DescentBB

snoopy wrote: And now, for an opinion that I really hold: Bet, here's why I think micromanagement is the wrong way to go: You are inevitably going to have wrongs done, stupidity enacted, ignorance revealed, and mistakes made. If you maintain freedoms, it's individuals that do it, and individuals that live with the consequences. If you give the government all the power, it's now both people and the government doing the things, and it ends up being the whole society that pays the consequences for the government screw-ups. By centralizing power, you make those who hold it more empowered to abuse it. By centralizing power, the greater the consequences when the imperfect humans who wield it screw up.

My suspicion is that the parents are paying enough of a price in what they are doing to themselves with the guilt.

I don't buy that one bit. I don't believe child endangerment laws are an example of micromanagement or an infringement on your freedoms, and as far as I'm concerned, they aren't strong enough. I do agree with you that what the parents did... placing the life of their child purely in the hands of God... was a perfect example of wrongs done, stupidity enacted, ignorance revealed, and mistakes made.

At least, with stronger laws, I can hope the police would have a chance to take those abused children to a doctor and in the event the child dies, use those same laws to place the parents on death row where they belong. When a parent refuses a life saving medical treatment for their child for whatever reason and the child dies, it should be treated the same as a parent starving or beating them to death. So, if the child dies in your government scenario then your government didn't do anything to protect and serve the interests of the truly innocent.

I doubt very much that those parents feel any "real" remorse for what they did because they have that wonderful religious attribute... God wanted their child to be in heaven with Him. A convenient out, like free will.

Snoopy, God has no power on earth to save anyone. Doctors and police do.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:Snoopy, God has no power on earth to save anyone.

Haven't you ever heard of divine healing? Of course, since you believe there is no God, then you believe that stuff is all fake, right? I'll give you that some of it is fake, but there are many reliable historical accounts of it happening. Actually, you probably wouldn't believe how many times it's been reported, throughout history.

You're probably going to think I'm crazy for saying this, but it's true: my dad has prayed for people concerning serious illnesses and they've been healed within a day or so. Post-prayer doctor check-ups all-clear, when beforehand there was nothing they could really do. One instance was actually my grandmother. She had tumors in her throat and didn't even tell my dad, but he felt that he should pray for her when he was visiting. He found out a few days later when she called, after having been back to the doctor for a check-up, with the news. I know that's probably hard to swallow, but it's true.

I've heard stories of "men of God" (real men of God, not TV evangelists) being part of some pretty amazing healings (the name that I'm thinking of in particular escapes me for the moment... maybe John G. Lake?). And not just this Benny Hin stuff where people come up and tell what they had, but things like pulling a tube out of a young man's throat and telling him to go home and eat some meat and potatoes. But if you're careless or presumptuous about divine healing, people can die. It's serious business, not something to be embarked on lightly. It's not waving a magic wand.

Not a hit on your church, Bettina, but just FYI none of these people I'm thinking of were Catholic. Catholic "miracles," from everything I've seen and heard, are very typically romantic, dazzling, and absolutely useless. They don't help anyone at all, they just make people feel all warm and tingly about being a Catholic.

Thorne, could it not just be a coincedence that your grandmother was healed at the same time your dad was praying?

I've lived through cancer first hand and I know praying did not help. The amount of time that praying for someone to get better and it actually happened is mere coincedence.

Doctors still save more lives by a huge amount than they end up killing by making mistakes. So their record of saving lives is a heck of a lot better than Gods.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Doctors still save more lives by a huge amount than they end up killing by making mistakes. So their record of saving lives is a heck of a lot better than Gods.

loved that sentence...

What if find interesting [in this discussion] is that many of the same people that would fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of children from abortion, are in this case ready to sacrifice the live of children to allow people to try faith healing. What makes you go in one direction there and the opposite direction here? What's the crucial difference?

The same goes for the other side, btw. Why do people support abortion, and at the same time want parents to be forced to save their children through a way that is not their own?

