If it were that the child was just too poor to afford proper health coverage, would all of you still be in favor of instituting free health care for the girl? If yes, what level of health care is deserved? Any level, at all?
You're trying to turn this into a moral issue. It's not. It's empirical and it depends on the circumstances. Of course the parent's beliefs have to be factored into this kind of situation.
You guys, speaking for the POV of society, need to evaluate costs and benefits.
T2: The child has no right to health care, just as they have no right to whichever parents he or she wishes.
But now I have to respond to PandasRPeople2, and say, perhaps not, but this one irrational act is only made possible by the existence of religion (actually theism, specifically).
And likewise, the acute sort of existential angst that culminates in nihilistic self-destruction is only made possible by atheism. So...?
Steven Weinberg wrote that "... without [religion] you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
And what does it take for evil people to do good things? Like, for example, the hardened criminal who finds Christ and turns his life around? Because, strangely enough, I've never heard of felons reforming themselves after finding atheism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
As a former hospital worker, I can tell you that the sorts of people who subscribe to those stripes of religion which eschew seeking the help of a health care professional, tend to be arrogant about their faith in God and seek to prove it by defying common sense, so they won't have to owe an ethical debt to secular medicine and scientific progress. So, maybe a character defect predisposes people to follow religions which pat them on the back for indulging their sense of insularity and self-righteousness. Perhaps then, those parents should be excused from any criminal neglect charges based on an insanity defense?
Really, now.
Look at the issue, not the strawmen. Part of the social contract for living in a secularized society like the USA is that you may believe as you wish, but if your beliefs result in undue risk to a nonconsenting adult or minor (incapable of giving legally binding consent) you face the penalty of law. In this day and age, arguments about cost are irrelevent when any person can walk into almost any hospital, medical center, or clinic and receive initial examination and assessment by a licensed professional. Referral is always a possibility. What' I'm trying to say here is that there is no excuse for this, not under the umbrella of freedom of religion, or any other personal freedom. So long as it contradicts the 3 basic human rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those who weren't paying attention) it is criminal.
T2: Such as obesity, perhaps? Any reason you're not leading a crusade to throw all the parents in jail who allow their children to get fat?
Shades of gray are infinite and far more interesting than black or white.
Quote from msun641 »
If it were that the child was just too poor to afford proper health coverage, would all of you still be in favor of instituting free health care for the girl? If yes, what level of health care is deserved? Any level, at all?
I would argue that health care for minors should be covered; in the US it generally is, as it ends up. If a child cannot afford health care it is not due to personal choices they've made. No one is entitled to medical treatment, but society has decided to protect the interests of minors until they are able to make their own decisions, and that does not exclude health care.
You're trying to turn this into a moral issue. It's not. It's empirical and it depends on the circumstances. Of course the parent's beliefs have to be factored into this kind of situation.
Yes, it is a moral issue. Whether or not we ensure the propagation of society by protecting the youth is not dependent on circumstances such as superstitions that parents may or may not hold.
T2: The child has no right to health care, just as they have no right to whichever parents he or she wishes.
Society has decided differently in almost every situation.
Yes, it is a moral issue. Whether or not we ensure the propagation of society by protecting the youth is not dependent on circumstances such as superstitions that parents may or may not hold.
Well, to be exact, it's an ethical issue first and foremost, and a moral issue when religious beliefs are the specific target of change (as it seems in this case).
This gets dragged around every now and then in response to a wide variety of policy clashes between religious sects and public health initiatives. Immunizations, physical education in the schools, sex ed, all sorts of public measures draw fire from conservative religious groups who don't want their children receiving vaccines containing animal sera or artificial means of granting immunity; don't want their girls running around in gym shorts or tank tops and potentially coming into close physical contact with males; don't want their children being taught 'how to sin' in school. The groups who believe these irrational things are becoming more vocal, and the reaction is equally growing in pitch.
And eventually, the answer will lie in the law, and society will have to determine how far it wants to accommodate "freedom of religion" at the expense of our basic human rights.
