Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 241 of 286 (462449)
04-03-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2008 10:28 AM


Sure it is. It makes it not reprehensibile.
Using that line of "reasoning", slavery is not reprehensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:28 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 2:06 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 242 of 286 (462452)
04-03-2008 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Stile
04-03-2008 8:42 AM


Hello today, yes let us clarify...
You asked for clarity, and I gave you clarity. Then you argue that my original position wasn't clear enough?
I said you were doing a good job with beginning to clarify your position, so that a debate could be had. But then as a major chunk you reposted your original position. That was not sufficient to build my confidence that further discussion was worthwhile. That is all.
Again, this is a very minor issue, and has no effect on our debate at all.
When I criticized one of your arguments, you replied that my criticism was completely erroneous. I showed that it was not. I agree that the error is minor to the overall debate. However it is not minor with regard to your criticism of my post. I have saved my criticism from your attempted rebuttal. That is all.
My stance, again, is yet unchallenged by any point you have brought up. Here it is again, if you care to attempt in addressing it:
My stance, again, is that your position has been challenged and remains challenged. One can go up this chain to find where I made my arguments against your position. All one will find in response are statements of incredulity and reassertion of the original argument.
Obviously we both feel the other is missing something. This is why I said it appears we are at an impasse. Both of us reposting our original statements is pointless. And I agree that the reader is capable of making a determination.
Since we are both agreed that the reader is capable, I suppose this is where we withdraw... correct?
Hope you find what you're looking for.
Indeed I have.
Thank you for your concern.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Stile, posted 04-03-2008 8:42 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Stile, posted 04-03-2008 3:19 PM Silent H has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 286 (462454)
04-03-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by molbiogirl
04-03-2008 1:54 PM


Sure it is. It makes it not reprehensibile.
Using that line of "reasoning", slavery is not reprehensible.
Correction... It was not reprehensible. But now it is.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 1:54 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by FliesOnly, posted 04-04-2008 8:20 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 244 of 286 (462455)
04-03-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2008 12:30 PM


I'm more worried about them eroding people's religious freedom.
In Message 217 I raised some points that that you didn't subsequently answer in Message 234. I have discussed the religious freedom problem and raised some questions of you about it. I guess if you do care to discuss it further that's the best place to pick it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 245 of 286 (462456)
04-03-2008 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Jaderis
04-03-2008 12:50 AM