Pandora wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:Doctors still save more lives by a huge amount than they end up killing by making mistakes. So their record of saving lives is a heck of a lot better than Gods.

loved that sentence...

What if find interesting is that many of the same people that would fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of children from abortion, are in this case ready to sacrifice the live of children to allow people to try faith healing. What makes you go in one direction there and the opposite direction here? What's the crucial difference?

The same goes for the other side, btw. Why do people support abortion, and at the same time want parents to be forced to save their children through a way that is not their own?

I can see your reference but I was talking about Doctors who are trying to save a life and end up making it worse. Not doctors who perform abortions.

I know. The lower two paragraphs weren't directed at you at all, Merlin. Just a general observation about this thread/discussion.

[edited my above post to make it clearer]

Wasn't sure, thanks.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:[faith healing]

Show me one amputee that has had their limb restored, through prayer, and I'll believe you.

Testiculese wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:[faith healing]

Show me one amputee that has had their limb restored, through prayer, and I'll believe you.

But that's not what they mean. They mean like, I'm sick, pray for me and get rid of my cold.

Pandora wrote:What if find interesting [in this discussion] is that many of the same people that would fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of children from abortion, are in this case ready to sacrifice the live of children to allow people to try faith healing. What makes you go in one direction there and the opposite direction here? What's the crucial difference?

The same goes for the other side, btw. Why do people support abortion, and at the same time want parents to be forced to save their children through a way that is not their own?

Sorry, the two don't relate.

Faith healing, in the mind of those who believe in it, is most closely related to cure A vs. cure B. No one can argue that the parents purposefully did anything to initiate the process of the child losing their life. What they chose was a course of action, based on the fact that the child was sick. Here the killer is something other than the parents, the parents only have control over what they do about the fact that the killer has attacked their child.

Abortion is a choice between actively seeking to destroy an organism that's not already dying, or not taking action to destroy said organism. Here the killer is the person making the choice between action and inaction.

To put it another way:

If we where talking about adults instead of children and fetuses:

The first could be prosecuted as somewhere between medical malpractice and involuntary manslaughter.

The second would be prosecuted as first degree murder.

It's the difference between choosing to save (in an overly simplified sense, because the parents ARE trying to save, they just maybe choose the wrong method), and choosing to kill, which is HUGE.

Doctors still save more lives by a huge amount than they end up killing by making mistakes. So their record of saving lives is a heck of a lot better than Gods.

That's a biased statement, if I ever saw one. Are you forgetting about the fact that all doctors eventually lose all of their patients? Only God has power over death, doctors just manage to delay it sometimes.

[EDIT] I'd still like to see someone poke holes in my argument for why the parents shouldn't be prosecuted at all, based on the fact that they where acting as best they could in their ignorance. Somehow it doesn't seem right, but I haven't been able to find a real way to break down the argument.

That's a biased statement, if I ever saw one. Are you forgetting about the fact that all doctors eventually lose all of their patients? Only God has power over death, doctors just manage to delay it sometimes.

That is the biggest crock of merde I've read so far. No sh*t sherlock that every doctor will lose their patients in the end. Are you that stupid you can't understand what I was referring to?

snoopy wrote:Only God has power over death, doctors just manage to delay it sometimes.

How convinient. If you shot someone dead you can claim that god killed that person.

snoopy wrote: [EDIT] I'd still like to see someone poke holes in my argument for why the parents shouldn't be prosecuted at all, based on the fact that they where acting as best they could in their ignorance. Somehow it doesn't seem right, but I haven't been able to find a real way to break down the argument.

Because they were not ignorant. They knew what the term "Doctor" meant. The only thing I see truly ignorant are the people who defend the parents to the point of claiming they should not be prosecuted.

Bee

How about if you commit suicide? Did God kill you or did you kill yourself?

We have the 'death with dignity' law in Oregon. If you are terminally ill and have less than six months left to live, you can end your life with a doctor's prescription essentially. The feds, at the behest of Christian groups, have been trying to overturn that law ever since it was voted in. They've been calling it \"state sponsored euthanasia\".

