And when a woman slaps her husband it's a lover's quarrel
If the husband calls the police, it is domestic abuse. The fact that husbands rarely do does not indicate that there is any kind of legal hypocrisy going on.
and when a kid hits his father he's acting out. Someone under 18 can attack someone over 18, but if that person defends themselves by striking back, they go to jail automatically.
The idea is that a child does not know any better. An adult does.
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: 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.
I usually detest the man, but I'm starting to see his point.
Quote from Sutherlands »
So if my child has a fever of 101, I need to take them to the doctor right away, because I'm in no position to judge their health, or whether they're getting better?
A fever of 101 is drastically different from the symptoms this girl was likely displaying. But at any rate, it is your responsibility to treat the child with medication to break the fever and whatever else may be wrong.
Why do you think that a parent should be forced to take their child to the doctor, especially when they think she's getting better?
1) Because a parent is charged with the duty of protecting their children while the children cannot protect themselves.
2) Because the parent is not in the position to decide if the child is getting better. I also doubt the parents' account that the child was getting better. The girl died of complications from diabetes; the symptoms tend not to just go away before the child dies.
And at any rate, the real purpose of this thread is to discuss the principle of the thing, not the individual case. The details of this case are not particularly relevant.
"We just noticed a tiredness within the past two weeks," she said Wednesday. "And then just the day before and that day (she died), it suddenly just went to a more serious situation. We stayed fast in prayer then. We believed that she would recover. We saw signs that to us, it looked like she was recovering."
So... the girl had been tired for 2 weeks... it got worse, they started praying, they thought it was getting better, and she died.
Yes. She got worse. That is the point at which medical attention is necessary.
Also, the law generally keeps you from ACTING to harm someone, not from inaction.
Every state has neglect laws. Inaction is very much covered by the law in the case of a parent-child relationship.
Your "sacrificing" analogy does not hold to anything that happened.
That's because it wasn't an analogy. It was an example.
So I guess you're not a big fan of the "freedom of religion" part of the Constitution?
Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, has limits. For instance, the Constitution does not protect my right to hold a human sacrifice as part of a religious ritual. Violation of rights is never protected.
That depends on the state, actually, and the circumstances. Don't let's exaggerate.
If the husband calls the police, it is domestic abuse. The fact that husbands rarely do does not indicate that there is any kind of legal hypocrisy going on.
The idea is that a child does not know any better. An adult does.
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.
My answer for the purposes of this thread is strawberry milk.
School has kept me deplorably busy. My schedule is grueling, and my desire to post has been all but extinguished.
I do lurk now and then, though.
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.
I usually detest the man, but I'm starting to see his point.
A fever of 101 is drastically different from the symptoms this girl was likely displaying. But at any rate, it is your responsibility to treat the child with medication to break the fever and whatever else may be wrong.
1) Because a parent is charged with the duty of protecting their children while the children cannot protect themselves.
2) Because the parent is not in the position to decide if the child is getting better. I also doubt the parents' account that the child was getting better. The girl died of complications from diabetes; the symptoms tend not to just go away before the child dies.
And at any rate, the real purpose of this thread is to discuss the principle of the thing, not the individual case. The details of this case are not particularly relevant.
Yes. She got worse. That is the point at which medical attention is necessary.
Every state has neglect laws. Inaction is very much covered by the law in the case of a parent-child relationship.
That's because it wasn't an analogy. It was an example.
Doin' well. Going to school, working, stalking Johnny Depp. The usual.
How've you been?
Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, has limits. For instance, the Constitution does not protect my right to hold a human sacrifice as part of a religious ritual. Violation of rights is never protected.