Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

Where do you draw the line?If this situation was okay for their own child, is it then okay for them to prevent insulin getting to other people's children? They only want to "save their immortal souls", right?. If you agree this is no longer okay, then "because they believe it would save her immortal soul" is not a good enough defense.Other people have other ideas. That's why we have laws to protect individuals. This child was an individual. We have laws to protect her. The parents are free to use their religous beliefs all they'ed like, as long as they don't interfere with her individual rights.Her individual rights were tossed aside because these parents believe it would save her immortal soul.What other rights should be tossed aside because parents believe it will save their children's immortal souls? A child's right to food? Water? Shelter?Should it be okay for a parent to drown their child in the bathtub because they believe it would save her immortal soul? If not, then "because they believe it would save her immortal soul" is not a good enough defense.Should it be okay for a parent to kill their neighbour because they believe it would save her immortal soul? If not, then "because they believe it would save her immortal soul" is not a good enough defense.How old should a child be before the individual rights of their soul is their's to decide?Who else's individual rights should be tossed aside because parents believe it will save immortal souls?We have laws against breaking the arm of your child because the parent is angry with them.
We have laws against breaking the arm of your child because the parent think they should.
We have laws against breaking the arm of your child because the parent believes they should on religious grounds.
We have laws against breaking the arm of your child because the parent believes they should in order to save the child's immortal soul.You don't seem to argue against any of those laws.Why do you argue that letting your child die is okay when breaking their arm is not?Perhaps you think "denying medical attention" is different for some reason.
We can change my example of "breaking their arm" to something like dropping them off in an unknown deep forest and praying for them to get out on their own. Or do you think that's a good thing to do as well? Certainly God can show the way home for a child more easily then He can create insulin in their veins.

Why do you say I neglect the very thing that is my main and pretty much only point?What I'm wondering is why you think the fact that rational people outnumber irrational people is cause to enforce some laws that protect children from harm, but ignore other cases where children come to easily-preventable harm?What is it about this one law for protecting children that you don't see as valid in persuing? I personally don't see this case of protecting children as different from any other law that protects children. What is the difference in your eyes?You said the difference was "the parents were trying to save the immortal soul of their child". I think it's obvious to everyone that this difference is found wanting. ...for the understatement of the month. No. But we have laws that protect against things like this already. Like my example of leaving the child in the forest because they believe God wants to lead the child home. We have laws protecting children from this destructive result even though the intent isn't destructive.So, again, why do you think this particular case is any different? Why is it okay to prevent destructive results when the intent is not destructive in one case, but here you think it should be okay? Why? Yes. My larger picture is to protect the individual rights of the child. As we do by outlawing dropping your children in the middle of a forest because you have grand-intentions of having God saving their immortal soul. In the same vein, I think it's only rational to outlaw the neglect of medical care to a child who is in need just becaue you have grand-intentions of having God save their immortal soul.If your larger picture does not include the protection of the child, what larger picture, specifically, are you trying to make me aware of? I apologize, do you retract your stance, then? I think that would be awfully decent of you. I only characterized you as thinking this was a good thing because you said so in your first post: (bolding is mine)"The proper course of action" to me is the same as "a good thing" or "the right thing to do". The same as "a good thing" and "the right thing to do" applies to your chosen analogy of yelling fire in a burning theatre.If you'd like to retract your statement that you think this is "the proper course of action", then I retract all my arguements. My point is that I do not think this is "the proper course of action". If I want what is best for my children, I will try everything I can to ensure they grow up in a society where ALL individuals are protected with the same rights. Including those very children.