CDN_Merlin wrote:Thorne, could it not just be a coincedence that your grandmother was healed at the same time your dad was praying?

Hey, if it'll help maintain your world-view. I suppose if I had to find a naturalistic answer, that would be it, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most of the time people tend to die from such things (if they can't be removed through surgery), not get better all of a sudden. And that's the reason it was a problem, because of the tumors' position in her throat they couldn't operate. Also, I'd have to find a naturalistic reason for him knowing that something needed prayer. And like I said, that wasn't the only instance.

Testiculese wrote:Show me one amputee that has had their limb restored, through prayer, and I'll believe you.

Well, I can't show you, personally, but I have heard of that sort of thing happening as well. It's called a "creative" miracle. I've also heard of people being raised from the dead.

CDN_Merlin wrote:But that's not what they mean. They mean like, I'm sick, pray for me and get rid of my cold.

Who's "they?" That's not at all what I'm talking about.

I also want to be clear that I'm not arguing for the global validity of "divine healing" wherever it may be attempted. As the name implies, God has to be in on it. If he's not, it's just not gonna happen. "Faith" itself does not heal people, God does. It's not an automatic thing. There are stipulations for being healed by God. That's why Mr. Lake taught on it, in addition to practicing it.

Pretty cruel God Thorne if he lets a young child die of cancer or even worse, get murdered by his parents or someone else. Yay, way to go God. I'd love to follow you but you aren't a very nice God.

Well, I can't show you, personally, but I have heard of that sort of thing happening as well. It's called a \"creative\" miracle. I've also heard of people being raised from the dead.

People being raised from the dead is not a miracle, it's science. Sometimes people aren't dead but it looks like they are. Their bodies slow down so much but are still alive, which makes them look like they are dead. Back in the old days, they used to tie bells to coffins when they went into the ground because they had dug up some coffins and founds scratch marks in them from fingernails. They then realized they were burying people alive. Hence the term \"buried alive\".

Sorry to say but all this Faith and Praying is all coincidence or in the case of your grand mother, just one of life's flukes. If this sort of thing happened daily, I mean every single day multiple times a day and they were miraculous, then I'd change my faith. Otherwise, it's all a crock of baloney and the biggest scam in human history.

Man invented God when they weren't able to speak clearly to clam the nerves of others. (thunder was god's way of saying he's mad, etc). We are so passed that time it's not funny and people are still stuck in the past. Get with the game and realize Science has proven more than any faith has.

Sorry to be so blunt, not a good day.

You mean, hence the term \"dead ringer\", Merlin.


Like Snoopy, I don't see the reason the parents are charged at all. Their choice, their consequences. Plenty of people refuse treatment all the time, some of them die because of it. They didn't believe that doctors were the answer (I sometimes agree) and it panned out badly. \"Negative Patient Outcome\" is the current, watered down, weak, lite beer American PC term.

There's nothing criminal in this case. Stupid isn't against the law, or we'd have a far bigger prison problem than we do now. They weren't negligent, they weren't starving the child so they could pay for XBox games. I'm sure they were quite attentive to the child, and prayed their empty heads off all day. Fat lot of good it did. Apparently Thorne's grandmom was more important to his god than this child was.

Hey, I'll take blunt any day.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Pretty cruel God Thorne if he lets a young child die of cancer or even worse, get murdered by his parents or someone else. Yay, way to go God. I'd love to follow you but you aren't a very nice God.

Testiculese wrote:Apparently Thorne's grandmom was more important to his god than this child was.

Those arguments are all very well, assuming that we don't take God's explanation along with his existence.

No, God in a Godless world-view really doesn't make much sense.

Grendel wrote:How convinient. If you shot someone dead you can claim that god killed that person.

"Gun's don't kill people. God kills people." Haha.

Grendel wrote:

snoopy wrote:Only God has power over death, doctors just manage to delay it sometimes.

