Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

How much more concrete would you like to get? Do you want me to explain the body physiology that is used when a police officer reaches out his arm to cuff someone in order to bring them to court? But we're not talking about parents simply removing any right of their child. We're talking about parents removing rights from their child which then result in the child's death. And parents certainly are punished for this. I apologize for not re-quoting the entire OP for clarification. Again, I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one of us needs to work on their logic.

I most certainly did not. You just replied to it and we haven't finished discussing it yet.You said: I said: You said: And I totally agree with you.When we're talking about adults. But we're not talking about adults, we're talking about minors. And besides, I'm not advocating that people should be forced to do "everything possible" to keep the person alive. I'm simply advocating that people should be forced to do those things have been proven to care for minors when they are caring for minors.Like not feeding a minor. A parent should be forced to feed a minor in their care. A minor is too weak and immature to feed themself. Therefore, as long as feeding a minor is a proven and available method for caring for them, parents should be forced to feed the minors in their care.Same for medical treatment. A parent should be forced to provide medical treatment for a minor in their care. A minor is too weak and immature to provide medical treatment for themself. Therefore, as long as providing medical treatment for a minor is a proven and available method for caring for them, parents should be forced to provide medical treatment for the minors in their care.This is the "why do anything for minors?" arguement. Obviously, we protect minors because they are too weak and/or immature to protect themselves. Again, I totally agree with you.When we're talking about adults, that is.But we're not talking about adults, we're talking about minors. And we're back to: "we protect minors because they are too weak and/or immature to protect themselves." Fair enough, it was a poor analogy with only a similar slant at best. I won't use any gravity or science analogy. Of course, this doesn't remove the argument: The evidence is, as far as we're capable of telling, we all have the same drive/desire/want(need?) for happiness/life.When you can show this is mistaken, or incorrect, or not the best available option, we'll move on to the next best option.

Fair enough, for anyone who wasn't able to identify the usage of the following terms:Life: Posessing the potential to pursue happiness
Child: A minor, the current governmental defintion would suffice
Government: The proper authorities (police, judges, social workers...)
How a government would enforce equality with regard to the situation given in the OP: Yeah, I thought so too. That's why I started with it in Message 152Are you saying parents aren't punished for not feeding their kids? Children are removed from their parent's care every day (in the US and Canada and Europe at least) for not feeding them, not clothing them, not providing them with proper shelter, not providing proper medical care...Of course this single case is currently allowed under some unique laws in the US. But that's why we're discussing it, because it's an anomaly. Again, I'll leave such recommendations up to the reader. I'm confident they can decide which of us requires education.

Yes, I agree.And yes, I agree that the current laws say this particular incident is just fine and dandy.I'm arguing that this is inconsistent, and should be changed. And I totally agree with you.If we're talking about adults, which we're not. For some people happiness/life is canibalizing their dead friend to stay alive while for others it's burning themselves to death as a simple protest.That's exactly what I'm talking about.We can't identify which one is "better", or which is "more important". Therefore, to remain rational, all subjective life-decisions are of equal-importance.And, no one (yet, anyway) is capable of showing why they should get to remove another person's pursuit of whatever-they'ed-like-to-do-with-their-life ("happiness").

You are missing the point. A person's right to life and pursuit of happiness is just a phrase that basically means... "a person's perogative to live their life by their choices".I will stop using the word "happiness" and start describing it as "a person's right to live their life by their choices."As you can see, it fits your two examples a lot better:Canibalizing their friend was that person's right to live their life by their choices. (And the same with choosing to die and not canibalizing their friend).Burning yourself to death is a person's right to live their life by their choices. (And the same with choosing not to die in such a way). I didn't jump at all. Each person's "right to live their life by their choices" is equal to everyone elses simply because we cannot identify which one is better or which is more important.If you could identify a better, or more important one, then equality certainly would not be the case.But we can't, it's impossible (as far as I'm aware) to say that one person's decision on how to run their life is better or worse than any other person's.And, in the case of minors, we protect them until they are no longer too weak or immature to make these decisions on their own. Then no one is arguing against me. Because this is all I'm saying. "Pursuit of happiness", "right to live", "everyone is equal" ...these are all just phrases which mean no one is capable of showing why they should remove another person's pursuit of whatever-they'ed-like-to-do-with-their-life.That is all I've been attempting to say since my post where I accidentally replied to you instead of a general reply. With the addition that minors are unable to care for themselves, so we (the government) enforce care for them until they are able to make these decisions on their own.

If you no longer care to carry on your side of the debate, I can't force you to. I never did, and never would assert such an obvious falsity. What I asserted as the anomaly was that parents are generally punished for not providing medical care to their children, except for this anomaly where the parents plead a christian-religious defense. I'm confident that the reader is quite capable of deciding who deserves credit in our discussion. And I am talking to you. The difference is I do not try to suggest that you personally take logic courses or improve your education. Again, I'll leave it to the reader to decide who's position needs more clarifying and support. Like I said the last time you hinted at no longer continuing our discussion, my posts will not disappear. Feel free to come back and reply any way you see fit at any time that is convenient for you.My argument still stands exactly as it did in Message 1521. 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. Hope you find what you're looking for.

