A treatable form of diabetes, hmmm. I was always taught to rely on the power of prayer when there is no hope left not when you can make a simple trip to the doctor. Psychos, should've been given a much stiffer prison sentence. NOW if the shoe were on the other foot and you're an adult who has a treatable form of diabetes and want to just pray about it then that's your right, that'd be your libertarian position but an 11-year old? there's no political argument of whatever stripe that can back up what the parents did. Good post soapie!
Soap, a few days back you posted on Z-man's blog, "I don't care if there isn't any conspiracy involved or not. The fact of the matter is that someone's child is not the property of the state PERIOD. It is for this very reason that when the state of California was making attempts to criminalize homeschooling parents, I made a similar argument." I'm a bit confused. Are you saying the 'state' should or should not have interfered with the dying child of the prayer folk?
Let's be clear here. The proper role of government is to protect the citizen from force and fraud. When someone wishes us harm, it is the proper function of government to step in.
The parents have a right to choose the desired education for their child. They do NOT have a right to sentence that child to death.
One thing I never understood about the religious people who think prayer alone can stop their disease and heal them, I think the God works through us, and so an answer to a healing prayer could be from going to a doctor!
"When someone wishes us harm, it is the proper function of government to step in." I agree. But it is doubtful the parents wished the death of their daughter. They believed they were doing the right thing. Society believed they were not. Home schooling, IMO is a mixed bag. I have seen some great results as well as tragic ones. Idaho has no regs for HS at all, so we once in awhile end up with kids that are kept home to work, whose parents are incapable of educating them. Again, IMO, this can be harmful to the child. But, I suppose poking our well-meaning nose in is not likely helpful...
What they did was dismiss the fundamental axiom that A is A; that existence exists. That if an attempt to treat their daughter does not occur, she will die. The parents did not have to wish the death of their daughter. That is not the crime BB. The actual crime is merely "wishing" that she would live cured of her treatable diabetes without accepting the necessity of reality.
If you drive around town without buckling in your children in the backseat and you hit another car head on and your children fly through the windshield and die, your crime is not that you wished them to die. Your crime is dismissing the fundamental reality (A is A) that if they are not buckled in, they will fly into and quite possibly through the windshield if you hit another car head on.
I too at first had BB's thought that there is some kind of contradiction here with some of soap's past statements and this but he cleard it up well but the question persists and this did indeed occur with a 13-year old out there recently and that is what if your child gets cancer but you don't believe in chemo?? Many people think it's poison for the body, most would probably go with it's the main cancer treatment for now and better than nothing and in many cases has actually helped people so that case kind of bothered me, having the government tell you you have to give your kid this treatment that by all accounts is very harsh to go through. Any thoughts?
If I follow Soap, the personal responsibilty in these medical cases applies to one's care of oneself: shall I pray, or go to the doctor?. Now if I am making this decision for someone else, say my child, I am abrogating that child's choice and rights for the sake of my own...transferring my personal responsibilty so to speak. We do this all the time with our children in terms of parenting: but if we imperil them, we should be held culpable. (?)
Well getting back to that 13-year old kid who has cancer and the judge ordered the chemo for him the difference in that case was that the parents did want treatment for him just not the chemo and I would add being 13 is past the age of reason at least in my faith system, ok but he didn't reach the age of consent you could say but I just wish in this day and age chemo weren't the only mainstream treatment for cancer, at least have other options working.
10 comments:
A treatable form of diabetes, hmmm. I was always taught to rely on the power of prayer when there is no hope left not when you can make a simple trip to the doctor. Psychos, should've been given a much stiffer prison sentence. NOW if the shoe were on the other foot and you're an adult who has a treatable form of diabetes and want to just pray about it then that's your right, that'd be your libertarian position but an 11-year old? there's no political argument of whatever stripe that can back up what the parents did. Good post soapie!
Soap, a few days back you posted on Z-man's blog,
"I don't care if there isn't any conspiracy involved or not. The fact of the matter is that someone's child is not the property of the state PERIOD. It is for this very reason that when the state of California was making attempts to criminalize homeschooling parents, I made a similar argument." I'm a bit confused. Are you saying the 'state' should or should not have interfered with the dying child of the prayer folk?
Let's be clear here. The proper role of government is to protect the citizen from force and fraud. When someone wishes us harm, it is the proper function of government to step in.
The parents have a right to choose the desired education for their child. They do NOT have a right to sentence that child to death.
One thing I never understood about the religious people who think prayer alone can stop their disease and heal them, I think the God works through us, and so an answer to a healing prayer could be from going to a doctor!
"When someone wishes us harm, it is the proper function of government to step in." I agree.
But it is doubtful the parents wished the death of their daughter.
They believed they were doing the right thing. Society believed they were not. Home schooling, IMO is a mixed bag. I have seen some
great results as well as tragic ones. Idaho has no regs for HS at all, so we once in awhile end up with kids that are kept home to work, whose parents are incapable of educating them. Again, IMO, this
can be harmful to the child. But,
I suppose poking our well-meaning nose in is not likely helpful...
"They believed they were doing the right thing."
What they did was dismiss the fundamental axiom that A is A; that existence exists. That if an attempt to treat their daughter does not occur, she will die. The parents did not have to wish the death of their daughter. That is not the crime BB. The actual crime is merely "wishing" that she would live cured of her treatable diabetes without accepting the necessity of reality.
If you drive around town without buckling in your children in the backseat and you hit another car head on and your children fly through the windshield and die, your crime is not that you wished them to die. Your crime is dismissing the fundamental reality (A is A) that if they are not buckled in, they will fly into and quite possibly through the windshield if you hit another car head on.
I too at first had BB's thought that there is some kind of contradiction here with some of soap's past statements and this but he cleard it up well but the question persists and this did indeed occur with a 13-year old out there recently and that is what if your child gets cancer but you don't believe in chemo?? Many people think it's poison for the body, most would probably go with it's the main cancer treatment for now and better than nothing and in many cases has actually helped people so that case kind of bothered me, having the government tell you you have to give your kid this treatment that by all accounts is very harsh to go through. Any thoughts?
If I follow Soap, the personal responsibilty in these medical cases applies to one's care of oneself: shall I pray, or go to the doctor?. Now if I am making this decision for someone else, say my child, I am abrogating that child's choice and rights for the sake of my own...transferring my personal responsibilty so to speak. We do this all the time with our children in terms of parenting: but if we imperil them,
we should be held culpable. (?)
Another example of 'Resulting Faith': when does religious devotion devolve to stupid ?
Well getting back to that 13-year old kid who has cancer and the judge ordered the chemo for him the difference in that case was that the parents did want treatment for him just not the chemo and I would add being 13 is past the age of reason at least in my faith system, ok but he didn't reach the age of consent you could say but I just wish in this day and age chemo weren't the only mainstream treatment for cancer, at least have other options working.
Post a Comment