Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Ah. I was circumcised when I was an infant. I don't really remember much of it. If I was going to put my kid through it I would do it during infancy and not when they get older.
On parents right to raise their children according to their own beliefs
- Thread starter Ubereil
- Start date
Ah. I was circumcised when I was an infant. I don't really remember much of it. If I was going to put my kid through it I would do it during infancy and not when they get older.
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Back to the chemotherapy argument that Uberiel originally advanced: I don't think there's a more clearcut example available of where to draw the line on a parent's "rights" to control the destiny of their child than this one.
Children should have exactly the same rights as adults under law. In practice though, children, even healthy and informed ones, are often not emotionally or intellectually equipped to make such serious decisions about their own health. This 13 year old is frightened and sick and doesn't want to go through the pain and discomfort of chemo, which is natural, since no one he knows and trusts has apparently clearly explained the alternative to him, and rather than helping the child understand the situation, the parent is actively standing in the way of the child's fundamental right to the treatment he requires to live. If an adult wants to make that determination, weighing all the pros and cons in an informed manner, that's fine, but it's another to force a child to live or die by that kind of decision when the parent is cherry-picking the reasons.
It kind of puts that whole "abortion is murder" argument in perspective, when a child who is unborn is considered by people like this to have a more urgent moral right to live than one already in the world. But maybe that's just my warped liberal moral lens.
Children should have exactly the same rights as adults under law. In practice though, children, even healthy and informed ones, are often not emotionally or intellectually equipped to make such serious decisions about their own health. This 13 year old is frightened and sick and doesn't want to go through the pain and discomfort of chemo, which is natural, since no one he knows and trusts has apparently clearly explained the alternative to him, and rather than helping the child understand the situation, the parent is actively standing in the way of the child's fundamental right to the treatment he requires to live. If an adult wants to make that determination, weighing all the pros and cons in an informed manner, that's fine, but it's another to force a child to live or die by that kind of decision when the parent is cherry-picking the reasons.
It kind of puts that whole "abortion is murder" argument in perspective, when a child who is unborn is considered by people like this to have a more urgent moral right to live than one already in the world. But maybe that's just my warped liberal moral lens.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Lucky Day
Daywatch
Let me contribute to this by giving you my example of someone who had to go through chemotherapy - its nuts! Half the time I'd be sitting around wishing I could be doing something and thinking this stuff wasn't so bad. The times when it was really bad I would be doing stuff like getting mad at the three cars in front of me for stopping at the red octagon sign.
When I heard about this case I realized that he was 13 years old and already lost his hair with a few months of treatment I guessed that he was getting a lot more of the chemo than I was.
It must have been murder to the child and a nightmare to the parents to watch their boy suffer, so no wonder they are looking for any alternative tehrapy they can grasp at.
I'm not excusing the parents. Common sense is pretty obvious here and as such is IMO a bad example of this topic.
As a Christian I like to point out two things Biblically when it comes to faith healing: a) Luke was a physician (and by extension, there is nothing wrong with them); b) and therefore let a doctor tell you if you are miraculously healed or not. Certainly the God that created this universe can do anything, but He's also put doctors there for a reason. I understand that the faith healing that the parents are turning to here doesn't have this tradition.
When I heard about this case I realized that he was 13 years old and already lost his hair with a few months of treatment I guessed that he was getting a lot more of the chemo than I was.
It must have been murder to the child and a nightmare to the parents to watch their boy suffer, so no wonder they are looking for any alternative tehrapy they can grasp at.
I'm not excusing the parents. Common sense is pretty obvious here and as such is IMO a bad example of this topic.
As a Christian I like to point out two things Biblically when it comes to faith healing: a) Luke was a physician (and by extension, there is nothing wrong with them); b) and therefore let a doctor tell you if you are miraculously healed or not. Certainly the God that created this universe can do anything, but He's also put doctors there for a reason. I understand that the faith healing that the parents are turning to here doesn't have this tradition.
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Lucky Day wrote:
The remarks about "First Do No Harm" seem a little ironic in this case.
Yep, Lucky I find nothing to disagree with in that position, it's totally within the realm of logical individual rights. And you're correct--this is a Native American church of some kind; the website Uberiel linked is pretty vague, but I probably shouldn't speak for them on the abortion issue as who knows what their belief is. AFA healing, they do say this:
The remarks about "First Do No Harm" seem a little ironic in this case.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
Well, yes - if my hypothetical son was to undergo said procedure it would be done under anesthesia
How long are you planning on waiting, because they don't put babies under anesthesia!
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
It kind of puts that whole "abortion is murder" argument in perspective, when a child who is unborn is considered by people like this to have a more urgent moral right to live than one already in the world. But maybe that's just my warped liberal moral lens.
Oh commmmmeeeeee onnnnn! You didn't expect the world to behave in a logical manner did you?
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
There is such a thing as too much information, folks...
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Lucky Day
Daywatch
I probably shouldn't mention it but M's point on the abortion issue does have some relevance here.
Whereas an unborn child has no choice in the matter this child's lawyer argued on the Today show that since the child was able to take communion at 13 he should be able to choose for himself whether he should take treatment or not (I assume the lawyer means on religious grounds but he conveniently didn't say that). Of course, this is also a glib argument: taking communion probably won't cost you your physical life.