No.I am asserting that if you (or anyone else) thinks it's okay to neglect your child with the result of death or significant harm, then I (or anyone else) should step in and stop you. Even put you in jail, if necessary. Regardless of your "intentions". In fact, we already have laws stating this. For this one instance, you seem to think we shouldn't. I'd just like to know why. You have yet to answer this why other then to say "I don't think it's my place".Why? Why do you not think it's your place to protect an innocent child from neglect which results in death? Oh, okay. Well, don't bring up numbers, then. It was you who introduced the idea of "the current majority of rational people". Are you sure you think this?I've provided plenty of examples. What if the "good faith rearing of the children of others" includes breaking their arms? What if the "good faith rearing of the children of others" includes dropping their kid off in the middle of the forest and praying for God to save their immortal soul?Your refusal to address these similar situations implys to me that you don't think that the "good faith rearing of the children of others" is a good excuse on it's own.So what's the extra part? What's different in this situation? Why is the "good faith rearing of the children of others" okay if they want to neglect their child's health to the point of death? Is it just because there happens to be an outdated law that explicitly allows it, even though it clearly goes against the basic human right to life?We have plenty of laws that are very good at stopping the "good faith rearing of the children of others" that you seem to agree with when they're enforced. Why do you have a problem with this situation? What's the magic ingredient that makes this scenario different from the others? I really do not see one. I'm not really sure I even understand what your arguement is anymore. You seem to agree with the parents at some points, and then disagree with them at other points. Perhaps you do not quite understand where you fit on this arguement yet? That's certainly a valid stance.Try not to think of this website as a place to "win" or "lose" arguements, but simply a place to learn. Most times when I post (and almost always when I start new threads) I present a position I would love to have over-turned by a rational arguement. "My position" becomes sort of like a hypothesis of the situation, and I judge the responses and critiques that follow, and then I can accept or reject my original position. This gets me to fully understand my own ideas, and those of other people. The result can only be to learn, and that's never a bad thing. The only real "wrong position" is when you continually defend something you fully understand as flawed. There is no shame in admitting a mistake and moving forward. There is only shame in knowingly backing something you no longer personally advocate. Of course, you're the only one who truly knows if you fully understand something or not, so you're the only one who can decide when it is time to abandon or press on with any certain arguement. Both paths will lead to learning as long as your honest with yourself and your own positions. "I don't know" is certainly a very valid position. When it can be shown that this is not in the best interest of my children, then I will accept the next position that can be shown to be in the best interest of my children.Right now, the position that my children (and all other people) deserve the same basic right to live can be shown to be in the best interest of my children. Other ideas may possibly be better, but those ideas cannot be shown to be better.Even now, if you can provide a rational explanation why some people (including children) should not have the same basic right to live, I will change my position.Barring that, I'll continue to argue that any other position is inferior. After all, this is the best way to find the position that actually is better, if it even exists.

And I've asked you severaly times, where do you draw the line?I suppose now is a good a time as any to assume that you agree with the following:Parents should be allowed to neglect caring for their children to the point of death during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to break their child's arm during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to drop their child off in the middle of a forest so that God can save their immortal soul during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to behead their children at any time during their "good faith rearing".So, those are all included in “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”When does this right stop? When the child turns 18?Are you saying you want it to be legal for a parent to break the arm of their child every year up until they turn 18? After all, they only want to break their arm during their "good faith rearing".When does someone stand up for the rights of the child?I think someone should stand up for the rights of the child as soon as those rights are breached.Apparently you think we should wait until the child turns 18.Of course, a family could just kill their child during their "good faith rearing" at the age of 17. Then they can have another child, to repeat the process. Do you seriously advocate this position? I don't think you understand. I don't think I should interfere because I "really, really, really don't like what they're doing". I agree that this is a pitiful excuse. I think I should interfere because we can objectively show that the parents are breaching the rights of the child. We can show that this is wrong as much as we can show that murder is wrong.Why would you even consider that "liking what they're doing" has anything to do with the problem?It's trivial to show that these parents are hurting their child as much as any murderer hurts any other victim. I'll do so right here for you:1. Every person has the right to life.
2.a A murderer removes another person's right to life when they kill their victim. Therefore the murderer should be punished.
2.b These parents removed their child's right to life when they refused to give her the simple medical care that would allow her to live. Therefore, the parents should be punished.You see? No where does it say "I really, really, really think the parents were wrong". I'm simply following the laws we already have in place.Note that the parents intentions are non-existent in showing their error.
Note that the knowledge of this girl having diabetes is non-existent in showing the parents' error.