How convinient. If you shot someone dead you can claim that god killed that person.

I'm trying to say the opposite. God is capable of preventing someone or something from dying, ever. People aren't. So, while doctors may help someone stave off death for a time, they can't keep the person from ever dying. God, on the other hand, can. I suppose the sentence was structured poorly. Any comments made about God killing people misinterpret (because of my poor use of language) what I was trying to say.

Bet, I'm not arguing that they hadn't heard of doctors, I'm arguing that they doubted doctors' ability to heal their child.

My invitation still stands, please break it down, because I'm not sure I like it myself, but I can't figure how they really should be found criminally culpable if their intentions where nothing but good.

Pandora wrote: What if find interesting [in this discussion] is that many of the same people that would fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of children from abortion, are in this case ready to sacrifice the live of children to allow people to try faith healing. What makes you go in one direction there and the opposite direction here? What's the crucial difference?

The same goes for the other side, btw. Why do people support abortion, and at the same time want parents to be forced to save their children through a way that is not their own?

That’s called a Hypocrisy Vortex.

The only thing I see criminal here is people having children without a clue.

snoopy wrote:Bet, I'm not arguing that they hadn't heard of doctors, I'm arguing that they doubted doctors' ability to heal their child.

Really? Do you believe that God granted them a medical license?

snoopy wrote:My invitation still stands, please break it down, because I'm not sure I like it myself, but I can't figure how they really should be found criminally culpable if their intentions where nothing but good.

I have no answer because there aren't any federal laws that will protect the child and that is the saddest thing I've come across. I am going to look into this more just for my own satisfaction.

On one hand I have religious freaks who believe a supernatural story is much better than a medical doctor, and on the other hand I have the freedom freaks who don't want laws passed to protect the child because of their selfish views.

I think I need to start smoking what you guys are smoking.

Spidey wrote: The only thing I see criminal here is people having children without a clue.

Worse, if they are religious extremists.

Bettina

You just can't protect everybody, Bet. Will never happen. The 2.5 million laws on the books right now hardly work.

We've already had a Stalin, I'm not very excited about having another one for sake of one child.

Bet51987 wrote:

snoopy wrote:Bet, I'm not arguing that they hadn't heard of doctors, I'm arguing that they doubted doctors' ability to heal their child.

Really? Do you believe that God granted them a medical license?

Huh? "them".. the doctors or parents? and What? that isn't what Snoop said. He was simply stating the opinion of the parents. He wasn't justifying that position. easy on the sarcasm. (like i'm one to talk. )

For all you religious folks, please explain to me this.

I'm trying to say the opposite. God is capable of preventing someone or something from dying, ever. People aren't. So, while doctors may help someone stave off death for a time, they can't keep the person from ever dying. God, on the other hand, can.

If he can, why doesn't he do it more often? So many people die everyday. So many children die everyday. Sorry but Gods are cruel beings.

Testiculese wrote:We've already had a Stalin, I'm not very excited about having another one for sake of one child.

A valid point, but it gives the wrong idea.

It's not about sacrificing so that we can have our "of the people by the people and for the people", it's a firm belief that this system of government is ultimately far better for life, and the pursuit of happiness. Far better for that child. To fail to recognize that is to be ignorant of history, and the lessons of totalitarian or fascist governments.

To make this child's death into a political issue in this way is to obscure the whole thing.

I've been unwilling to weigh in on the central topic of this thread so far, because I haven't been sure what to think, but here goes:

The parents did not kill the girl, or even contribute. Apparently, it was despite their efforts that the illness did (bear with me). If you charge these folks with criminal negligence, it is only because you're asserting that there is no God, and that anyone that expects anything from him is foolish and wrong. How's that for a separation of church and state? As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the legal argument, as much as you may not like it.

You guys don't think there's a God, that's fine. But who is to say that the government should take your side over theirs on an issue of religion? It's naturalism vs theism, and you think the government should side with naturalism against theism. What, is religion not allowed to concern life, only doctrine?