I'm willing to let Muslims pull their daughters out of coed phys-ed classes, but only if they can meet fitness and socialization goals in a different way. If a family wants to stress abstinence as the mainstay of sexual conduct and preventive maintenance, this is their choice, but the child will still need to fulfill credits showing a solid understanding of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The moral reasons are actually IRRELEVANT as long as the family understands they still owe a debt to the society they propose to be a part of, and that debt includes helping their child meet a minimal standard of development, security, and personal and social skills. If you claim to be an American citizen, under the protection of the American military and economic establishments, and claim to have rights as an American citizen, then you must obey American law.
But where the life, health and basic physical safety of children are concerned, I'm 100% for holding people to the rule of law, and letting religion take a backseat to common sense. Because I don't care what you believe, you're free to believe what you want, it's just what you do with it that matters.
Snoop: You're begging the question of what American law should be.
T2:
Shades of gray are infinite and far more interesting than black or white.
It was a wise man that once said that black and white, while boorish and less interesting, were also proper and necessary and, above all, correct.
I would argue that health care for minors should be covered; in the US it generally is, as it ends up. If a child cannot afford health care it is not due to personal choices they've made. No one is entitled to medical treatment, but society has decided to protect the interests of minors until they are able to make their own decisions, and that does not exclude health care.
What is this "society" of which you speak, if not a collection of individuals?
I did not decide this. Each of us, if asked separately, would not decide this for himself. It is only through the glorious anonymity of voting policies on those you subconsciously despise that we approach these wonderful ideas of "collectivity" and "society."
Yes, it is a moral issue. Whether or not we ensure the propagation of society by protecting the youth is not dependent on circumstances such as superstitions that parents may or may not hold.
Propagation of society? Which youth am I, personally, supposed to protect?
Society has decided differently in almost every situation.
Society is full of fools and the children of fools.
That's despicable. Having had T1 diabetes since I was two years old, I know the kind of experience the kid was having. And let me tell you, I wouldn't wish that on anybody. I would rather die of starvation, or stabbing.
Blah... I think I'll agree that a parent's desire to pray instead of taking their child to a doctor is a part of freedom of relgion... and it is far from a sacrafice. I don't believe the parents wished ill of the child. The parents may have actually been deluded enough to think she really was being cured. So my stance goes that we should just let it happen. It's a parents decision to choose how to raise a child ultimately.
It was a wise man that once said that black and white, while boorish and less interesting, were also proper and necessary and, above all, correct.
Wise men have this annoying habit of being foolish.
What is this "society" of which you speak, if not a collection of individuals?
I did not decide this. Each of us, if asked separately, would not decide this for himself. It is only through the glorious anonymity of voting policies on those you subconsciously despise that we approach these wonderful ideas of "collectivity" and "society."
Stating that society is a collection of individuals does not change the collective nature of a society. Living as a collective carries innumerable benefits, but there is a cost as well. Social Contract. The ideal society maintains individual sovereignty while still placing the health of the society on a nice pedestal. The day society simply becomes nothing more than a collection of individuals is the day that it crumbles.
(You may remember that I once very much agreed with you, but my views have changed substantially since last we spoke.)
Propagation of society? Which youth am I, personally, supposed to protect?
None. That's one of the beauties of a collective.
Quote from sentimentGX4 »
Blah... I think I'll agree that a parent's desire to pray instead of taking their child to a doctor is a part of freedom of relgion... and it is far from a sacrafice. I don't believe the parents wished ill of the child. The parents may have actually been deluded enough to think she really was being cured. So my stance goes that we should just let it happen. It's a parents decision to choose how to raise a child ultimately.
Of course it is their right. They do not have the right, however, to let harm come to the child. Children are not property; they have rights as well. A parent's duty is to protect those rights while the child cannot.
T2: Calling it by any other name doesn't change the nature of the agreements that we mere individuals strive to obtain. We have all the incentive we need to produce a cohesive society without the intrusive nature of government.