Ah... so you don't believe that "good faith child rearing" is the issue.You believe that the issue is "good faith child rearing as long as that faith is in an established religion and the decision prevents the child from spending eternity suffering in fire and brimstone according to doctrine and society accepts their practices."Again, when does the child get to decide for herself if she lives or dies? Only when she's 18? The same people who always make the call. The judges and courts of our society. They can view the case and clearly see that these parents violated their child's right to live. No, I didn't show anything to the limits of my standards at all. My personal standards were not involved in any way. I objectively showed the parents to be negligent of our society's agreed upon standards.You keep saying I have a vested personal interest here. Why do you think I would make the same mistake you are making? I'm arguing against you, I don't think we should take our personal interests into account. I think we should live by the rule we can show to be above all others:That all people (including children) have the right to live.You seem to be against this, why? Why do you think children should not have an individual right to life? Simply because an outdated, previously accepted religion says so? You know that this is the same arguement people used to defend slavery and racism, right? Are you sure that this is the precedent you want to be drawing your moral decisions from?That's okay, though. If that's your defense, I have history on my side with eventually turning over these poor excuses for laws. I will gladly accept that your only defense is "it's tradition". I will await the inevitable day when your tradition is, again, shown to be the horrific abuse of others that it really is. I can only hope that more little girls do not have to die before that happens.Tradition is a horrible reason to kill a little girl. I'll stick with what we can show.

No, it would help if you clarified the parts of your position that I'm asking you to clarify.What my arguement comes down to is this:All people have the same, identical right to life.
-I find this to be true for the simple reason that I cannot think of a valid, rational exception. If you have one, please offer it.According to this rule, the parents of this child neglected her right to life when they refused to give her the medical attention she needed, resulting in her death.What area(s) do you disagree with?1. Do you disagree that the parents neglected the child and that this neglect led to her death?2. Do you disagree that this neglect and subsequent death break the rule that "everyone has the same right to life"?3. Do you disagree that everyone should have the same right to life?I don't care what you think your right to interfere is, or what my right to interfere is. This is a debate board, we're not interefering in any way, what's done is done.I don't care if you think a long standing tradition should be upheld simply on it's religous merit. Such things have a historical precedent of falling away, regardless of your stance.What I'm wondering is why you think this scenario is acceptable in our current society.And the answer is one of three things:1. Perhaps you don't think that the parents neglected the child or that this neglect actually led to the child's death?
-This is trivially shown to be the very facts of this case2. Perhaps you don't think that this neglect and subsequent death break the rule that "everyone has the same right to life"?
-This is trivially shown to be irrational since a child is a part of "everyone"3. Perhaps you don't think that everyone should have the same right to life?
-If you have a better idea then "everyone should have the same right to life", I'd really like to hear about itHowever, if you do actually agree with all 3 of these points, then the arguement comes one of prioritization. That is, why would you prioitize some non-life-threatening idea over a very real, very definite, life-threatening one?This may be the case, and then your answer of "because eternal life is more important than this life" is a valid answer, when (and only when) you show that the possiblity of eternal life is actually valid in itself.Without showing that, you're simply putting hopeful wishes over the life of this child. Maybe you're okay with that. I find it woefully unbalanced.

For this post "the government" is used to refer to the proper authorities (judge, police, social workers . )I think there are two main issues, and I think they’re fairly simple:1. A person’s right to earthly-life vs. their right to religious life (eternal, afterlife, etc..)
2. This right to everyone vs. this right only to adults (and having guardians of minors choose what is correct for those in their care).And I think that splitting these issues up will highlight the inherent problem with allowing guardians to choose life-related rights for their children.Let me stick strictly secular for a second, to give us something to contrast to:I think it’s fairly obvious that everyone has the same right to earthly-life, and that the government should be allowed to step in to prevent parents from choosing to end their child’s earthly-life (even through neglect). Otherwise, parents could just kill their children at their own whim.
The reason for this is that no one can show that they deserve earthly-life more than anyone else. No one can show that they should be able to decide who lives and who dies (on earth). With nothing to show, we’re left with everyone being equal. With everyone being equal, we need to protect the rights of those who are too weak or immature (minors) to protect themselves. We give this task to the government.Now, moving this onto religious-life.I think that a minor’s religious-life should be protected by the government as much as a minor’s earthly-life is. This is from using the same reasoning:
No one can show that they deserve religious life more than anyone else. No one can show that they should be able to decide who gets religious-life and who doesn’t. No one can show that they should be able to decide who lives and who dies (religiously). With nothing to show, we’re left with everyone being religious-life equal.
And, again, with everyone being equal, we need to protect the religious-life-rights of those who are too weak or immature (minors) to protect themselves, even protect them from guardian-neglect, as with this particular example. We should give this same task to the same government.Many people have differing ideas of how to end their earthly-life. Many people have differing ideas of how to end (or begin) their religious-life. Until we have a way to show a superior earthly-life, or a superior religious-life, the rights of those who are too weak or immature (minors) should be protected by the government.The problem wasn’t that the parents believed they were saving their child’s immortal soul.The problem is that the parents didn’t allow their child to decide how she wanted to save her immortal soul.*Sorry CS, I meant to do a general reply, not to reply to you personally.Edited by Stile, : Supposed to be general reply, whoops.