The end of the matter is that it's a very sad story, and I know we all hate to hear it. You hate to hear it, Bettina, and you're very angry, because you don't believe there is a God. Furthermore, because of your hatred you don't think the parents are even remorseful. Who's to say they're not devastated? Even if they were delusional, the loss of a daughter is a pretty heavy thing. I hate to hear it, and I'm very much saddened, because I think that it could have been averted.

Duper wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

snoopy wrote:Bet, I'm not arguing that they hadn't heard of doctors, I'm arguing that they doubted doctors' ability to heal their child.

Really? Do you believe that God granted them a medical license?

Huh? "them".. the doctors or parents? and What? that isn't what Snoop said. He was simply stating the opinion of the parents. He wasn't justifying that position. easy on the sarcasm. (like i'm one to talk. )

Sorry you had trouble figuring out my post and sorry for showing my claws. Anyway, I would like the religious fre.. people to answer this question... Does GOD hand out medical license's to parents who wish to treat their own children using the God book? If not, then practicing medicine without a license resulting in the death of a child should be enough to burn them.

Now, I know Snoopy said the parents were clearly at fault, but his questions are leading me down a different path.

Bee

Pandora wrote:The same goes for the other side, btw. Why do people support abortion, and at the same time want parents to be forced to save their children through a way that is not their own?

I haven't decided whether the parents should have been legally forced into saving their child. But I don't see any tension here with maintaining those two positions that you said in what I've quoted. Children have more ethically valuable properties than fetuses. Children have sentience, emotion, capacity for pleasure/pain, etc. (to varying degrees depending on age).

Testiculese wrote:Show me one amputee that has had their limb restored, through prayer, and I'll believe you.

Don't hold your breath. Chances of being naturally healed of tumors: low, but it happens to a lot of people. Chances of being naturally healed of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, HIV, etc.: 0, so you haven't even a crack in which to slip God. Still, even with these diseases, there are good days and bad, so it's not surprising that there have been many a good day brought by prayer and divine intervention.

Jeff250 wrote: I haven't decided whether the parents should have been legally forced into saving their child. But I don't see any tension here with maintaining those two positions that you said in what I've quoted. Children have more ethically valuable properties than fetuses. Children have sentience, emotion, capacity for pleasure/pain, etc. (to varying degrees depending on age).

Huh?

The only intrinsic difference between the unborn & the born is…the unborn have no constitutional rights and the born do.

The rest are only development stages.

I'm not sure I agree Spidey. There is a time when the foetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb. We have made that time period shorter and shorter but there is still a time when the mother has total control of the life and health of the foetus. They are, during that time, inseparable and during that time we give more importance to the previously existing life than that which may or may not grow to the point of independent life.
Once the foetus is capable of life outside the womb then your definition is more accurate.

snoopy wrote:

Pandora wrote:What if find interesting [in this discussion] is that many of the same people that would fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of children from abortion, are in this case ready to sacrifice the live of children to allow people to try faith healing. What makes you go in one direction there and the opposite direction here? What's the crucial difference?

The same goes for the other side, btw. Why do people support abortion, and at the same time want parents to be forced to save their children through a way that is not their own?

Sorry, the two don't relate.

Faith healing, in the mind of those who believe in it, is most closely related to cure A vs. cure B. No one can argue that the parents purposefully did anything to initiate the process of the child losing their life. What they chose was a course of action, based on the fact that the child was sick. Here the killer is something other than the parents, the parents only have control over what they do about the fact that the killer has attacked their child.

Abortion is a choice between actively seeking to destroy an organism that's not already dying, or not taking action to destroy said organism. Here the killer is the person making the choice between action and inaction.

To put it another way:

If we where talking about adults instead of children and fetuses:

The first could be prosecuted as somewhere between medical malpractice and involuntary manslaughter.

The second would be prosecuted as first degree murder.

It's the difference between choosing to save (in an overly simplified sense, because the parents ARE trying to save, they just maybe choose the wrong method), and choosing to kill, which is HUGE.

