terms in application to religion too.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 01:54 PM |
|
|
I'm currently founding a new religion based on the faith that no one needs to learn a work or a job because it happened to be that way with myself.
People who join my faith will be able to do everything they want to, including healing without ever needing to learn anything because the great mumbo-jumbo will illuminate them as a reward for their faith.
This is true for youths as well, of course. They are forbidden to learn a work, but will just do it.
My religion should be protected by the law!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 01:57 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:58, 17 May 2009.
|
Fine, I don't care. But don't demand that I support you while you sit on your butt. 
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 07:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
OK, JJ, I'll grant you that they claim to be both Catholic and followers of a Native Amerian Religion.
........... Please read the article. Their Catolitcs aka Christians which is again a branch of the Abrahemic religions.
They belive modern medicine is the work of the devil and is thus against it. The one that sounds like the Native American one just uses pure stuff from nature, which they view as natural and thus a go.
Quote:
Now, it is legal in many states for a 13 year old girl to have an abortion without parental consent because of her supposed right to control her own body even if it means killing the baby in her womb. If a 13 year old girl can have an abortion without parental consent why can't a 13 year old boy refuse medical treatment with parental consent? Do girls have a right to control their body but boys don't? Wouldn't that be gender bias?
The reason the law states 13 year old girl abortion is for several reasons. One that is included is that due the high amount of highly religius people that would doom those girl away from their potential and path in life unless they do the abortion. Thats the main reason behind that law, to ruin less amount of lifes. For the note, the pregnancy and abortion rate is alot higher in areas where that are less sex education and more "condoms are not safe"-bullsnow, whereas in the areas with alot of education on the subject got a better statistic.
Heck we could have(and we already did) a war on weither the fetus in the womb is considered a living human or not and the etc of that.
Boys can do what they want with their own body, but in this case its alot more complex(or easy, depends on the point of view). The boy will die of that disease unless he gets treated, its his parents choice on most of the case. The boy also belives he is not ill, but we got X-rays who disagree with that. The judge ordered a check, so that the boy may be treated if he is ill(there is a high amount of proff). The disease thats hinted, is easy to cure. Meaning few treatments to get rid of it.
Its similar to if the doctor found out that the 13 year old giving birth too that baby will kill her.
Quote:
No one should be forced to undergo a medical treatment they don't want.
There is no judge wanting to hang innocent people.
Quote:
And what if the all-knowing state restrains the boy and forces medical treatment on him and he dies?
Then he would die of the physical struggle against it, they would just drug him and get it over with instead.
Quote:
What is next? Will a judge order everyone to exercise because medical science says it is good for them? Should the state send officers to eveyone's house and make them exercise?
They can get in PE in school, and maybe someting in public jobs. Any regulation beyond that is just idiotic due the amount of work needed to controll and systain it. A proper proaganda to get it to work on the other hand, for public health 
Quote:
We are back to the question. Where do you draw the line? What can the state-god order you do that is against your will "for your own good." Who is the oracle for the state-god?
There should never 1 person controlling this, nor should it exlusively be of people of 1 cult.
There should be a group set together of people with an idea of practical and some with knowledge. They should be from atleast 3 opposing factions(so we have a buildt inn disagrement), there is no votes but rather a agreement based on that all agrees upon the facts on the table.
The line is also very hard to draw because there are lots of complete luntics out there. Some limits that just stop those will cause a major problems for the common not-insane population. Then there is differnt degress of insane and such fort. So its hard to really draw a line.
But a enforced law about listening to reason should be there.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
OK, JJ, I'll grant you that they claim to be both Catholic and followers of a Native Amerian Religion.
........... Please read the article. Their Catolitcs aka Christians which is again a branch of the Abrahemic religions.
They belive modern medicine is the work of the devil and is thus against it. The one that sounds like the Native American one just uses pure stuff from nature, which they view as natural and thus a go.
It is amazing how some people will always try to portray "the Abrahamic religions" in a negative light. I hope you are merely misinformed about Catholic beliefs.
I am not a Catholic but I do know that Catholics don't teach that modern medicine is the work of the devil. Catholics operate quite a few hospitals so that fact is quite obvious.
In fact, I know of no Christian denomination that teaches that doctors are instrumets of the devil.
And as I said, I don't see how you can mix Christianity and shamanism based on the teachings of Jesus that you can only have one master but, if they have made a "blended religion" they have that right even though I don't think such a religion is a Christian religion.
Quote:
The reason the law states 13 year old girl abortion is for several reasons. One that is included is that due the high amount of highly religius people that would doom those girl away from their potential and path in life unless they do the abortion.