Hmmmm. The fact that I can answer all your questions by quoting my own post makes me think you didn't really read it. Or maybe you just didn't understand my post. Either way, here's the answers to your questions:

quote:

---

This falls to the same problem. 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.

---

Note the bolded section. The government is only advancing equality. If the parents want something else, it's up to them to show that their superiority is worthy.

quote:

---

First, how do you know what their child wanted? All their other kids agreed. Second, are you saying the gov't would have only stepped in to ask the child what she wanted?

---

Again, note the bolded section. Minors are considered either too weak, or immature, or both to protect themselves. That's why we call them minors. They likely do not know what they want, they may be scared of their parents, or even brainwashed. For these reasons, we protect them until they are no longer minors. Your welcome, but you have yet to address either of the major issues I brought up. In fact, you didn't even recognize that I've already rebutted the arguements you sent back to me. My arguement remains exactly the same as it did in my previous post.Remember:

No, I do not "in fact" make the government unequal. "In fact", I make the governemnt equal, by having them enforce equality. The reason they enforce equality is because this is the most superior method we're able to show that actually works. That is, we're not able to show that any 1 method (religious or imaginary) that is superior. When that becomes the case, I will support the governement supporting the shown-to-be superior method. Without showing that their method is superior, people are acting on their own whims, when those whims restrict or remove the rights of another individual (especially if that individual is a minor in their care) then the government steps in to impose the rights and freedoms that we can show... those of equality. Of course not, that's why we have them enforce the best method we can show to be superior... and we don't have one. Therefore the best method proven is equality. The parents should clothe, feed, protect and care for their child until that child is no longer a minor. In this particular situation, it falls to the parents to get medical care for their child when their child becomes ill. This is a method shown to work. The method the parents chose is not shown to work, it is a "whim" of theirs. The child is free to choose the method of the parents... when they are no longer a minor. Because the government enforces equality. That is, the government only enforces actions that are shown to be effective. If the parents are not capable of actions that are shown to be effective, then the governent should step in to protect the minor with those very actions that have been shown to be effective.As soon as the parents can show their methods to be effective, the government can enforce those same methods (or, at least, not infringe upon them when in use). Until then, their methods are nothing more than their personal whims. Fair enough, I was only providing examples. Other valid examples were "fear of their parents" or "simply ignorant". If you want to change "brainwashing" to "raised into a belief system" go right ahead, it has no effect whatsoever on the arguement that a minor may not be aware, or ask for the rights they are entitled to. And, again, the only solution is for the government to enforce equality and protect the child's rights until they are no longer a minor. Nope, you can remove the word "brainwashing" from my arguement and it makes no difference. Please read the above explanation. And, my arguement did not make that "semantic distinction" it was only offered as one possible example of many. Remove it all together if you like, it still makes no difference to the arguement. No one. That's why the government only enforces equality and those methods we can show are valid. No one can be "brainwashed" by methods that are shown to be valid, they're valid. This is exactly why methods need to be shown, and the government needs to enforce equality. Not really, it seems to me that you are only picking side-notes that don't have any real effect on my position at all.My main points still stand, and you still have offered no arguement to reduce their effectiveness, let alone overturn them. Inadvertantly, you continue to add arguements for why they should be in place:

Sorry you feel that way. The only reason I keep reasserting my original position is that the problems you raise aren't actually problems. And I've described why. But it is of no matter, my post won't disappear so if you ever have a change of heart, it'll be there waiting.Best of luck.