Fetuses cannot live without parasiticly living off their hosts, when you abort a fetus (ie: chemically, an early abortion), you don't kill it. It seperates from the uterus and then dies on it's own.

Compare this to leaving your child alone in the street and walking away. Anyone can adopt the child, and there are willing people.
You can't adopt a fetus and save it's life, it's parasitic life is at the whim of the mother until it gains at least MINIMAL autonomy - enough to survive a transplant (inter-family transplant? heh, i'm talking about adoption here btw) to another carer. ie: the baby needs to be born before anyone can do anything about anything.

I'm comparing it to faith healing like you did: In the faith healing example, the parents didn't kill the child, the child simply died of the harshness of reality because the parents chose NOT to give it the care it needed.
It would be like locking the child outdoors during a freak blizzard, and waiting for it to die of exposure. You didn't kill it, the natural exposure did. It's not like you put the child in your freezer. You didn't lock the child outof it's OWN home - you own the home - you simply chose to not offer it. So you were within your rights, right?
(urgh)

I think killing a born child is more abhorent to society than abortion, because there are multiple ways for the born child to survive - adoption for example (a societal phenomenon).
You can't adopt a fetus - it's parasitically linked to it's host until it's born. There's nothing anyone can do about that. You could however give a child medical aid, or if you can't take care of it - give it up to society for adoption. Coz society does want the baby - now that it can have it. It can't have it if it's still attached to the mother.

TunnelCat wrote:many parents are now opting out of vaccinations for their children due to the perceived or even real risk of getting autism from the preservatives in the vaccines. Does the state force this for the benefit of others so that diseases won't be spread at school, despite parent's fears? It may come down to what's best for society as a whole verses what rights parents have in certain cases.

Yes, Vaccinations are a different case from other life saving care issues.
Here I am probably going to upset some of my fellow libertarians. With Vaccinations the state has a clear interest in protecting OTHERS. Same issue with quarantine. This is a DANGEROUS power, and should be used very carefully by the state, but it still something the state has a legitimate right to do. One of the few government agencies that I approve of (in principle) is the Center For Disease Control.

roid wrote:when you abort a fetus (ie: chemically, an early abortion), you don't kill it. It seperates from the uterus and then dies on it's own.

As you note, this only applies to one type of abortion. Other types of abortion involve killing the fetus first and then removing it. Often rather horrifically, which is emotional, but beside the point.

The parasite argument is a dangerous one. When you unplug an iron lung, you don't kill the person, you just turn off the machine that was breathing for them, and then they die on their own. Same argument can be made for dialysis, feeding tubes, etc.

Or, to take it even further, blood transfusions and organ transplants are examples of people who can not live without being parasites on other peoples bodies.

What is the exact philosophical difference between a child who is born prematurely and has to be kept alive in intensive care with mechanical assistance and an unborn child who's lungs have not yet fully developed so it's oxygen is supplied by it's mothers blood?

A child isn't viable until at least 2 or 3 years old, most a LONG time after that. Heck, I've known some folks in their 30s who couldn't live without their mothers direct and continued assistance.

Wandering way off topic here though.

Kilarin wrote:

roid wrote:when you abort a fetus (ie: chemically, an early abortion), you don't kill it. It seperates from the uterus and then dies on it's own.

As you note, this only applies to one type of abortion. Other types of abortion involve killing the fetus first and then removing it. Often rather horrifically, which is emotional, but beside the point.

The parasite argument is a dangerous one. When you unplug an iron lung, you don't kill the person, you just turn off the machine that was breathing for them, and then they die on their own. Same argument can be made for dialysis, feeding tubes, etc.

Or, to take it even further, blood transfusions and organ transplants are examples of people who can not live without being parasites on other peoples bodies.

What is the exact philosophical difference between a child who is born prematurely and has to be kept alive in intensive care with mechanical assistance and an unborn child who's lungs have not yet fully developed so it's oxygen is supplied by it's mothers blood?