Hello Jaderis and welcome,
So, in the majority of cases, the religious excuse just doesn't cut it when it comes to affecting another person. Why are cases like the one in the OP different?
I have already answered much of this within my "from scratch" post upthread. I don't mind that it may have been missed among so many posts, but I'm running out of steam on having to re-explain a position from scratch.
The choice of valid medical intervention for a belief system, that is to accept or deny a service, is different than the overt infliction of bodily harm. However along those lines I guess I should note we do allow "beatings" to occur for whatever belief system (including secular), but if a parent decides to do such, they must be careful not to create lasting damage. That would be somewhat analogous to malpractice.
You have a point regarding the difficulty to determine what a parent was praying for. Maybe they were praying for the child to die? I think the only reasonable way to determine this is to see how they lived in general, and what their behavior was leading up to this event.
If we are to take this particular case, what has been seen so far is that they were actively pronouncing their faith publicly, had successfully been raising other children... who also believed in the course the parents chose. I believe their other relatives who did not agree with the course they chose, maintained that the parents were devout in their belief in that course.
In both scenarios, the parents probably thought that they were doing what was best (and who are we to mess with family integrity??). So, tell me why one should be prosecuted and one should not.
This will be an expansion on my earlier point in this post, since this is of particular interest to you.
In the case of child sacrifice, one is intentionally killing a child, and this is generally for a gain of those left behind. The difference between that and doing something you believe is better for your child... with no thoughts of what benefits oneself... I hope is obvious.
There may be a few cases (and I know of one famous case) where a parent believes they are told a child (or children) must be killed for the salvation of that child. I agree this makes it less clear, except that it is still the infliction of harm.
With the case of denying medical service, the initial harm did not come from the parents. It is a natural part of life. The question is how is one supposed to face natural events which threaten one's life. If one believes that prayer helps, or more importantly that medical services are demeaning to the person, and capable of injuring the most important facet of their child's life (its soul), I think the difference between all three of these is made clear.
However, the point that others have been making is that we, as a society, have granted the government the power to step in when the parents either cannot make competent decisions (they are addicts, mentally ill, etc) or when they are causing objective harm to their child.
I have agreed with these comments and that position to the effect that I think gov't ought to do such. It is the treating of people practicing a different belief system than the majority of voters as if they are addicts or mentally ill which is problematic to me.
I have gone on to point out the inconsistency that we have not truly given the gov't such a role, when we allow children to die of the same denials of treatment because of poverty, or when insurance companies want to save some money.
There is most certainly an advocacy of faith to give no pass to people who are well meaning though of different outlook on the utility of medicine, and give full pass to those who preach the utility of medicine but want more money. The fact that more die of the latter than the former, and the outrage is centered on the well meaning first and foremost is a different belief system regarding what counts as negligence.
it does not need to be shown that the gov't, as it currently stands, has a demonstrable interest in saving children's (or anyone else's) lives in order to discuss the OP. The argument is that it should (and, again, I would hazard a guess...).
You have made a very solid point in this section. To keep things short I am going to address our differences (or to put it another way, to defend why I brought it up).
The original contentions were that the gov't (or society) did have such a mandate, as justification for what they would then do with such faith cases. I was pointing out that in fact there is no mandate as shown by actual practice. Hence I have undercut the stated justification.
That the gov't SHOULD have such a mandate is a different issue, and raises the potential for justification for such attempts as you have noted. But then I have to address the particulars. There are reasons we might not want to have the gov't prying into family lives at that level, both as a Constitutional protection, and for practical matters.
I have mentioned that this opens the door rather widely for justifications that the gov't should prevent abortion and stem cell research.
One poster has reformulated the concept as the gov't needing to create policies which reduce child mortality. I have pointed out that does not provide any justification for penalizing well meaning (if otherwise viewed as ignorant) parents. Punishing people does not prevent their crimes, it is reflexive. Hence if our interest is protecting children, the best bet is proactive policies such as more universalized healthcare.
Well, there is also no explanation of how laws against murder or child abuse or negligence or anything else actually stop such things from happening "in the first place," except, perhaps, through deterrence, but that doesn't stop us from having laws against such things and prosecuting the people who break these laws.
This is a very good point and you have already provided half of my answer. You are correct that deterrence is a very large reason for many laws. Deterrence, followed by a removal of such people that do commit acts so as to prevent their future occurrence.
That tends to work alright for certain types of crimes. The kind it does not tend to work well regarding are those based on difference in belief system. Those will tend to always be with us, and adherents often react to the laws in a way which makes addressing the problem much more difficult. In fact it can spread and deepen.
These people are not murderers or merely apathetic. They have a different belief system.
Like with the model of child circumcision in Africa where such laws were put in place banning the procedures, all it did was drive it underground where it gained additional interest in some quarters, and in all places it became more damaging.
Personally, I'd rather we have faith-based families not afraid of coming to hospitals or other public venues. Even if they are to ultimately deny certain services, doing so in the light is better than in the dark. In this way there are more opportunities to convince such people to change their mind, if not to understand the extent of this kind of activity within our nation.
Thank you. Your position was well advanced.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Jaderis, posted 04-03-2008 12:50 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 246 of 286 (462460)
04-03-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Silent H
04-03-2008 2:02 PM


An impasse or an opportunity
Yes, we both claim that we have made our statements, and shown where the other is in error.
The only difference is that I do make it very clear, in every post I present, exactly what my statement entails. In my experience, no one ever "goes up the chain" to seach through a thread anyway. So, if you know where something is, and think it's of importance, it's best to just show it again. I feel that since I wrote it I best know where to look for it, and it's only courteous to provide it for anyone else who may be looking. Just saying "I've dealt with this already" doesn't really help anyone out much unless you show how you've already dealt with it. Personally I only repost something if it's still a valid argument that no one's identified an issue with yet.
Again, if anyone would like to challenge my position, it sits right here:
Stile in MSG 225 writes:
1. All people have an equal right to choose to live their life the way they desire.
2. In the case of minors, they are possibly too weak and/or immature to make these decisions themselves. Therefore, parents/guardians make those choices for them. However, when a parent/guardian chooses to use an un-validated method to care for their children, when validated methods are available, and this puts the child's "right to choose to live their life the way they desire" at risk (for example... they die) then the parent should be punished.
Silent H writes:
Since we are both agreed that the reader is capable, I suppose this is where we withdraw... correct?
You've always been free to withdraw whenever you felt it was necessary. You do not need my consent in any way. I am not going to be depressed or let down or resentful if you do not respond. I suggest that you keep posting until you personally feel that you've said all you need to say. That's what I do, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 2:02 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 4:07 PM Stile has replied
 Message 254 by Admin, posted 04-04-2008 7:29 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 247 of 286 (462461)
04-03-2008 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Silent H
04-03-2008 1:46 PM