You asked for clarity, and I gave you clarity. Then you argue that my original position wasn't clear enough? We already knew that, that's why you asked for clarity.Actually, you didn't even ask. You assumed I meant something that hadn't been discussed at all yet, and took off from there. So I then clarified on my own behalf. Again, this is a very minor issue, and has no effect on our debate at all. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which of us has a communication problem, and which of us is trying to focus on the main topic. If you're having trouble communicating your side of the debate, please refrain from trying to lay blame on me.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: Note how their is no mention of "anomaly" or anything about the state of current laws. This is a minor issue that has no effect on my position. I'll concede the point altogether, if it will make you feel better. I do not need to talk about the state of current laws to support my position. Hope you find what you're looking for.

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: 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.

"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. If you insist on simply repeating your questions, then I must insist on simply repeating my answers. 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". 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. 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. Like I said in my last post:

No, it's not the same thing. One is removed permantly (dying), the other only temporarily (delaying). One has the possible option of being reinstated at another time, the other does not. This is hardly "the same thing". No. There are 4 possible choices the way you're describing thing. I choose the obvious one for my side, and the obvious one against so to contrast the two. You chose the 1 obvious for your side, and the one that subtley agrees with your side, ignoring the other two choices. Like this:1. Preventing a minor from killing themself. (someone else making the decision)
2. Preventing a minor from living. (someone else making the decision)
3. Not preventing a minor from killing themself. (minor making the decision)
4. Not preventing a minor from living. (minor making the decision)The two bolded choices were the two I contrasted. It's now obvious which ones are consistent to compare with one another. From Message 251 it's clear to see that any discussion of how a government runs has no effect on my position. I will concede any point about governments and their runnings to you. Choose whatever government you'd like. It changes nothing in my argument. My argument is simply that these parents should be punished. I still do not see why they can't be punished in the same way any other criminal is punished, but even that is irrelevent. I'll repeat my position again, at he bottom of this post, so you can see how the word "government" or any indication of how these people should be punished is not included. My focus is that these parents should be punished. From Message 251 it's clear to see that I mention nothing about life being physical or spiritual. It can be either and the argument stands as written. If you have a more balanced method to provide fair treatment, or if you can show why fair treatment concerning people's "choice to live their lives the way they'd like to" is invalid, please support your position. As explained, my position does not depend at all on what people "find" as in what they feel or desire or trust. My position depends on what people can show. Personal whims are irrelevent. Bolding is mine.And the position that these parents should not be punished never allows for equality. Which position do you think is more rational? And, since all my methods of caring for children require to be shown as a valid part of reality, we have reality covered as well.Again, here's my position: Message 225Note how there is no mention of "government" or how the parents will be punished. I'm confident that this part of the argument does not require support for any reasonable reader. If you feel it does, I will gladly concede the point entirely for the sake of remaining on topic for my position. It has absolutely no bearing whatsover on the fact that these parents should be punished.

Great news.Do you (or anyone else) know how this sort of thing works? This district attorney that made the charges, is it personally from them? Or is it like "the state" prosecuting? Or how does that work? I don't really know much about law-workings.A few notes on the article I hope this doesn't change anything. I wonder if this is some sort of pressure they're getting so as to not be classified as "Christians"? Or did they always claim to be non-organized? Maybe it was just the media, or maybe I was biased, but I thought they were fundamental-christians? Or, at least, could easily be classified as such. ...I think it's rather obvious which religion they follow from even just the article, anyway. I just find that really, really sad. I thought pride was a sin, I don't know what else to call this sort of "faith". Seems to be almost exactly the same debate we've had in this thread. It will be interesting to see how the case unfolds. I don't see either side changing their stance, but at least it will give an insight to the current state (and maybe future position) of the law.

Thanks Taz, I'm very interested to find out how this one goes forward. I hate how I can just forget about such cases and never find out about their conclusions. Sounds to me like reaching. I hope the jury sees it as such.
I'm sure that all the victims of suicide cults appeared healthy three days before the comet came, too. The observer need not even be casual. I'm in.

Guilty as charged.

quote:

---

Leilani Neumann's stepfather, Brian Gordon of San Diego, said he was disappointed by the verdict and the jury was mistaken. He said his stepdaughter did nothing wrong in trusting in God to heal her daughter.

​

...

​

"We definitely are not terrorists," he said. "We are Bible-believing, God-believing, Holy Ghost-filled people who want to do right and be right."

---

Liar.
That may be a priority, but when push came to shove they certainly showed that "doing right" was not their highest priority.If you have to skew your moral compass of "doing right" to include allowing a child to die, then you're not being honest. And you're certainly not doing anything right.

There's a poll on their site about whether or not you agree with the jury's conviction: Do you agree?After over 5000 polled, 85% agree with the verdict.
Hopefully this may help pave the way for some changes in legislature on child protection.

I've just been reading through some of the original posts in this thread. By that I mean that I was reading my original posts and the people that posted to me, and ignored all others. 'Cause I'm just that conceited.But, regardless of my narcissism, I'd like to re-state the main focus behind every post I made in this thread: My position is that once someone uncovers the information that they do indeed completely believe such a thing, they should immediately investigate the basis of the information their beliefs are based upon. If the belief has no verifiable basis, then any resulting actions are equally unverifiable. A child's life is a very imortant, verifiable entity. It is not something to be removed so whimsically by an unverifiable belief.Those who do not understand this are as dangerous to society as any other psychopath and should be equally restrained.That is, it's not the logic after the belief that is in question. I agree that the logic after the belief seems very morally imperative. The problem is the belief itself that leads to such drastic actions. The idea that an unverifiable belief is good enough to justify the neglect towards such an important, valuable, verifiable entity as a child's life is completely insane.Mom isn't going to jail because she did what she thought was right.
Mom's going to jail because she didn't think her daughter's life was important enough to attempt a search for verification of what she thought was right.