|
| Thread: Catholicism's Official Stance on Contraception |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
posted March 05, 2012 04:09 AM |
|
|
One is direct the other is indirect. 'Child has illness treatment denied', JW didn't cause the illness, whether responsible is arguable. While straight on murder is a 'direct'. As I said before the law about freedom of religion works under the confinement of all other laws, otherwise it would cause a paradox.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 05, 2012 04:22 AM |
|
|
In both situations the child is negatively affected by the parent's religious beliefs. For sake of argument, let's say the sick child denied medical treatment dies. (not a far fetched example, since this does happen) So in both situations there is a dead child due to the parent's actions, or inaction. Are we as a society not supposed to hold the parents accountable for the child's death?
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted March 05, 2012 05:07 AM |
|
|
You don't understand, murdering your child even it's for religion is against the law since you are responsible for your child's well-being, your religious beliefs cannot trample over anyother law because that would be a paradox (as I just said  ).
I don't see how parents negligence comes into effect on the hospital issue, (I guess a parent shouldn't have taken their child to said hospital, but I guess when you're desperate. Still responsible, but I doubt the parent would be charged) If a private hospital denies your child treatment, they're not liable for the child dying on their doorstep. To my knowledge anyhow. Though this varies between countries greatly, and I dare-say even between states.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 05, 2012 06:16 AM |
|
|
You just said yourself, "responsible for the child's well being". How is that not applicable to medical care? If you are responsible for your child's well being and you deliberately do not get care for your child when it is available, how are you not responsible for the child's death? It is exactly the same responsibility.
You keep saying that I don't understand, and that's true. I do not understand how anyone can differentiate between scenarios like this. Where one deliberate, heinous act based on religion is acceptable and should be recognized as such by society and the other is not.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2012 08:38 AM |
|
|
A blood transfer is "medical treatment". JWs believe that blood is the home of the soul, so they don't want blood to be mixed.
Why would a belief based on the idea that you have to run nature its course and treat ailments and illnesses only with natural stuff like herbs be different?
In this case you'd NEVER send your children to a doctor which might well lead to children unnecessarily and carelessly dying.
We live in a world of probalities. Obviously, if the probability of a suggested medical treatment is not good or undeterminable, you cannot force said treatment onto anyone. Drastically spoken, if no matter the treatment (or absence of treatment) death is the most probable option, with no way being significantly more promising than another, then it's obviously kind of a lottery anyway, so the decision doesn't matter much, actually.
However, if there IS a certain treatment that will offer a "reasonable" chance to survive and even survive without negative consequences (that is, with some rest damage or damage as by-product of the treatment), then parents who'd reject that, are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the death.
So if you would reject laws to force the issue (so the hospital staff could to, for example, a blood transfer against the will of the parents), if a child would die because the parents would deny a safe treatment that would virtually guarantee survival, the parents should be charged for at least negligent homicide, since they let their child WILLINGLY die.
It's actually fairly easy: are we really going to suffer people, who would call a sickness or a certain condition as generally uncurable for religious reasons (because that's it)? Think about that: if you reject any way to heal a certain condition, although it would be possible, you say more or less that "God doesn't want that condition to be cured", which automatically means, if you have that ailment, it's something like a punishment of God, because although it COULD be cured, you must retain from curing it, because if you cure it, you go to hell or lose your eternal life or whatever.
I don't think, we should tolerate that. Is it really happenstance that SOME people create the impression AIDS would be a punishment of God for a life of sin? And how far is it from there to the idea that AIDS should not be treated at all, since if people would follow God's rules they wouldn't get it (including blood transfers, mind you)?
In the end, it may be kind of a "natural selection": If there ARE people who want to let their children die - let them: depending on the age of the children, they may not be too happy with survival anyway, suffering for the rest of their life from fear of having lost their soul or something.
Then make sure, such parents don't get more children by charging them for murder.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted March 05, 2012 11:40 AM |
|
|
This blood transfer thingy is a perfect example why religion can be so dangerous. Where is the logic? If god is so awesome then should not his "who gets to heaven/hell system" be foolproof. If anything the blood doner should increase his chances of heaven by saving the sick person.
About religious freedom... Freedom itself is an anarchistic thing and the perfect world is complete anarchy. Unfortunatly humans are not moraly capable to live in complete anarchy which would make the world much less perfect for everyone except a few. This is why we need laws and rules that restrict rights and freedom to a certain degree. The most realistic perfect world is one where people can do whatever they want as long as it does not negatively effect others. This is where religious freedom comes in. A parent teaching a child that there is/isn't a god does no one much damage. A parent teaching a child that there is a god that you MUST kill and rape people to please the god and go to paradise WILL hurt others. Much to often misguided religious and superstitious beliefs hurt people when there is no need to and must therefore be restricted to a certain degree. The previous example is just a very exagerated version of the blood transfer thingy.
The same applies of course to freedom and rights that is outside of religion. For example, freedom of speech can easily if unrestricted lead to verbal harrasment.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 05, 2012 01:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So in both situations there is a dead child due to the parent's actions, or inaction.
As I was just discussing with MVass over HCM, it's not even inaction. It's very much an action, to use any and all legal means available to stop anyone from helping your child.
Not saving a drowning man is inaction. Preventing others from saving him is an action.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 05, 2012 11:58 PM |
|
|
I agree that it is not inaction at all. I just didn't want the debate to turn to whether it was action or inaction, as that was not the point at all.
____________
|
| |
|
|