Silent H writes:
Yes these are all reduction to details. So fine. We are in agreement on every broad stroke you have made and the discussion is forced to the particulars which you do not want to discuss, which is where our difference on this particular issue lies.
If it's okay, given that I can't follow how you reconcile your endorsement of the overarching importance of the right to life with your actual position on this issue and so am not certain that these principles mean the same to you as they do to me, I'd prefer not to be perceived as in agreement with you, even at a "broad stroke" level.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 1:46 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 3:46 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 250 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 5:07 PM Percy has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 248 of 286 (462462)
04-03-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Percy
04-03-2008 3:25 PM


Hello,
I'd prefer not to be perceived as in agreement with you, even at a "broad stroke" level.
I'm fine if this is how you wish our position to be perceived. I thought I was merely restating your own position that it was at the detail level where we broke down. I personally felt that I was in agreement with your goal statements.
If I am in error on that, then I apologize. We can agree to be separate on the broad strokes as well.
I can't follow how you reconcile your endorsement of the overarching importance of the right to life with your actual position on this issue and so am not certain that these principles mean the same to you as they do to me
Not as a further debate point to you, but as clarification for how I feel I am reconciling the importance of right to life, with this issue...
Right to life is one of the most important rights people take for themselves. However there are aspects of life, liberties, which when removed make the value of life essentially worthless.
This is the source of such commentary as "give me liberty or give me death" and "live free or die". There is a point where a person will naturally react to incursions by the gov't, heedless of personal safety... risking it for the more necessary dignity in being able to live freely.
From an evolutionary perspective alone, it is evident that humans have a great stake in their family. There is an emotional bond to it as great, and sometimes greater than to oneself. Family sovereignty is thus directly related to personal sovereignty. Children are felt to be extensions of the lives of the parent.
From this, the right to life of children would not be deemed as important to the maintenance of a family's integrity as it understands what is good and worthy in life. To have a child's being (which is not synonymous with life) threatened, sometimes death is an alternative.
The myth (or reality) of the seige of Masada is one example.
This is a brief discussion of such reconciliation.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 04-03-2008 3:25 PM Percy has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 249 of 286 (462463)
04-03-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Stile
04-03-2008 3:19 PM


Re: An impasse or an opportunity
Hmmmm, some food for thought I suppose...
The only difference is that I do make it very clear, in every post I present, exactly what my statement entails.
Yes, I tried in two posts to present arguments. You stated you did not understand how they addressed your position... a unilateral declaration of victory... and then represented your position. As if unscathed and unquestioned.
This is a fallacy. A logical error. I am pointing it out to you. You may take it or leave it.
In my experience, no one ever "goes up the chain" to seach through a thread anyway. So, if you know where something is, and think it's of importance, it's best to just show it again.
Some do some don't, but your point is valid. I will repost the main arguments I gave in my original post to you (#155). That way we have a standing set of claims nearby.
1) I certainly agree that no one can show that they should be able to decide who lives and dies. However a case can be made that parents are not equal to anyone else on matters of how their children should live or die. There is a very real interest for families in a society to feel secure about their sovereignty.
2) Even if I grant you that all are equal, and we should protect the rights of everyone, what is this entity you call gov't? It is not some thing which is separate from the very people you were just discussing. In fact it is made of the very people you were discussing. The only difference is that it is a pooled decision making system. Does a majority have greater wisdom of who should live or die? Or what counts as legitimate attempts for preserving life?
(the key point which effects your "unvalidated method" plank, has been highlighted)
3) And by telling parents they must agree with a certain set of techniques (modern medicine) or face punishment, the government (ie the majority) is inherently advancing one set of superiority claims.
That third point reinforces the second one. Your argument boils down to a concept where gov't is an objective set of uber-parents (correctly understanding what are valid and invalid methods, as well as how any child desires to live their life) who step in when the original parents fail at said task.
Hence, your points stood and stand challenged...
Or not, I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder.
Can we let these rest now?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Stile, posted 04-03-2008 3:19 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Stile, posted 04-03-2008 5:21 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 250 of 286 (462465)
04-03-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Percy
04-03-2008 3:25 PM