Failure to have an abortion does not doom a girl in life. In fact there are many studies that show that many women have depression and severe mental problems after an abortion. Not to mention that abortion is murder.
Perhaps you are unaware that it is not only religios people who oppose abortion. Some atheists also oppose abortion.
Based on studies, I would say it is those who encourage abortions who doom girls from reaching their potential. Below is a portion of an article about a study conducted aby a pro-abortion doctor.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200601/ai_n17188342/
Quote:
Abortion destroys the psychological health of teenage girls. This is the finding of a large new study that has statistics on this point so dramatic that even pro-lifers may have trouble believing them. The pro-abortion lead author of the study. Prof. David Fergusson of Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences in Christchurch, New Zealand, told Australia's ABC news, in summary, that abortion causes mental health problems, not the other way around, and women's backgrounds had nothing to do with it.
In what may be the biggest study of its kind. Fergusson and his fellow scientists examined the psychological consequences of abortion for New Zealand women age 15 to 25. Reported the scientists: "Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25. with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors."
Depression, anxiety and other negative effects occurred after the abortions, the researchers said. These are not cases of depressed, drug-addicted or otherwise disturbed women being more likely to abort their children-the abortions preceded the disturbances
.
And of course there are also many physical risks associated with abortion.
Quote:
Then he would die of the physical struggle against it, they would just drug him and get it over with instead.
You really think the boy should be shot with a tranquilizer dart like an animal and then treated as dictated by a judge against his will and the will of his parents?
And we are somehow back to the issue about girls having a right to control their bodies but boys having no such right. Even to the point where the state will physically attack the boy in order to control his body.
Quote:
They can get in PE in school, and maybe someting in public jobs.
I was talking about forced exercise. Can a judge order you to exercise and physcially force you to do so "for your own good?" Maybe he can attatch a collar around your neck that shocks you if you refuse to exercise.
Quote:
There should never 1 person controlling this, nor should it exlusively be of people of 1 cult.
Here we have the judge, the oracle of the state cult controlling the boy, forcing him to receive medical treatment against his will.
Quote:
There should be a group set together of people with an idea of practical and some with knowledge.
You really think there should be a panel of people who make all your decisions for you? That is scary. Talk about Big Brother!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 08:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You were saying, Death?
Well ok then the parents said that it was their son's decision, I didn't make a difference before.
However, the kid believes he is not ill, so the MOST a judge could do is to TELL HIM about the results of X-ray test. That's all that he can "force" the parents to do (i.e tell him). If the kid still says "No, I still believe I'm not ill." then who are you to judge him (or his parents) if he doesn't believe in x-rays or whatever?
"The doctors" say a different thing. Fine for them. They can SAY whatever they want, no problem. Problem is when they FORCE or ACT (rather, the judge orders it to) and go into the business of people who, probably, want to stay away from them for some reason.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 09:21 PM |
|
|
Aren't you seeing that the PARENTS are the problem?
There is nothing to discuss here. Nothing at all. It's not even worth a note or somthing.
If "David" was an adult, he could do whatever he likes.
As long as David is not, his parents are considered to have the last say. So if David would say, please, I feel bad after a chemo, I don't want to do that, normally parents would say, well, you are ill, you'll be better after a couple of months, we'll help you, you are strong enough.
In this case, though, they fell for some trickster who calls his bull a religion. David has no idea. His parents are idiots. And while the trickster is cashing in, David is dying.
It's just money grabbing of the worst kind.
You don't want to defend this.
Oh,an by the way, the abortuon stuff is off-topic. Has nothing to do with this.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is amazing how some people will always try to portray "the Abrahamic religions" in a negative light. I hope you are merely misinformed about Catholic beliefs.
But i did not. I am merely pointing at where they are in the painting of faith.
Or do you disagree that Catolics are Christians? And that Christianity are a Abrahemic religion?
Quote:
I am not a Catholic but I do know that Catholics don't teach that modern medicine is the work of the devil.
Which i never said. I merely said the people pointed at do belive that. There is a differnce on "those people over there" and "the group they belong to".
Quote:
Failure to have an abortion does not doom a girl in life. In fact there are many studies that show that many women have depression and severe mental problems after an abortion. Not to mention that abortion is murder.
Quote:
Based on studies, I would say it is those who encourage abortions who doom girls from reaching their potential. Below is a portion of an article about a study conducted aby a pro-abortion doctor.
I said A, your pointing at D. Which is not related to A. Your pointing at depression, i am pointing at losing education and being forced to marry and worse.
Quote:
Perhaps you are unaware that it is not only religios people who oppose abortion. Some atheists also oppose abortion.
Oh don't worry, i do know that.