Oh, and happy to see you re-evaluating your views. It might lead somewhere fruitful in the future.
What really gets me is that people think that God will just up and heal the sick kid. Take medical help this way: God gave humans the ability to actually think and find solutions for themselves. God might be all-powerful, but even He would go crazy if He had to tackle all of humanity's problems by Himself. And a crazy God is never a good thing.
God made humans (presumably, but this is constantly in doubt to me, like in this example) the smartest lifeforms in existence, so why not use that smartness to help someone instead of praying? It's just God working second-hand, through the doctor.
Please don't take this as a personal belief in God. Just putting forth my held-back opinion. As an atheist, I personally take this as a sign as to why religion is so frigging insane. But that's a discussion for another topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Bouncer & Clan Rep of the Greek Alliance!
Many thanks to:
Sig: CharlieD at Limited Edition Signatures
Avvy: XenoNinja at HotP Studios
Now perhaps different systems use different terms, but isn't the word we're looking for here negligence? Specifically, criminal negligence? I find it amazing how freedom of religion even factors into this. If they were hippies and they placed soul crystals on her forehead to try and ward off the bad chi, instead of praying, somehow I doubt that they would find much help from freedom of religion. This seems just so cut and dried to me- they owed a duty of care to their daughter when she fell ill, and they failed to fulfill that duty in a spectacular way. That is the very definition of negligence.
I find the Police Chief's defense of them incredibly lame.
"There is no intent. They didn't want their child to die. They thought what they were doing was the right thing," he said. "They believed up to the time she stopped breathing she was going to get better. They just thought it was a spiritual attack. They believed if they prayed enough she would get through it."
If a drunkard accidentally shoots his friend and kills him, do we just write it off by saying "Oh, he didn't mean to kill him! Its wasn't his intentions."?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
So, if the parents are just idiots who can't tell the spirit and the body then they just deserve for their children to be taken away. If they knew that their daughter was physically sick, then they deserve to go to jail. It just depends on what they knew.
Besides, prayer is just a petition to God. God can anwser with a yes, no, or a maybe later. They should have just used a magic 8ball.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded."
What issue I haven't really seen addressed here is a simple possibility. Maybe the child was mean to die? Maybe they were right in praying to god to fulfill his greater plan? I have seen zero empirical evidence to deny the possibility that God wanted this child dead and the answer to the prayers is simply the child went on.
Choosing God over medicine is akin to choosing one kind of treatment over the other. If the parents took the child to a doctor and the doctor used an experimental drug to lower her glucose and she died should the parents be blamed then? The parents asked God for healing and this is the answer they got.
Modern atheists will hold up the position that here is science behind medicine and not God. God is above science, and science can only touch the physical and not metaphysical realm. Even science delving into metaphysical realities isn't looked onto as science.
And yes, statistically speaking more people survive after a doctor's visit than a church visit. But there are accounts of people being healed by God, yes even in modern times, so what's the difference between choosing one treatment over the other?
Legally speaking you have parents who choose an option that they believed in their heart to be the best chance they had at saving the child they loved. The both probably have witnessed individuals healed or touched by God, thus providing them reason behind their faith. They were wrong, maybe even mental for making that decision, what is criminal about that? There was no inaction there was just an action most would assume is improper.
Similarly, there is no empirical evidence to indicate that God wanted this child dead. So what do you do when you have no such 'evidence' on which to base a decision? You take the course of action which is less likely to result in your child's death.
What do you do? You pray! Seeing as God is all powerfull if it was his intention for the child to live, or even for the parents to take her to the doctor, he would've acted accordingly. No action from God to prevent indicates tacit will.
They shouldn't be blamed in that case as they actively took steps to ensure that she received treatment. Calling hope in a divine power 'treatment' is like calling starving your child 'feeding' her.
With the exception that there are historical accounts of people being healed by God. There aren't any about people being fed by refusing food. This is just charged language dismissing the possibility of divine power instead of arguing against it.