A child isn't viable until at least 2 or 3 years old, most a LONG time after that. Heck, I've known some folks in their 30s who couldn't live without their mothers direct and continued assistance.

Wandering way off topic here though.

Once the child has been shot outof the uterus, there are all sorts of things society can do for it to ensure it's survival - none of which involve the mother.
It's only because the mother is involved that there is any debate over it. If you could "beam" the fetus outof the womb and into another womb or even an artificial womb, then it would be an entirely different debate.

Once the child is able to be separated from it's mother, it has enough potential to warrent society's help. It's all about when the child enters society as a seperate "commodity" to it's mother, really. Until that time - all desisions effect the mother, so she gets to make them all.
But after the child is born - the mother *IS* just a replaceable commodity. She can "quit" and the baby's life goes on uneffected. The baby can now "belong" to anyone - it is an exchangable commodity and has thus entered society as a true liquid investment.
Before it was born - the investment was not liquid, had a lot of caveats, was controlled by a 2nd party.

....ok, now i'm making myself laugh - Liquid investments and pregnancy. lol.

I think the parasite argument is ok, coz i'm talking about this in the context of being a part of a Society. Society allows us things like adoption and medical help.
Outside of Society it's a different world - if there is no adoption, then abandoning a child would be rather similar to abortion. The parasite illustration does extend to beyond the womb - but while we live in a society - the society itself offers to be the host for unwanted EXCHANGEABLE parasites. There are practical investment reasons (ie: beyond morals) for a society to take care of orphans.

*edit: Also there are practical investment reasons (ie: beyond morals) for a society to take care of EXPECTANT MOTHERS - but unfortunately few nations think this way.

Really, if society cared enough for mothers (ie: if the whole process of pregnancy, birth, and childcare was made to be socially as safe and uncomplicated as possible), there would probably be less abortions.
As a society we really don't take enough care of mothers - considering how much we supposedly care about their kids.

Societies have even less right to tell mothers what they can and can't do to their bodies, when they don't offer the services (incl social/supportive) to make the whole process of pregnancy and child rearing as safe and easy as possible.

Likewise - any society demanding that kids be given medical treatment should offer that treatment for free. Afterall - if it thinks it can do a better job and takes the kids away, it'll be paying for their medical costs anyway.

roid wrote:Once the child has been shot outof the uterus, there are all sorts of things society can do for it to ensure it's survival - none of which involve the mother.
It's only because the mother is involved that there is any debate over it. If you could "beam" the fetus outof the womb and into another womb or even an artificial womb, then it would be an entirely different debate.

Once the child is able to be separated from it's mother, it has enough potential to warrent society's help. It's all about when the child enters society as a seperate "commodity" to it's mother, really. Until that time - all desisions effect the mother, so she gets to make them all.
But after the child is born - the mother *IS* just a replaceable commodity. She can "quit" and the baby's life goes on uneffected. The baby can now "belong" to anyone - it is an exchangable commodity and has thus entered society as a true liquid investment.
Before it was born - the investment was not liquid, had a lot of caveats, was controlled by a 2nd party.

WOW Roid you just transistioned this whole debate into a potential abortion debate. since a "fetus" is now viable at 20 weeks, does it now deserve "Societies" protection?
We are REALLY greying lines here

well,
20 weeks old still inside the mothers body is different to
20 weeks old outside the mother's body.
If society claims ownership of the baby while still in the womb, how does it extract the fetus without violating the mother? Thus - it's the mother's call until the fetus leaves the womb, and it leaves the womb at it's mothers whim.

That's why i mentioned the whole \"beaming\" thing.
As technology progresses, viable fetuses may become younger and younger - and pregnancy and childbirth may become as minimally violating as an abortion. At that point - it's merely a question of whether society wants to adopt every aborted fetus available.

roid wrote:Fetuses cannot live without parasiticly living off their hosts, when you abort a fetus (ie: chemically, an early abortion), you don't kill it. It seperates from the uterus and then dies on it's own.

