This may be the biggest load of ignorant crap I’ve ever seen on these boards. And that’s really saying something because I’ve seen a lot.
That is absolutely sick.
Is everybody’s sarcasm detector turned off today or something?
Um, it slightly has been. “Treatment” encompasses a number of things: various pharmaceuticals, possible surgery, and also chemotherapy. The contribution that chemo has to survival is not 100% of that 90%. Noone has dug up what that contribution actually is.
There’s deeper questions at stake, too. Like, should governments swoop in on hunter-gatherer societies because they’re “abusing their kids” with their lack of civilization? Should people who have a fundamental belief that death is a natural and tolerable consequence of life be suppressed?
Was that sarcasm? I don’t know the poster’s history so it’s impossible to tell.
I can say form RL experience that a lot of people actually believe that shit.
I did over in GQ.
It’s 35.8% for 5-year survival time, or a 32.2% increased chance of survival over using magic. Not exactly insignificant.
We have no HGs under western governnments AFAIK, so it’s a moot point.
But in a hypothetical situation if those HGs are members of the society and enjoying all the benfits thereof, then yes. The social contract isn’t pick and mix. You don’t get to enjoy all the benefits of my obigations to you without having equivalent obligations to me.
IOW if these HGs want to benefit from my hopsitals, my armies, my roads and so forth then they have to accept my laws as well.
If the HGs are truly autonomous and ask nothing from other societies (including defence) then that’s another story. But in the rela world such HGs would last about 3 weeks at the outside before they were killed.
No, but they shouldn’t be able to inflict it on their children either. Death is kinda permanent. It’s not like religion or even being overweight where the child can choose to reject his parents beliefs when he comes of age if he finds them harmful.
If an adult has that belief they shouldn’t be suppressed. They should be free to teach that belief to their children or anyone else who will listen. They should even be free to live that belief and die a slow, painfully and unnecessary death.
What they shouldn’t be free to do is inflict a irreversible decision on their children based on that belief.
How is that % derived? Ie, in the case of “10% live w/o treatment, 90% with,” would you say all-encompassing treatment gives an 80% boost to survival, or 800%?
P.S. can you link me to this other thread?
With some of the crap that’s been going around here lately, it’s kind of hard to tell.
That makes sense. But contraception is kind of permanent too. In the end, is “I would have lived a long adult life but died of cancer at 10” so different from “I would have lived a long adult life but I was never born?” Of course, the current wisdom is, “absolutely, by a factor of a million.”
This is the trouble with forcing people to do things and having moral resolve. It’s really possible we’re incorrect about the most fundamental questions. So, letting people do their own thing, including living a life completely devoid of civilization together with their kids, is something we should do. By tolerating diverse, seemingly crazy ideas, we can at least know that someone somewhere is right. Death is an extreme example, but there are many others in terms of culture.
Of course there’s a difference. Your question doesn’t even really make sense. How can there be an “I” which is never even conceived (we’re not even talking about abortion here, you said "contraception)? What is it that “never got to be born?” There isn’t even a question of when life begins here. If you’re talking about contraception, you’re talking about no entity or object ever coming into existence at all, so how can it be denie a “chance” at anything?
Adults can make whatever choices they want about their own bodies, but not about their kids’ bodies. Children are not property. You don’t have a right to kill them.
The % is derived by taking the percentage of people who survive when given all treatments apart from a full spectrum treatment and subtracting it from the percentage who survive when they are given the full spectrum treatment and then comapring that to the control with no treatment.
IOW if we give you all treatments aside from chemo you have a 68% chance of survival. If we give you chemo as well you have a 92% chance of survival.
I don’t get this at all. Are you attempting to argue that every sperm is sacred?
I agree. And that is why it is so important that everyone is totally free to make up thier own mind when the are an adult. By allowing the child to die you are removing from him the ability to ever make his own choices.
If, when the child is 18, he decied that he wants to drink a plutonium cocktail and then refuse tretament for the inevitable cancer, he should have that right IMO. He should also have the right not to do so. But the important point is that he gets the chance to make that choice as an adult.
If he is allowed to die is being denied that oportunity and that is wrong.
I agree completely.
But the mother in this example doesn’t want that. She wants all the benefits of civilisation such as a hospital in which to deliver her child, doctors to diagnose her child’s illness, and cars and roads to take her and her kid to Mexico. She doesn’t want a life devoid of civilisation at all. She wants a life with all the benefits of civilisation, brought to her because other people are upholding their end of the social contract.
She then wants to shirk her obligation under this contract to raise a child that is a productive member of that society.
It doesn’t work that way. Her actions are unethical and unjust and illegal.
So you would tolerate parents pimping their 6 your olds as prostitues?
And you suport the right of parents to put on gladiatorial contests where 12 year olds stab each other to death with swords and fight wild animals?
Of course you don’t. Tolerating diverse, crazy ideas is only a good thing up to apoint. And that point is reached when the ideas start to cause needless, irreparable harm to minors.
The difference is that death is irreversible.
If I want to teach my kid that the world is flat, or that negroes are monkeys, that is harmful but the child gets to decide his own position on those issues when he turns 18. If he then decides that I am a nutter he can choose never to listen to me again.
If I allow my child to die or lose a limb it’s not like he gets to come back to life or grow another arm at the age of 18.
The primary issue here is choice. If the child can’t choose to reverse the effects when they become an adult then it’s something that should be avoided.
Typical leftist: totally disregarding the rights of hypothetical people. Are you aware that every time you make a decision, you are aborting literally millions of quantum versions of yourself that would have made a different decision? You, sir, are as bad as Hitler.
Well, the Hitler who decided to stick with art school and ended up with a career painting landscapes for calendars. The one who plunged Europe into a blood-soaked plague of madness and death was quite a bit worse than you, on account of all the non-hypothetical people he killed. But still. Hitler!
So no infant circumcision, vaccination, braces or education, then?
None of that is going to fucking KILL the kid. Do you think parents should have a right to replace food or water with prayer? There’s absolutely no difference between withholding necessary, life saving medical treatment and withholding food or water or air. The kid is not your fucking property.
Danny received medical treatment yesterday at a hospital just down the road from me. The family doesn’t want details released, but I heard from a friend who works there that ‘it went well – normal treatment’. But I understand nothing happens immediately – it’s only after a few days that they can tell how the treatment is working.
The family had set up an account, and made an appeal for donations from the public. But this has been closed down, at least temporarily, by the state Charities office, because they had not filed as a charity, and because there was some question of how the funds were going to be used. The public appeal was for funds “for Danny”, but when questions, they indicated that they planned to use the funds for ‘family expenses’, which was rather vague. The particular concern was that these charitable funds would be used to pay for the expenses of the criminal flight to California, or a future one. I believe the fund may be reopened once they file the paperwork as a charity, and clarify the planned use of the funds.
Not until he leaves your vaginal canal, anyway. Before that, he’s fair game.
That wasn’t Blake’s rubric. His rubric was irreversible choices. For obvious reasons, I don’t think it’s a workable one.
I would say the state has the right to intervene to prevent an act from occuring, where on the completion of the act they would have the right to prosecute for criminally negligent homicide, at the minimum.