Because there is a direct causal link between treatment and recovery, in most cases, whereas no link can be shown between prayer and recovery. You know why there are so many accounts of miraculous recoveries because of prayer? It's because 'Prayer cures dying child' makes for a better newspaper headline than 'Relatives pray for dying child and said child dies anyway'. The ratio of prayer working : prayer not working is enough to dismiss occurrences of the former as coincidence.
I agree that it's easy to scientifically link medicine to cures as science deals in the physical realm, not the metaphysical. Stating there is no link doesn't explain accounts of illnesses vanishing miraculously after prayer. And I agree the media over-hypes such cures in order to turn a nice profit, however that's a huge non-sequitor.
As parents they were guardians of their child, and so had responsibility for her well-being. They chose to act on their irrational beliefs rather than on scientific evidence, and the removal of their other children is justified because there's no indication that the parents won't resort to this sort of thing if a similar situation were to arise in the future.
You are assuming belief in God is irrational and belief in science is the only standard that can be used. You make no effort whatsoever to prove this claim, merely using charged emotional language to mask that gap. Why is it irrational to turn it over to God?
This case is not a black and white case. There is no obvious case of abuse. If you look at the child's entire life was she abused in anyway. We can't not say because we are not there and do not the whole story.
This is not a freedom of religion but a freedom of the parents case. I know there are plenty of parents who have no religion affiliation, but do not give there kids the shots they need to get into kindergarten. Some people think it harms the child, while other don't like to be told what to do.
Another point, people are saying the parents did nothing. IN the parents eye they believed they were doing the right thing. We can not say the parents were trying to do harm to the child or willful neglect.
Remember we don't know the whole case, because obvious details are kept out of the public during the investigation. We can all have opinions on it, but if we are looking at this incident by itself we have to remeber that we don't know important details about this girl, her life, and her family.
In life we have to make choses we don't like, but know are right. We bite our tongue and move on.
I think this one of those cases for me. As much as I hate to say I think these parents did what they thought was the right choice. Was it wrong, in the end yes it was, did they do it to harm or neglect , the child no they didn't.
My edit is to say there is case studies and research that says pray has a link to recovery.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the stone that the builder refused I am the visual, the inspiration, that made lady sing the blues I'm the spark that makes your idea bright The same spark that lights the dark so that you can know your left from your right I am the ballot in your box; the bullet in the gun That inner glow that lets you know to call your brother "son" The story that just begun, the promise of what's to come And I'mma remain a soldier til' the war is won
It's fine for people to be religious. It's fine to pray to God that your children will get better. As long as you are taking active action to do what you can to get actual help for them. Thinking that you can get your child out of a serious illness with no medical attention and JUST prayer is just..fallacy. A mistake such as this cannot go un-addressed.
This sort of divine determinism contradicts the theory of God-given free will that is inherent within Christianity, so how can you use it as a basis for your argument?
Inherent, not really. It's preached a lot because free will is comforting, but it's not inherent. I've met many Christians, and read a few scholars who were all hard determinists .
There are historical accounts of people claiming to have been healed by God. Either way you are ignoring the point, which is that both rely upon divine intervention.
You are ignoring the point, what is wrong with divine intervention?? And there are journals of people claiming to have witness chemo-theraphy kill cancer cells. Both of which are based upon flawed human capacity for memory. One backed by physics the other by metaphysics.
Just because God is a possible explanation for possible cures does not mean that it is the correct one.
Just because someone's blood sugar goes down after being injected with insulin does not guarantee it's cause.
Just because someone prays to god, has a spiritual encounter, and is healed, Doesn't guarantee the cause.
To paraphrase you, you claim that I am using 'charged', 'emotional' language, and yet this seems to be a way of avoiding having to respond to my argument.
I am responding. If I missed a point I'm sorry and please clarify which so I can address it.
Belief in 'God' is irrational because it assumes that a certain set of claims are true without providing reason to back it up.
Empirical evidence isn't enough?
Your positions are based upon two large assumptions.