I don't. The reason we call them minors is because it is known that they are easily swayed, and can sometimes have difficulty making important decisions on their own. Perhaps she did want the prayer treatment. Perhaps she did not. The whole point of being a minor is that you're protected until you're old enough (no longer a minor) to make the decision on your own. Nope. The reason we protect minors from themselves and others is the same reason we don't let them vote. Once they're able to make their own decisions, then they're free to choose whatever they'ed like. Until then, the government protects them.Yes, a few will rightly want the prayer treatment, and be denied it. The consequence is that they need to wait until they're 18 to die.
However, a few will also not really want the prayer treatment. These deserve protecting. Removing their earthly life or their religious life against their wishes isn't right. I'm talking about her right to earthly life, or religious life. Lots of people are born with disabilities or other issues. Their right to life (earthly or religious) is no less. It's not the invention of the treatment, it's the fact that we have the ability to show that it's effective. Therefore, we have the ability to keep this girl alive until she's old enough to make her own life-decisions for herself.
Since we can show it's effective, it's proven to be superior. The same way that as soon as prayer-healing is shown to be effective, it'll be proven to be superior as well. And then I'll have no problems with the government suporting it (or at least not interfering with it). Until then, these parents are simply pressing their decisions upon their child... with the result of ending their child's life. Earthly life, and quite possibly religious life as well.The parents chose to use a not-proven method of caring for their daughter. If this leads to risking her life, this is where the government (pushing equality) needs to step in and use proven methods of caring so that this girl can live until she can make her own decisions. Of course not, I'd never argue such a silly thing.What I'm arguing is that we should ensure that our lives last until we're able to make decisions for ourselves about our own lives. Then we can choose whatever we'ed like as adults.I base this "should be" idea on the concept that all people should be treated equally and have the same right to life (be it earthly or religious). Exactly. What if she didn't want to die like this? Shouldn't we protect her until she can decide how it is she'd like to die?

I don't know. That's the whole point. Because we don't know, our only rational solution is to treat all people equally. If you come up with a way to show how any particular race or whatever is actually "superior" in their right to life, please provide it. Governemnts worldwide are awaiting your answer. It certainly would make their job easier.Without being able to show a particular superiority, we have to accept that all people have an equal right to life. If your point was to ask if I'd argue my position if the effective treatment wasn't a proven method. Then my answer is that I would not. Even if the treatment is known it's not enough. Only if the treatment can be shown to be effective, is it worthy of governmental enforced support.Without that, it's just as useless as anyone else's personal whim. Parents certainly do not press their decisions upon their children "with the result of ending their child's life" all the time without the government interfering. That's why child molesting parents go to jail. That's why child killing parents go to jail. Child molestors and killers cannot show that the reasons they molested or killed the child is valid. Same for these parents. That's why these parents should go to jail. But I don't want people to raise their children the way I want them to be raised. I want people to raise their children by standards that are shown to be effective caring methods until they are no longer children. This isn't "my way", it's any way they can show that is effective. All the parents have to do is show that prayer-healing is effective, then I'll have no problems with it.Of course I have a problem with parents using any method that isn't shown to be effective. Especially if it results in that child's death. This is the same reasoning why I have a problem with child molesting parents, or child killing parents. We can show that it's not proper care for the child. We can show alternative methods that are proper. The molestors and killers cannot show that their method has any validity or positive results. We can show alternative methods that do have validity and positive results."Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
"Your right to raise your child any way you see fit ends where you kill your child". But I do not want anyone to conform to my worldview. I only want people to conform to standards that we can show to be real. That's not "my worldview". That's "reality". I don't want anyone to do anything because I think they should be doing them. I only want people to recognize that we all have the same right to life (earthly and religious). If you can show otherwise, please identify the fault in that idea.Using this as a guide, it is obvious that parents do not get to raise their children any way they'ed like.They are allowed to raise their children any way they'ed like as long as they don't remove their children's right to life, or any other individual right.