reconciliation (abortion comparison)
Hi, sorry to place a second reply but another form of clarification occurred to me regarding your statement...
I can't follow how you reconcile your endorsement of the overarching importance of the right to life with your actual position on this issue
The same could be said by a Pro-Life advocate towards someone who is Pro-Choice, talking about the specific issue of abortion. And it came to me that the reconciliation required is about the same, at the very least in its mechanics.
It is true that there are additional factors such as when life begins, and whether a mother's life is in jeopardy. However it is a common position within the Pro-Choice movement that regardless of whether a fetus has reached a clinical definition of "living", and whether a woman's life is in danger, she retains the right to terminate the child. This position advocates an active killing of a child, hence right to life is viewed as subordinate to other rights.
One argument for that position is that personal sovereignty (autonomy) is more important, and cannot be crossed by the gov't even if it is to save the life of a child. Another is that the mother has a right as a parent to choose the environment or upbringing her child should be allowed to experience, including such issues as not wanting her child to be raised by someone else (i.e. adoption), and this cannot be crossed by the gov't even if it is to save the life of a child.
That could be expressed as the quality of life of the mother, and the quality of life of the child (as understood by the mother) is more important than the right to life itself of the child.
These are directly comparable to the issues of family sovereignty, and family choice of environment and upbringing. It is recognizing quality of life issues as paramount to right to life itself.
If you are pro-choice, and maintain that harder position, then you have already reconciled the same overarching right to life principle with other very similar (if not identical) principles used to defend families who choose not to use medical intervention, when it would result in the end of their child's life.
I hope this helps as a clarification of how such can be reconciled on this topic.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 04-03-2008 3:25 PM Percy has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 251 of 286 (462466)
04-03-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Silent H
04-03-2008 4:07 PM


Excellent. Back to the topic, then.
Silent H writes:
1) I certainly agree that no one can show that they should be able to decide who lives and dies. However a case can be made that parents are not equal to anyone else on matters of how their children should live or die. There is a very real interest for families in a society to feel secure about their sovereignty.
"A case" can be made for anything.
"A rational case" cannot be made for parents deciding how their children should live or die, while holding 'the right to life' as the highest priority principle. 'The right to life' is the idea that ALL people have the right to choose how THEY want to live THEIR life (or not live it).
Parents choosing how their child should die is in direct conflict with allowing the child to choose this action on their own.
One may then say that the child could simply choose to die. And, of course, this then becomes the issue of protecting minors: We protect minors because they are sometimes too weak or immature to protect themselves.
Preventing a minor from killing themselves until they are 18 (or whenever 'adult' status is reached) only delays their personal choice.
Preventing a minor from living, removes their personal choice completely.
The rational decision is simply to delay rather then to entirely remove.
what is this entity you call gov't?
Stile in MSG 152 writes:
For this post "the government" is used to refer to the proper authorities (judge, police, social workers . )
If you insist on simply repeating your questions, then I must insist on simply repeating my answers.
Silent H writes:
Does a majority have greater wisdom of who should live or die? Or what counts as legitimate attempts for preserving life?
A dependency on majority rule is not required. Legitimate attempts for preserving life are those attempts that have been shown to be legitimate methods. The easiest and most productive method of showing something to be valid so far is the scientific method. However, it is not the only one. If you can show your method of care to be valid (that is "a part of reality") then it should be included as a "legitimate attempt".
If all you have to show are hopes, desires, appeals to authority or appeals to tradition then your method is not valid, and should not be considered a "legitimate attempt".
3) And by telling parents they must agree with a certain set of techniques (modern medicine) or face punishment, the government (ie the majority) is inherently advancing one set of superiority claims.
You are correct. My method does inherently advance one set of claims. My method inherently advances equality, rationality and reality. If you seriously think that advancing inequality, irrationality or imagination should be a valid method, please support your position.
I do not tell parents they must use modern medicine. I tell them they must use valid methods of care that they can show are valid. Modern medicine has the added bonus that others have already completed this task for parents. If they would like to use an alternative they must do the leg-work themselves. Without showing that their method is a valid method in reality, their "method" is nothing more than their personal whims.
I do not say that the government is the majority. If that's how it runs in your neck of the woods, and you don't like it, I suggest you work to change it. How the government works is not a fundamental part of my position. Only the existence of a governemnt (judges, social workers, police...) is required for my position. If the word "government" is really bothering you, you can remove it entirely. How parents are punished, and at what level is not a fundamental part of my argument. My argument is simply that they should be punished, if we agree that EVERYONE should have the equal right to decide what to do with their own life as a priority.
That third point reinforces the second one. Your argument boils down to a concept where gov't is an objective set of uber-parents (correctly understanding what are valid and invalid methods, as well as how any child desires to live their life) who step in when the original parents fail at said task.
No, this is not required. As soon as a few parents are punished for using invalid methods, all other parents will soon catch on as to how they are required to act. This is how all laws gain effectiveness, I do not suggest anywhere that my position should be any different. That is, parents are required to act as such if they agree to live under the rule of a government that advances equality, rationality and reality. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to live there either.
Can we let these rest now?
Like I said in my last post:
Stile in MSG 246 writes:
You've always been free to withdraw whenever you felt it was necessary. You do not need my consent in any way. I am not going to be depressed or let down or resentful if you do not respond. I suggest that you keep posting until you personally feel that you've said all you need to say. That's what I do, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 4:07 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 7:26 PM Stile has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 252 of 286 (462471)
04-03-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Stile
04-03-2008 5:21 PM