1) God will never heal someone when asked, or simply doesn't exist.
2) Evidence that you don't find persuasive shouldn't count as evidence.
@glurman: The flood, a few accounts of cities being destroyed in God's wrath, etc. etc. Not to mention people who ever die are tacitly killed by God seeing as he can prevent it. So yes the Christian God kills people. I don't get your point.
@Rated. I agree with your points personally. And would add that even though they are true the government can't take the position that the power of prayer is a responsible action because that opens the door for to many precedents that infringe upon other's freedom of religion, and would allow people to unjustly claim prayer and abuse the law.
From a theological perspective, I am baffled by the density of people who believe that God's provision can only come in the form of overt miracles. (Prayer should be the first and last, but never the only, resort.) And from a legal perspective, I believe that these parents should be in some way held accountable for their daughter's death; but the line being walked here is a very fine one -- not only in regards to religious freedom, but as concerns any parents whose children die for lack of proper medical care. American does not have universal health care; some people are quite unable to afford hospital costs, and may take their children to the E.R. only as a last resort, when a condition that earlier could've been easily treated has already become terminal.
Probably the best post in the thread.
The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with praying for God to heal your child. Just take her to a hospital and start praying in the waiting room. The parents, unless they were too poor, had the option of taking their child, who had been sick for weeks, to a doctor. The fact that they did not take every possible avenue of action to save the child shines poorly on their parenting ability, and in this case, I think it is negligence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with praying for God to heal your child. Just take her to a hospital and start praying in the waiting room. The parents, unless they were too poor, had the option of taking their child, who had been sick for weeks, to a doctor. The fact that they did not take every possible avenue of action to save the child shines poorly on their parenting ability, and in this case, I think it is negligence.
Making a bad choice not necessary neglect. Parents often make bad choices. In the eyes of the parents they thought they were taking the right course of action.
Like I have said many of us are basing our opinions on this on the little information we know.
Another fact is how sick did the child look. The parents were not doctors so didn't know the signs of diabetes. Up until the last day of her life I believe she seemed not to be in critical to them.
This gets me thinking in a week or two most of us well forgot about this and not even care what really happen. That makes me sad and a bit scared. That we all based our opinion on the little information known, and then not care to keep up with what really happen
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the stone that the builder refused I am the visual, the inspiration, that made lady sing the blues I'm the spark that makes your idea bright The same spark that lights the dark so that you can know your left from your right I am the ballot in your box; the bullet in the gun That inner glow that lets you know to call your brother "son" The story that just begun, the promise of what's to come And I'mma remain a soldier til' the war is won
Well I undestand this topic and I want to offer another side to it. I have noticed a big change to the riddiculous in the protection of kids. In my opinion it is a crying shame when you cannot disipline your child without fear of reprecussion. A friend of mine has 2 kids and one day at the grocery store her youngest was acting up so she spanked him once on the bottom. A woman in the store seen her spank the child and called the police. Within 30 min of getting home police and department of human services was on her door step to take her child into custody. They took her youngest and were trying to take her oldest child as well. Took her 2 months and about $10000.00 in legal fees to get her kid back. All over a little smack on the butt. They tried to charge her with child abuse but she beat it in court, only after her oldest kid testified in chambers to the judge that his mother didnt beat them.
This is totally ridiculous! I grew up in an age where whippings were the disipline of the day. I knew if I broke the rules I got the switch or the belt. Made me alot less likely to break the rules. Kids grow up now days with parents that have little or no authority over them, besides taking away there video games or cell phone....big whoppty doo. Im sure all the kids friends at school and in his/her neighborhood has video games and a phone they can use. I am a firm beleiver in "Spare the rod spoil the child".
Not taking your child for medical attention for religous reasons makes no sense to me and God will judge these people in his own time and way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
__________________ Thanks Mr. Stuff. for my awesome banner and avatar!
Playing these In T2! Hippy created!
