And so does ianzin (maybe).
What flavor of sewage would you prefer? EVERY religion/ worldview/ philosophy has its good points and bad points (some are skewed pretty heavily in one direction or the other).
Yeah… me too.
Well then, Tex, if that what the Constitution really says (and I must admit, I doubt it), then the Constitution is wrong. We should figure out a way to change it.
So, TX, you’re arguing that one person’s right to free exercise of religion trumps another’s right to continue living? I must say that’s a unique interpretation of the Constitution.
While I’m aware that the Declaration of Independence has no formal legal standing, it certainly reflects the prism through which the Founders saw the rights they later laid out. Besides, I think it’s reasonable to assume that they assumed that the right of one person not to be killed by another was covered by the common law and the statutes, and that that was in no way overturned by the Bill of Rights.
Let’s look at these three real-life cases:
Child had diabetes. Christian Scientist Parents refused treatment and prayed. Child died. Parents pleaded not
guilty by freedom of religion. Parents went to jail.
Parents were convinced their 18 month old son was the Messiah. They gave him very little to eat; child weighed
30 pounds. On a visit to his aunt and uncle, they took the child away from the parents, put him in a hospital, and obtained a court order against the parents. The father and
pregnant mother took the child out of the hospital and disappeared. When they were found, the parents second son
had been born. The state took both children away. The parents were exercizing their religion and had not abused the second child.
There was a case in New York about a year ago where the mother and aunt of a 14 year old girl poked her eyes out, and then claimed it was part of an exorcism and the gilr had been possessed by a demon. This is a Roman Catholic belief. They were found guilty and went to jail, even though the girl upheld their religious beliefs.
Which of these parents should have been found “not guilty” cause they were exercizing their religious beliefs.
I propose that there is a difference between A) standard cases of abuse and neglect (which don’t have protection) i.e., not providing for basic needs: food, shelter, clothing; physically harming by positive action i.e. beating, burning etc.; sexually abusing, and B) not providing medical care contrary to religious beliefs or for whatever other reasons.
There have been a lot of straw man cases thrown about here, so let me contribute a couple of my own:
- Child A has cancer. Child B (a sibling) is healthy and has compatible bone marrow, which has a 50% chance of saving child A if transplanted. The odds of the transplant being unsuccessful, but not painfully so (child A dies during operation) are 25%, and the odds of a long, drawn out, painful rejection of the transplant are 25%. For child B, there is a 100% chance of a lot of post-operative pain, and a 5% chance of death during operation.
To review the odds:
- 47.5% chance of most positive outcome (child A alive and cured, child B alive, though experiencing pain that otherwise wouldn’t have existed),
- 23.75% chance of child A dying, but not painfully, child B alive, though experiencing pain that otherwise wouldn’t have existed),
- 23.75% chance of child A dying a long, drawn out painful death due to rejection of transplant, child B alive, though experiencing pain that otherwise wouldn’t have existed),
- 2.5% chance of child A alive and cured, child B dead,
- 1.25% chance of child A dying, but not painfully, child B dead, and
- 1.25% chance of child A dying a long, drawn out painful death due to rejection of transplant, child B dead.
What to do here? There’s a pretty good chance that everything will work out great. There’s a small chance that the unthinkable will happen and you end up with two dead kids instead of 1 healthy and 1 dying. If the parents have some whacked-out religious belief, do they still get to decide what to do in this case? (I know, ianzin, they shouldn’t be allowed to breed in any case, pretend that they are.:))
That’s the wonderful thing about it. It can be changed (it’s just pretty hard to do). Convince 2/3 of the HofR, 2/3 of the Senate, and the state leges of 75% of the states to better define “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
It’s either that, or pack the Supreme Court with new justices long on your own ideology and short on any respect for precedent. (BTW, these types tend to get out of hand, once they have that life tenure, so this doesn’t work so well, a lot of the time).
If you want some pretty good insight into the constitution & decisions by the SC, check here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/toc.html
And on what basis, by what logic, do you make the distinction between a) and b), given that medical care may be just as necessary to sustain health as eating and drinking and not beating?
Don’t just say they are different…provide a rationale.
stoid
And so does ianzin (maybe).**
[/quote]
Even with that qualifying “(maybe)” I don’t much care for the suggestion that my values might be likened to those of Manson, Jones et al. Is this the Pit?!
Sorry, TX, and I know we’re both keeping this nice and civil, but this is low-grade sophistry. I suspect you know this!
It is akin to suggesting that because there is no such thing as totally pure water, there is no need, or no way, to discriminate between stuff that’s fit to drink (= not harmful, and probably beneficial) and stagnant pond water near an industrial chemicals plant (demonstrably harmful, no demonstrable benefit). Or, to say that because there is no such thing as the ‘perfect’ educational curriculum, we needn’t fuss over whether our kids are taught to read and write or how to prepare their own crack cocaine.
Fact is, we can discriminate, and I believe there is a worthwhile purpose in doing so. There are plenty of things to tip into a child’s head other than the sewage I referred to before.