Quote:
And of course there are also many physical risks associated with abortion.
Which is quite known. Any person who is about to do an abortion will also be informed by informed personel.
Quote:
Here we have the judge, the oracle of the state cult controlling the boy, forcing him to receive medical treatment against his will.
Here we have a judge, who is trained and have lots of experience in attempting to decide whats wise. Depening on the level in court, the judge can only decide the actions but a group of randomly gathered civilians decide weither the charge is correct or not.
The judge does not make the law, nor decide it. Thats the goverments job. The goverment is a giantic group of people gathered in a place and they make decisions.
Quote:
You really think there should be a panel of people who make all your decisions for you? That is scary. Talk about Big Brother!
*falls over laughing* No your jumping to bad conclusions over my words. What i was talking about was a sort of "do we? or should we not?", i am talking about the group that decides lets say the builing plans for railroads.
If the boy of the article refuses treatment after being proven quite ill, he should be asked weither he just wants to die.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 10:21 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:28, 17 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Aren't you seeing that the PARENTS are the problem?
No, I am seeing that the problem is the judge who ignores the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and the boy's right to control his own body. If he thinks only girls have a right to control their body he shoudld be removed because of his gender bias.
Quote:
There is nothing to discuss here. Nothing at all. It's not even worth a note or somthing.
You have not addressed the Constitutional right of freedom of religion or the boy's right to control his body.
Quote:
In this case, though, they fell for some trickster who calls his bull a religion.
I think your relibious beliefs are bull but you are free to practice them. Judges are not supposed to impose their religious beliefs on people. That is establishing a state religion.
Quote:
It's just money grabbing of the worst kind.
Oh? Where exactly is the child or the parent making money on this? This appears to me to be just another false charge against someone trying to practice their religion. The parents love the child and don't want the child to die. The child said he does not want furthur chemo treatments. The parents respect the rights of the child to control his body and to practice his religious beliefs. You should respect his rights too JJ.
Quote:
Oh,an by the way, the abortuon stuff is off-topic. Has nothing to do with this.
No it is not, as I have introduced it. It is about controllling one's body. If the law allows a 13 year old girl to get an abortion without parental consent becaue of the right she has to control her own body, how can a 13 year old boy not also have the right to control his body with parental consent?
Quote:
Which i never said. I merely said the people pointed at do belive that.
Please link to the quote whre the parents or the child said modern medicine is the work of the devil.
The child in fact did initially undergo chemotherepy so I think you are confused.
Quote:
*falls over laughing* No your jumping to bad conclusions over my words. What i was talking about was a sort of "do we? or should we not?", i am talking about the group that decides lets say the builing plans for railroads.
What does railroads have to do with the discussion?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 11:00 PM |
|
|
I'm currently founding a new religion based on the faith that everyone else except me is a stupid idiot. The foundation of this religion is the revelation that everyone is a stupid idiot. Except me, of course, that's why everyone believing in this new faith is no stupid idiot.
Children should have the right to commit to being no idiot. Which is easy. They just have to believe in me.
Yes. Religious freedom for everyone.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 11:20 PM |
|
|
If the children and their parents believe it (that they're idiots in this case), who are you to stop them from worshiping you?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 18, 2009 12:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm currently founding a new religion based on the faith that everyone else except me is a stupid idiot. The foundation of this religion is the revelation that everyone is a stupid idiot. Except me, of course, that's why everyone believing in this new faith is no stupid idiot.
Children should have the right to commit to being no idiot. Which is easy. They just have to believe in me.
Yes. Religious freedom for everyone.
Wait, didn't you believe this already? 
I think one of the doctrines of your "new" faith contradicts the first doctrine of your faith.
At first you say everyone but you is a stupid idiot. Then you say no one in your new religion is a stupid idiot. You might want to question the deity that revealed this to you.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2009 07:53 AM |
|
|
Since when matters reason when it comes to religion?
Now, as I may remind again: we are talking about a 13-year-old. 13-year-olds haven't full rights. Society isn't granting them full rights. For example, they cannot vote. They are not allowed other grave decisions involving personal responsibility: not going to school anymore and so on.
Generally the parents have the last say, but there are exceptions, and that's when the parents are not doing their education job properly. These things happen all the time, mind you, and you all know that fairly well.
Additionally, not even the will of adults is respected, wenn it comes to suicide, for a number of reasons that are probably off-topic to discuss.
The claim of following a certain religion cannot change general law (no one has a right to be treated specially by the law because of religious reasons).