R Explosive Doll R W Untouchable Knights W B No Sacrifice, No Victory! B
Making a bad choice not necessary neglect. Parents often make bad choices. In the eyes of the parents they thought they were taking the right course of action.
But, see, there's this thing called negligence. It's a rather unusual crime in that mens rea is not required- you can think you're doing the right thing but still be negligent, because, to be short about it, you did something really stupid and someone else suffered for it. Kind of like this case- actually, exactly like this case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're trying to turn this into a moral issue. It's not. It's empirical and it depends on the circumstances. Of course the parent's beliefs have to be factored into this kind of situation.
You guys, speaking for the POV of society, need to evaluate costs and benefits.
T2: The child has no right to health care, just as they have no right to whichever parents he or she wishes.
And likewise, the acute sort of existential angst that culminates in nihilistic self-destruction is only made possible by atheism. So...?
And what does it take for evil people to do good things? Like, for example, the hardened criminal who finds Christ and turns his life around? Because, strangely enough, I've never heard of felons reforming themselves after finding atheism.
Really, now.
Look at the issue, not the strawmen. Part of the social contract for living in a secularized society like the USA is that you may believe as you wish, but if your beliefs result in undue risk to a nonconsenting adult or minor (incapable of giving legally binding consent) you face the penalty of law. In this day and age, arguments about cost are irrelevent when any person can walk into almost any hospital, medical center, or clinic and receive initial examination and assessment by a licensed professional. Referral is always a possibility. What' I'm trying to say here is that there is no excuse for this, not under the umbrella of freedom of religion, or any other personal freedom. So long as it contradicts the 3 basic human rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those who weren't paying attention) it is criminal.
Shades of gray are infinite and far more interesting than black or white.
I would argue that health care for minors should be covered; in the US it generally is, as it ends up. If a child cannot afford health care it is not due to personal choices they've made. No one is entitled to medical treatment, but society has decided to protect the interests of minors until they are able to make their own decisions, and that does not exclude health care.
Yes, it is a moral issue. Whether or not we ensure the propagation of society by protecting the youth is not dependent on circumstances such as superstitions that parents may or may not hold.
Society has decided differently in almost every situation.
Well, to be exact, it's an ethical issue first and foremost, and a moral issue when religious beliefs are the specific target of change (as it seems in this case).
This gets dragged around every now and then in response to a wide variety of policy clashes between religious sects and public health initiatives. Immunizations, physical education in the schools, sex ed, all sorts of public measures draw fire from conservative religious groups who don't want their children receiving vaccines containing animal sera or artificial means of granting immunity; don't want their girls running around in gym shorts or tank tops and potentially coming into close physical contact with males; don't want their children being taught 'how to sin' in school. The groups who believe these irrational things are becoming more vocal, and the reaction is equally growing in pitch.
And eventually, the answer will lie in the law, and society will have to determine how far it wants to accommodate "freedom of religion" at the expense of our basic human rights.
I'm willing to let Muslims pull their daughters out of coed phys-ed classes, but only if they can meet fitness and socialization goals in a different way. If a family wants to stress abstinence as the mainstay of sexual conduct and preventive maintenance, this is their choice, but the child will still need to fulfill credits showing a solid understanding of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The moral reasons are actually IRRELEVANT as long as the family understands they still owe a debt to the society they propose to be a part of, and that debt includes helping their child meet a minimal standard of development, security, and personal and social skills. If you claim to be an American citizen, under the protection of the American military and economic establishments, and claim to have rights as an American citizen, then you must obey American law.
But where the life, health and basic physical safety of children are concerned, I'm 100% for holding people to the rule of law, and letting religion take a backseat to common sense. Because I don't care what you believe, you're free to believe what you want, it's just what you do with it that matters.
T2:
It was a wise man that once said that black and white, while boorish and less interesting, were also proper and necessary and, above all, correct.
What is this "society" of which you speak, if not a collection of individuals?
I did not decide this. Each of us, if asked separately, would not decide this for himself. It is only through the glorious anonymity of voting policies on those you subconsciously despise that we approach these wonderful ideas of "collectivity" and "society."