Re: Excellent. Back to the topic, then.
Good, you've added some content. Let us play...
"A rational case" cannot be made for parents deciding how their children should live or die, while holding 'the right to life' as the highest priority principle.
Well, rational or no, I will agree that no logically consistent case can be made for parents deciding how their child should die, IF the right to life is the highest principle.
Although it is one of the highest principles, certainly one of the first chosen, it is not unqualified. Principles related to quality of life can supercede this. I will address that point in a moment.
'The right to life' is the idea that ALL people have the right to choose how THEY want to live THEIR life (or not live it).
Parents choosing how their child should die is in direct conflict with allowing the child to choose this action on their own.
First of all right to life is the idea that people have the right to live, period. How they live, and so under what conditions they can choose to die, is about right to choose QUALITY of life.
As you go on to correctly point out, allowing parents to make such decisions conflicts with the right to life (and quality of life) decision of the child. And of course so is any gov'tal decision regarding same.
Preventing a minor from killing themselves until they are 18 (or whenever 'adult' status is reached) only delays their personal choice.
Preventing a minor from living, removes their personal choice completely.
The rational decision is simply to delay rather then to entirely remove.
On the first premise, if a child wants to die and you prevent it, you have removed their choice. You can call it removing it to a later date if you want, but its the same thing, removing.
On the second premise, you switch from the child making a decision, to someone else. That second premise should have been stated "Not preventing a minor from killing themself..." in order to remain consistent. And the ending to that statement cannot be "removes their personal choice completely".
This can be cleaned up by either making it a discussion of someone else's decision for the child, or the child choosing for themself. The mix and match produces nothing useful, though it sounds good.
Thus the rational claim is undercut.
For this post "the government" is used to refer to the proper authorities (judge, police, social workers . )
This as ever, means nothing. Your argument still lies all ahead of you. Who are these authorities, and who determines what makes an individual "proper" as an authority?
I think you noticed where this was heading and offered some tantalizing commentary...
A dependency on majority rule is not required.
Okay, leaving aside the problems that raises, the fact is that our gov'ts are democracies which rely on majority rule.
Legitimate attempts for preserving life are those attempts that have been shown to be legitimate methods. The easiest and most productive method of showing something to be valid so far is the scientific method.
The first sentence is a tautology. The second is a statement I happen to agree with when "something" is defined as "a theory regarding natural phenomena".
It appears what you are trying to say is that the only valid concern is extension of physical life. And so the only valid healthcare choice or methods are those which have had scientific evidence, or some other form of testing, showing their utility to extend physical life.
That, unfortunately, is advancing your own personal belief system as if that would be the will of the majority... in other words the gov't. Which is of course what I was trying to get at in the beginning. If you can see that parents (two people) might not find certain methods "valid", then it is possible for a community, and in fact a majority, to find them "invalid". And in this case I mean not just valid in potential for extending life, but valid as desirable for extending life.
I do not say that the government is the majority. If that's how it runs in your neck of the woods, and you don't like it, I suggest you work to change it.
Last time I checked, Canada has a gov't based on majority rule... including Ontario. Then again I guess you do have a Queen and that is sooooooo rational. Just kidding.
How the government works is not a fundamental part of my position. Only the existence of a governemnt (judges, social workers, police...) is required for my position.
As stated, gov't is critical to your position. And as such its nature becomes critical. For example, if the gov't is comprised only of a panel of religious scholars, with a single figure as pre-eminent tie breaker, a lot of different determinations for what counts as valid will fall out of that system.
Your point was to produce a system which promoted equality, by imposing decisions on a child, beyond the potentially flawed attempts at such by two individuals known as "parents". As that system relied on a third entity known as "gov't", its nature is unavoidable. Otherwise I could just say, it's the parents... a very local gov't.
As soon as a few parents are punished for using invalid methods, all other parents will soon catch on as to how they are required to act. This is how all laws gain effectiveness, I do not suggest anywhere that my position should be any different.
You mean like the increases in female castration in Africa, after laws were put in place there? Like the laws which said parents couldn't teach their children Xianity in ancient Rome, or Protestantism in Catholic Europe?
What history has shown is that personal belief systems tend to get carried through, despite laws on books. What happens is that whatever undesirable behavior was hoping to be eradicated, merely moves underground.
Laws are good for preventing certain kinds of activities, but have never ended belief systems and their practices. That usually requires social movements, not legal ones. Either that or genocide.
My method inherently advances equality, rationality and reality.
I'm not seeing any of those three being advanced.
By definition the child is not being treated equally under your system. It is being prevented from choice until reaching age of majority and then allowed equality.
You have used a tautology, then assertions of your definitions as the only way of conceiving the world, followed by a surprising declaration that the nature of the prime protecting force is not crucial... none of which is rational.
And I have seen no discussion of reality as you suggest our gov'ts are not based on majority, and laws punishing parents will simply make them come around to your way of thinking.
As much as you like "rationality" you happen to exist in a real world with a lot of people that do not necessarily hold the same view of life as you do. Some are perhaps inherently irrational. Reality thus means that you are going to have to have systems which take this into account, including the fact that to some your position is irrational.
Thank you for adding sufficient verbiage.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Stile, posted 04-03-2008 5:21 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Stile, posted 04-04-2008 9:17 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 253 of 286 (462480)
04-04-2008 12:50 AM