If someone, for example a hospital, makes a case, saying that a child isn't treated properly, then the law has the duty to check into this, religion or not.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 18, 2009 08:12 AM |
|
|
Again on the religion thing? It's simple in my book. No one religion, philosophy, belief system, or whatever you want to call it should be given preference at all when it comes to making laws. Not atheism, not christianity, none. Religion (not people who might have a religion mind, there vote counts just the same as anybody else) has no place in setting laws. We can discuss this in another thread however, as everything is NOT about religion.
My stance is that people have to have accountability for their own actions. If a parent/guardian/jimbobfurlybob leaves a weapon where a child can use it..they are responsible for the consequences. If a child knows enough to take a weapon AND use it..they are are responsible for the consequences. Accidents happen, and there are some mitigating things but common sense should prevail. Something bad happening in your life is NOT a mitigating circumstance, in my opinion. No matter how bad somebody has had it, other people have had it worse and did not resort to what that person did.
People just don't want to take responsibility. They want all the 'rights' and 'privilages' without any of the responsibility to go with it. So I say we draw the line where common sense dwells. We don't need a fascist state, but we don't want a anarchy state either. Some laws are good, as long as they apply to everybody.
We must also realise we can't protect people from their own stupidity, nor should we. As long as that stupidity does not endanger anybody but themselves, have at is what I say. It is when that activity is a danger to more then a few idiots that we must draw the line. Regulation is fine, but prohibition does not work.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2009 09:25 AM |
|
|
One purpose of every community is to protect each other. That becomes most obvious in case of an outsider attack. Other cases are not quite so obvious.
Everyone agrees that children are to be protected. Usually the protection is done by the parents, but there are cases where that doesn't work. Parents may die or be too sick; parents may be criminals and go to jail; parents may abuse their children, or mistreat them; they may not feed them properly or not take care whether they go to school; they may not care about the properly when they are ill; they may do one or more of these things for reasons they can justify; they may gear their education so that the children accept those improper treatment as proper or as their own fault or even as their own wish.
It's the task of society to TAKE CARE where parents can't or don't want to. In some cases it may not be as obvious as broken bones, bruises and cuts and so on, but IF THERE IS DOUBT, one check too many is better than one check too few, in the interest of the children.
Religion doesn't change anything about that.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 18, 2009 09:32 AM |
|
|
In some aspects we agree JJ, but in many we do not as well. While I agree there should be laws, and they should be enforced, I think you want too many. Regulation on somethings are much better then out and out banning. I mean we shouldn't ban people driving just because of the ones who break the regulations right? Coddling a child is actually the worse thing one can do. It creates adults with a sense of entitlement who do not know enough or realise what the real world is like. Sometimes a child has to skin its knee, or get some bruises playing. Helps them learn their limitations. It is tragic when this goes too far and they die, but putting them in a bubble and putting that bubble in a padded room is not the way to go.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2009 09:50 AM |
|
|
I don't disagree with you there. In fact I fully agree with that last post of yours.
Is that a post in connection with that case or independent from it? I don't see a connection, but I'm sure whether you intend there to be one.
Edit: I add this, since it may not have become clear.
In the actual case the age of the boy is not relevant, since the parents would have the right to order the boy to treatment, no matter his own decision.
The situation is here that there is no way to know what the parents told the child about his situation or not - you know that doctors generally don't tell the naked full truth, especially not children; they tend to try and tell them optimictic things, like, you are sick, but you'll be fine again and so on - and it might be very possible that the parents made claims about his state of health to the boy that are in fact untrue.
So no matter how you twist and turn this case - it is a decision that actually is not to be made by the boy, but by the parents.
Obviously, if a child will very likely die from infection if not treated with penicillin, you won't accept it, when parents say that they won't allow their son being treated so for some religious reason. In case of an accident you wouldn't have something like, no surgeons, for religious reasons we cannot allow treatment with certain instruments.
This case is not so clear, since the sickness itself isn't clearly defined in all their aspects.
Which is why the judge - correctly - ordered to check the boy again.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 18, 2009 10:29 AM |
|
|
While it is not something I particularly follow, there are several people opposed to getting a transfusion. Some for religious reasons and some for personal reasons. People have died after refusing the transfusions for whatever reasons (lets not make it about religion or anything, just the act of refusing). Some have been young, and some have had their parents refuse for them (because they were unable at the time). Should a judge then be able to order them to undergo a life saving medical treatment, despite it being against their personal choice? If so, then what else should people be made to do against their own choice?
I personally think that if you do not want to undergo a medical treatment you do not have to. IF it is contagious that does not change things. However, IF it is contagious and you refuse treatment, I DO believe that the government should have the right to quaranteen you. Not to force you to undergo medical treatment, of any kind, but make sure you can not infect other people.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