Propagation of society? Which youth am I, personally, supposed to protect?
Society is full of fools and the children of fools.
Wise men have this annoying habit of being foolish.
Stating that society is a collection of individuals does not change the collective nature of a society. Living as a collective carries innumerable benefits, but there is a cost as well. Social Contract. The ideal society maintains individual sovereignty while still placing the health of the society on a nice pedestal. The day society simply becomes nothing more than a collection of individuals is the day that it crumbles.
(You may remember that I once very much agreed with you, but my views have changed substantially since last we spoke.)
None. That's one of the beauties of a collective.
Of course it is their right. They do not have the right, however, to let harm come to the child. Children are not property; they have rights as well. A parent's duty is to protect those rights while the child cannot.
Oh, and happy to see you re-evaluating your views. It might lead somewhere fruitful in the future.
God made humans (presumably, but this is constantly in doubt to me, like in this example) the smartest lifeforms in existence, so why not use that smartness to help someone instead of praying? It's just God working second-hand, through the doctor.
Please don't take this as a personal belief in God. Just putting forth my held-back opinion. As an atheist, I personally take this as a sign as to why religion is so frigging insane. But that's a discussion for another topic.
Many thanks to:
Sig: CharlieD at Limited Edition Signatures
Avvy: XenoNinja at HotP Studios
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_us/daughter_s_death_prayer
I find the Police Chief's defense of them incredibly lame.
If a drunkard accidentally shoots his friend and kills him, do we just write it off by saying "Oh, he didn't mean to kill him! Its wasn't his intentions."?
Besides, prayer is just a petition to God. God can anwser with a yes, no, or a maybe later. They should have just used a magic 8ball.
Tribute to Dr. Jeebus
Not a little Sheeple.
What issue I haven't really seen addressed here is a simple possibility. Maybe the child was mean to die? Maybe they were right in praying to god to fulfill his greater plan? I have seen zero empirical evidence to deny the possibility that God wanted this child dead and the answer to the prayers is simply the child went on.
Choosing God over medicine is akin to choosing one kind of treatment over the other. If the parents took the child to a doctor and the doctor used an experimental drug to lower her glucose and she died should the parents be blamed then? The parents asked God for healing and this is the answer they got.
Modern atheists will hold up the position that here is science behind medicine and not God. God is above science, and science can only touch the physical and not metaphysical realm. Even science delving into metaphysical realities isn't looked onto as science.
And yes, statistically speaking more people survive after a doctor's visit than a church visit. But there are accounts of people being healed by God, yes even in modern times, so what's the difference between choosing one treatment over the other?
Legally speaking you have parents who choose an option that they believed in their heart to be the best chance they had at saving the child they loved. The both probably have witnessed individuals healed or touched by God, thus providing them reason behind their faith. They were wrong, maybe even mental for making that decision, what is criminal about that? There was no inaction there was just an action most would assume is improper.
Sigil: an MMORPCCG ">Mexus: An MMORPCCG
What do you do? You pray! Seeing as God is all powerfull if it was his intention for the child to live, or even for the parents to take her to the doctor, he would've acted accordingly. No action from God to prevent indicates tacit will.
With the exception that there are historical accounts of people being healed by God. There aren't any about people being fed by refusing food. This is just charged language dismissing the possibility of divine power instead of arguing against it.
I agree that it's easy to scientifically link medicine to cures as science deals in the physical realm, not the metaphysical. Stating there is no link doesn't explain accounts of illnesses vanishing miraculously after prayer. And I agree the media over-hypes such cures in order to turn a nice profit, however that's a huge non-sequitor.
You are assuming belief in God is irrational and belief in science is the only standard that can be used. You make no effort whatsoever to prove this claim, merely using charged emotional language to mask that gap. Why is it irrational to turn it over to God?