But, anyway, this isn’t the Pit and I don’t want this exchange to get too caustic (made that mistake elsewhere). I kind of see where you’re coming from, I guess there’s just a gap in the middle of the bridge where we can’t quite meet up.
Happy 2001!
Quick comment on JW blood transfusion beliefs.
People here may not know, but at one time the JW church opposed organ transplants, calling them canibalism which had conveniently sidestepped the actual chewing of the flesh.
This belief was quietly dropped (much like their apocalyptic predictions).
One wonders how many faithful JW lives were lost before they changed their stance, hopefully they will someday do the same on blood transfusion.
Apparently JWs are opposed to even use of your own blood?
This is an alternative many people seek out who are not subject to emergency medical care. This opposition eliminates the validity of any CJD and Hepatitis arguments (which are extremely small risks anyway).
At any rate, despite the advances in synthetic alternatives, not using a blood transfusion can in fact endanger your life, or that of a child.
Oh, and JubilationTCornpone, I think reducing the number of children scarred from 1 in 10 to say 1 in 25 does not eliminate the argument being made.
WHOOOOSH!
I can’t speak for him, but I think he’s saying, "How do we know that you’re not some wacked-out nutjob with crazy loopy ideas? We don’t know you, you just post ideas on a message board, why should we think your world view, (and view on religion) is valid?
Sorry, TX, and I know we’re both keeping this nice and civil, but this is low-grade sophistry. I suspect you know this!
[/quote]
WHOOOSH again! :rolleyes:
Yeah, WE, not you. A lot of people don’t think their religious viewpoints are “sewage”. Why should they care what you think? Why should they take any of your opinions on how to raise their kids seriously?
Well, food, shelter, etc. are BASIC needs. Everyone needs them. Beating, etc. are actions that DIRECTLY harm.
Medical care is not a BASIC need (normally necessary for short-term survival). It can do more harm than good. That’s why you have to provide consent to be treated (or, in the case of a child, a responsible adult has to consent).
The only ‘value’ of yours that I can directly take from the context of this thread is that you don’t respect the religious viewpoints of others (or at least, not all others… you did say “cultist dogma of whatever flavor,” and I don’t know exactly where you separate “normal” religion from “cultist dogma”). That (maybe) seems like a strange value to me (depending where that line is drawn).
Kyberneticist, 1 in 2,000 for hepatitis (AMA) is not a “small risk”. Lower ratios of botched products to good ones triggers recalls.
You have an interesting definition of basic need. Many, including myself, would disagree with you most strongly, and instead suggest that health, including both long-term survivalb and medical care, is a basic need and should be a basic right. Indeed, a range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social conditions must to be addressed when looking at what constitutes health.
I refer you to Dr. Gro Brundtland. I recognize that his having been the head of a socialist Scandinavian country, and then heading up the environmental efforts of the United Nations, will make him very offensive to many Americans. But none the less, I believe that what he has to say concerning health determinants in general, and knowledge and empowerment in particular, is vital to understanding basic health needs and rights. Here is a very brief excerpt from one of his recent speeches. For a more thorough understanding of the issues involved, a good place to start is the World Health Organization.
"For people to have the power to be healthy, they first need knowledge. Accurate, reliable knowledge about how to achieve good health, and about the risks to health that they face in their daily lives. They need knowledge that helps them to make the best choices and to implement them. … Knowledge is necessary, but it is not sufficient. For people to have the power to be healthy, they must be in a position to choose better health. This means making the right choices, and putting them into practice. … Yet, the combination of knowledge and a healthy environment may not be enough. Many people will still not feel that the power to be healthy is in their hands. The third element is their being empowered to make the healthy choices for themselves - and stick to them. This means local, national - and even international - policies that give them the freedom to do what they want, and need, to do."
Now let’s apply this to religion and children for a moment. By replacing knowledge with belief, a key determinant of health is sacrificed. By replacing a child’s empowerment with guardianship, another key determinant of health is lost. Obviously a young enough child is not intellectually capable of making sound health decisions, so to a high degree a child’s empowerment must be delegated, but delegating it to individuals who already neither recognize nor respect key determinants of health is no more than throwing the baby out with the bath water.
capacitor, you are claiming that one in two thousand blood transfusions results in hepatitis infection?
Could I see the link?
Huh?
Tex, have you ever seen a man shot in the chest by an assault rifle? I have, and I can assure you that medical care was very necessary for his short-term survival.
Like the others, I see no rationale here, TX. Especially since we are discussing kids who have life-threatening illnesses. In that case, it would seem that medical care might be even more basic than food, clothing and shelter, even by your definition - necessary for short-term survival.
OK, I left out the ‘normally’ from your definition. The problem, however, is that we’re talking about kids with life-threatening conditions - which puts us outside of ‘normal’ needs to begin with. So I can’t see why what’s normally necessary should have anything to do with what’s allowable conduct under these dire and abnormal circumstances.
So, being shot in the chest is a NORMAL condition? I don’t know where you live, but, please, let me know so I can avoid your part of town :eek:.
I agree completely, Tex. So let’s agree - medical attention is a basic need under abnormal conditions, such as when a kid is dying.