Compare this to leaving your child alone in the street and walking away. Anyone can adopt the child, and there are willing people.
You can't adopt a fetus and save it's life, it's parasitic life is at the whim of the mother until it gains at least MINIMAL autonomy - enough to survive a transplant (inter-family transplant? heh, i'm talking about adoption here btw) to another carer. ie: the baby needs to be born before anyone can do anything about anything.

I'm comparing it to faith healing like you did: In the faith healing example, the parents didn't kill the child, the child simply died of the harshness of reality because the parents chose NOT to give it the care it needed.
It would be like locking the child outdoors during a freak blizzard, and waiting for it to die of exposure. You didn't kill it, the natural exposure did. It's not like you put the child in your freezer. You didn't lock the child outof it's OWN home - you own the home - you simply chose to not offer it. So you were within your rights, right?
(urgh)

As Kilarin pointed out, you're example only applies to a limited scope of abortions, but even it illustrates my point. In your example, the mother decides to actively separate the fetus from it's natural source of food and oxygen. Sure, the fetus dies of asphyxiation, sure the lack of oxygen getting to the cells was the reason they died. Guess what? if I choke someone to death, I can make the same argument. All I did was cut them off from their supply of air, it wasn't me that actually made the cells die, the lack of oxygen did. The question is this: did the parent's purposeful actions initiate the chain of events that led to the child's death? In the case of your abortion example, the mother's choice to cause the fetus to be separated initiated the chain of events that caused the fetus to die. In the case of the news story, the parents didn't purposefully do anything to initiate the chain of events that led to the child's death.



I'll also run with you child out in the cold example. Your introduction of the example leaves some room for interpretation. Did you throw the child out in the cold, and make sure they didn't come back in by locking to door? If so, your actions (specifically, throwing them outside) initiated the chain of events that would cause the child to die. Now, the difference between this being involuntary manslaughter and murder depends on your awareness of the consequences of throwing the kid out. On the other hand, did a kid show up at your locked door, and try to get into your house to find shelter? If this second case is true, it would be a cruel thing to do to leave the child out there, but I don't see it as a criminal thing to do. You didn't initiate the chain of events, you just didn't take action to stop it. In this second case, if the child dies of exposure, the person responsible for the death is the guy down the street that did throw the kid out, not you for not letting the kid in.

I think Kilarin has a point- the government, in the interest of maintaining society as a whole, should be able to step in and force treatment if the health of a significant portion of society is put directly at risk. The life of a single child, with a disease that's easily treatable, doesn't fit that bill, I don't think. Some vaccinations fit this, but I'd like to see the government be more proactive about taking vaccinations off of the list once the particular disease is no longer a significant threat to society.

That's the delicate balance here, isn't it? At what point does the state exert influence over control of our lives? Where is that line drawn and at what point should it be placed? Protection of society can trump individual rights in many cases. The child protective services in most states are there to protect the welfare of children that have no say in how they are treated or raised.

The parents in this case though were not endangering society, they thought that they were doing the best for their child, no malicious intent was apparent. When does the protection of children fall within the mandate of the state, since children have no self-determination under the law until they are officially emancipated from the partents? Just a thought, when or at what age should children have 'free-will' to make their own life decisions? Society seems to think it should be at 18 in many countries, although it varies around the world.

tunnel, my wife and I went over something like this with my daughter when she was threatening us with emancipation. (it's somewhat of a Fad here in Portland....yeah. go figure) and the general age is 17 to 18, depending on the state, but that's usually where the line is drawn. ... in MOST cases. there are some circumstances, as in crime committed by the younger individual, where he might be tried as an adult.. which seems to be happening more frequently these days.

snoopy wrote:...the government, in the interest of maintaining society as a whole, should be able to step in and force treatment if the health of a significant portion of society is put directly at risk. The life of a single child, with a disease that's easily treatable, doesn't fit that bill, I don't think.

I would have to say that this kind of thinking fits a purely selfish person to a tee.

Bee