Sigil: an MMORPCCG ">Mexus: An MMORPCCG
That's my contribution to your argument, Gifts
This is not a freedom of religion but a freedom of the parents case. I know there are plenty of parents who have no religion affiliation, but do not give there kids the shots they need to get into kindergarten. Some people think it harms the child, while other don't like to be told what to do.
Another point, people are saying the parents did nothing. IN the parents eye they believed they were doing the right thing. We can not say the parents were trying to do harm to the child or willful neglect.
Remember we don't know the whole case, because obvious details are kept out of the public during the investigation. We can all have opinions on it, but if we are looking at this incident by itself we have to remeber that we don't know important details about this girl, her life, and her family.
In life we have to make choses we don't like, but know are right. We bite our tongue and move on.
I think this one of those cases for me. As much as I hate to say I think these parents did what they thought was the right choice. Was it wrong, in the end yes it was, did they do it to harm or neglect , the child no they didn't.
My edit is to say there is case studies and research that says pray has a link to recovery.
You are ignoring the point, what is wrong with divine intervention?? And there are journals of people claiming to have witness chemo-theraphy kill cancer cells. Both of which are based upon flawed human capacity for memory. One backed by physics the other by metaphysics.
Just because someone's blood sugar goes down after being injected with insulin does not guarantee it's cause.
Just because someone prays to god, has a spiritual encounter, and is healed, Doesn't guarantee the cause.
I am responding. If I missed a point I'm sorry and please clarify which so I can address it.
Empirical evidence isn't enough?
Your positions are based upon two large assumptions.
1) God will never heal someone when asked, or simply doesn't exist.
2) Evidence that you don't find persuasive shouldn't count as evidence.
@glurman: The flood, a few accounts of cities being destroyed in God's wrath, etc. etc. Not to mention people who ever die are tacitly killed by God seeing as he can prevent it. So yes the Christian God kills people. I don't get your point.
@Rated. I agree with your points personally. And would add that even though they are true the government can't take the position that the power of prayer is a responsible action because that opens the door for to many precedents that infringe upon other's freedom of religion, and would allow people to unjustly claim prayer and abuse the law.
Sigil: an MMORPCCG ">Mexus: An MMORPCCG
Probably the best post in the thread.
The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with praying for God to heal your child. Just take her to a hospital and start praying in the waiting room. The parents, unless they were too poor, had the option of taking their child, who had been sick for weeks, to a doctor. The fact that they did not take every possible avenue of action to save the child shines poorly on their parenting ability, and in this case, I think it is negligence.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
Making a bad choice not necessary neglect. Parents often make bad choices. In the eyes of the parents they thought they were taking the right course of action.
Like I have said many of us are basing our opinions on this on the little information we know.
Another fact is how sick did the child look. The parents were not doctors so didn't know the signs of diabetes. Up until the last day of her life I believe she seemed not to be in critical to them.
This gets me thinking in a week or two most of us well forgot about this and not even care what really happen. That makes me sad and a bit scared. That we all based our opinion on the little information known, and then not care to keep up with what really happen
This is totally ridiculous! I grew up in an age where whippings were the disipline of the day. I knew if I broke the rules I got the switch or the belt. Made me alot less likely to break the rules. Kids grow up now days with parents that have little or no authority over them, besides taking away there video games or cell phone....big whoppty doo. Im sure all the kids friends at school and in his/her neighborhood has video games and a phone they can use. I am a firm beleiver in "Spare the rod spoil the child".
Not taking your child for medical attention for religous reasons makes no sense to me and God will judge these people in his own time and way.
__________________
Thanks Mr. Stuff. for my awesome banner and avatar!
Playing these In T2! Hippy created!
R Explosive Doll R
W Untouchable Knights W
B No Sacrifice, No Victory! B
In what way is your mini-rant about disciplinary methods "another side" to the issue at hand?
But, see, there's this thing called negligence. It's a rather unusual crime in that mens rea is not required- you can think you're doing the right thing but still be negligent, because, to be short about it, you did something really stupid and someone else suffered for it. Kind of like this case- actually, exactly like this case.