Taking off...
Unfortunately I am having to take a break for a bit. I thought I had a week or so more, but I just got some news and that is not the case.
I apologize for those I will be abruptly cutting off debate with... particularly jaderis whom I enjoy reading and began with a very strong advance in his initial post. I looked forward to that.
I'd say I'll get back to this later, but it may be a couple months and by then I assume the topic will probably be dead.
Thank you all for your time, and I apologize for this sudden departure...
Edited by Silent H, : +t

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 254 of 286 (462488)
04-04-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Stile
04-03-2008 3:19 PM


Re: An impasse or an opportunity
To everyone,
Stile writes:
In my experience, no one ever "goes up the chain" to seach through a thread anyway. So, if you know where something is, and think it's of importance, it's best to just show it again. I feel that since I wrote it I best know where to look for it, and it's only courteous to provide it for anyone else who may be looking.
Except in those cases where someone obviously hasn't read the thread and can therefore appropriately be advised to just read the thread, it is most helpful when giving a reference backthread to provide a message number. This usually requires that you first find the message yourself, at which time it is often discovered that the point you thought was made in that message does not apply as readily to the current context as you thought. Good to know when that's the case. But if the message contains the information you want, provide a link to it using the [msg] dBCode, as in [msg=-246] to refer to Stile's message that I'm replying to, which provides a nice link like this: Message 246. If you want the message's title included, just remove the minus sign: Message 246.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Stile, posted 04-03-2008 3:19 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 255 of 286 (462491)
04-04-2008 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2008 12:30 PM


Re: But then they came for the apathetic Catholics....
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm more worried about them eroding people's religious freedom.
You keep using this excuse. Can you show me where in our Constitution it says that religious freedom allows you to kill your child? I mentioned the Reynolds v United States case in a previous post in which the SCOTUS said "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024