Yes. For the same reasoning that they're not allowed to vote until they grow up a bit. I have no problems with lowering the legal age of being an adult, if that's what you want to offer. We have to, if we're to remain rational.And it's simple to show that everyone has an equal right to life. All we have to do is think of 1 single reason why they shouldn't have an equal right to life. Anything from you? No? Well, then it's still good.All it takes is 1 reason to blow my arguement out of the water. Of course, I have 5000 years of human history where no one can come up with a reason why any human should be thought as "superior" in their right to life on my side. But that doesn't really matter. The fact remains that if you can identify a rational reason, that you can show, that specifies why certain people should be allowed to live over others, then I will quickly stand down. Why? People born with no arms is a good reason why those people should live a life that doesn't require the use of arms. Say, phone-directory work they can operate with their toes or something. It's not a good reason that they should die.Show that a certain class of people is inferior or superior in regrards to why they should live or die. Otherwise, equality is our only rational option. I don't know and I don't really care. If you want to argue with "people", go and argue with them. If you want to argue with me, then reply to my arguement. My arguement is that we can show proper care, and since the girls life is equally valid as anyone elses, it's up to the governemnt to enforce proper care for her if her parents refuse to provide such.If we take the scenario where we are unaware that insulin would save this girl, then I would not be arguing. I'm not arguing that this is the way things are. I'm arguing that this is the way things should be. If we accept the value that all human life has the equal right to live. So are killers who kill their children by not feeding them. Even current law is on my side with this. A person who cannot live does not have a "right to live". Only people who can live. Like this girl. She could live just fine with a simple shot.If you do not understand what this "right to life" is, how are you arguing that it should not be equal for everyone? No, not quite. This is a simple, objective rationalization after agreeing that everyone has the same right to life.So, "My way" is: Everyone has the same right to life.If you'd like to argue that, go right ahead, all you need is one single reason why it shouldn't be. I do feel safe with the entirety of human history on my side, though.

No, this is not the problem. The problem is you keep raising "issues" that are already answered, and already described, in detail, or they are issues that do not pertain to the concept being discussed in any way.But don't take my word for it, it seems to me that everyone you discuss with in this thread has the exact same issue with you. If you'd like to view the factual evidence that everyone has an identical issue with you as an indication that you have a unique issue with me, that's your perogative. Personally, I'd take the fact that everyone has a similar issue with you to mean that your debate style in this thread may need some examining.Again, you've tried to say I haven't done something that is trivial to show that I have:

quote:

---

you keep stating how gov't is enforcing equality. That is as vague as stating gov't is enforcing freedom. What does that word mean in concrete... practical... terms?

---

First, I don't say the government is enforcing equality. I say they should be, obviously with the current laws they are not. And I've already explained what this means, in concrete, practical terms, and how it should be done: Also from that message, the very first message I wrote when you started replying to me: A very simple thought exercise will show that the concrete, practical implementation of this policy would be the same implementation of all governmental policies. That when someone removes the rights of others, they are punished by having their rights removed (restrictions from society, or jail time.) I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one of us is being confusing and hiding things.

The equality exists because their is no rational reason, no way to show, anyone's superiority with respect to a right to live.You can show superior abilities, this is true. But because one person can do something better than another does not mean that the same person should live while the other should die.In order to show that someone should live while another should die, you need to show how a person is useless, and that they do not deserve to pursue happiness.Let's take a human that is armless, legless, only flesh and bone and brain that is just barely above what we'ed call legally "alive".As long as their is potential for this human to have any amount of happiness at all in any way, can you rationally show why anyone should be able to remove the potential of this happiness from this human?Are you telling me that you can actually show why some people should be able to pursue their happiness while other people should not?Ending someone's life obviously ends their pursuit of happiness.If you think you have the right to decide this, I'd really like to hear your rationality. Funny? It's the exact same logic that shows the force of gravity. And any other scientific explanation. All it takes is one single repeatable observation to overturn the theory of gravity. All it takes to overturn my theory of equality is one single repeatable observation of why someone doesn't deserve to pursue happiness.And, like science, if you are able to show this to be incorrect, or provide a better idea to strive for, I'll switch.