Whereas an unborn child has no choice in the matter this child's lawyer argued on the Today show that since the child was able to take communion at 13 he should be able to choose for himself whether he should take treatment or not (I assume the lawyer means on religious grounds but he conveniently didn't say that). Of course, this is also a glib argument: taking communion probably won't cost you your physical life.
JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
Some thoughts.
The only problem with a communion is that wine shouldn't be drunk by a kid, but beyond that I see no point with having an age restriction whatsoever for it. Had I been a Christian I would be vocally supportive of making sure a kid get the communion as early as possible.
The major problem with circumcision is that it's permanent, and with that I would suggest to have similar regulation to having a tattoo, a breast operation or other forms of permanent changes done to your body. That means that parents have no rights over the child whatsoever and the child should probably be aged 18, and not under influence of alcohol.
When it comes to suicidal stupidity I am in general in favor of the state going in. This should apply if someone actually tries to kill themself, if someone is addicted to some drug that is harming them, or if some kind of ideology blocks an individual from getting the help they need. Parents have no say in the matter and a child beneath the age of 18 shouldn't really have much to say about it either.
The only problem with a communion is that wine shouldn't be drunk by a kid, but beyond that I see no point with having an age restriction whatsoever for it. Had I been a Christian I would be vocally supportive of making sure a kid get the communion as early as possible.
The major problem with circumcision is that it's permanent, and with that I would suggest to have similar regulation to having a tattoo, a breast operation or other forms of permanent changes done to your body. That means that parents have no rights over the child whatsoever and the child should probably be aged 18, and not under influence of alcohol.
When it comes to suicidal stupidity I am in general in favor of the state going in. This should apply if someone actually tries to kill themself, if someone is addicted to some drug that is harming them, or if some kind of ideology blocks an individual from getting the help they need. Parents have no say in the matter and a child beneath the age of 18 shouldn't really have much to say about it either.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
Well I'm both flatered and miffed that you created a special thread just to 'prove me wrong' from a thread a few weeks ago. Personally, i find it a bit childish to 'call me out' like this with such intent. I also find this example to be even less relevant than your previous one. Your equating my exertion of parental control on things like TV for my child who is not yet old enough to process adult material to letting a child die! Thats absurd.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 163
You're not supposed it to do when you're 7 years old.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
I don't think anyone is questioning your right to use the v chip included with every TV set.
@ Oxlar: First of all, it wasn't to prove you wrong I did this. Debating isn't a contest where you have winners and losers. I'm not attacking you, Oxlar. I brought this up because in the general public there is a notion that you have the right to raise your child accodring to your own beliefs. I brought it up because this story is such a clear example to how potentially harmful that notion is.
It's not only that the parents took him off chemotherapy. Because he also doesn't want the treatment on religious grounds and he's not going to voluntarily undergo said treatment. Getting him to undergo the treatment will be very difficult. This whole odeal is only a very obvious symptom of a bigger problem, which is that he's underdeveloped compared to other pepole his age. He's illiterate and indoctrinated. This would, even if he hadn't gotten cancer, have significantly hampered his ability to work in society.
The parents didn't have the right to do this to the child. The child had the right to a better upbringing. An upbringing that would have prepared him better for facing life in modern society. The parents doesn't really have any rights, more than the right to keep raising the child as long as they're not failing repeatedly at fulfilling the child's right. Trying to avoid criticism with "it's my right to raise her in this way" is nothing but a cop out which directs attention away from the real problem, how the child should be raised.
(And the point of this thread is still not to discuss how you raise your children and how much it might or might not harm them.)
Übereil
It's not only that the parents took him off chemotherapy. Because he also doesn't want the treatment on religious grounds and he's not going to voluntarily undergo said treatment. Getting him to undergo the treatment will be very difficult. This whole odeal is only a very obvious symptom of a bigger problem, which is that he's underdeveloped compared to other pepole his age. He's illiterate and indoctrinated. This would, even if he hadn't gotten cancer, have significantly hampered his ability to work in society.
The parents didn't have the right to do this to the child. The child had the right to a better upbringing. An upbringing that would have prepared him better for facing life in modern society. The parents doesn't really have any rights, more than the right to keep raising the child as long as they're not failing repeatedly at fulfilling the child's right. Trying to avoid criticism with "it's my right to raise her in this way" is nothing but a cop out which directs attention away from the real problem, how the child should be raised.
(And the point of this thread is still not to discuss how you raise your children and how much it might or might not harm them.)
Übereil
Nuff said.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 163
- Joined
- November 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,201
You dont go to jail for being a homosexual it is the acts that get you thrown in.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,201
JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
Jail someone for their love. It really cannot get any more cliché evil than that. I have no respect whatsoever for that shit. I hope you get a revolution already so you catch up with the rest of the world. Seriously man, I am a level headed person, but that garbage excuse really get me worked up and I better get out of here now before I start to get myself some warnings for speaking how I feel.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
That's like saying you don't get go to jail for being black in 1940's Southern U.S. it is the act of drinking from the white's only drinking fountain that gets you thrown in.
Technically true, but it still goes to the greater point that this minority is discriminated against.
Anyways, my point is that you don't have "fewer" homosexuals because your country "doesn't focus on sex", it's that you have "fewer" outed homosexuals because you can get thrown in prison for having sex with another guy.