Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

Hello TB, I hope you can hold off on the anger in your reply. I must defend randman on this topic, despite being rather strongly irreligious, and extremely pro-medicine. As an explanation of my reaction, I am disturbed at this nation's push toward intolerance using children as the crowbar and axe, to get through our constitution.You have your life and your own children. Other people have their life and their children. In a free and tolerant society, each of you has the right to pursue the concept of a good life for your family. With that in mind, you should be paying attention to your own life, and stop prying into the lives of others. Yes, even (and perhaps especially) if what they do is not understandable and so upsetting to you.I think it is arrogant to act like such people do not care for their children, or do not understand such suffering. They have a completely different worldview, which creates a different concept of how maladies should be treated. And indeed, what other kinds of maladies are brought on if certain treatments are performed. That does not mean they do not care, or do not understand suffering. You are incorrectly equating caring abstention of a procedure with indifferent neglect.If these people only did this to their kids and never to themselves, one might have a point. But they do this to themselves just the same. This is a different way of looking at the world, but they really do care. Is it in line with most modern concepts of healthcare? No. But their ability to practice what they want within their family, means that others get to practice what they want within their family... regardless of whether it is "modern" or "popular".Randman is correct in pointing out that modern medicine is not perfect. Things still go wrong. And no, you do not get to just sue doctors... as if that possibility creates an argument in this case. You ask if the girl would have been saved by one shot of insulin. I don't know. Do you? We can guess that likely she would have. But what if she didn't? That really does happen. So what if they did it and she died anyway, or slipped into a coma? No, there would be no suing the doctors in such a scenario, as there would have been no malpractice or reason to assume it. What would we say then? Our way was better?I think people that choose to live "naturally", or for whatever reason do not avail themselves of modern medicine, are much more likely to suffer from things that they do not have to suffer from. However, we will all suffer and we will all die. Medicine will not stop that. The question is how we decide to live. Some choose to live free of medical intervention, again for whatever reason. How can I or you say that that is wrong?This tragedy... which I am sure is just as tragic for that family, and perhaps more so, than for all the voyeurs... becomes an event for that family to consider. Perhaps it will change the way they view medicine, or faith as a healing art. Or perhaps they will view the death as a natural part of life. Are they wrong?If we allow children to be used this way, to advocate one worldview over another, then I don't see where this stops... ever. The natural progression will be to end abortions for sure, but that would just be one further step, once the state is the body viewed as owner and caretaker of children... the arbiter of right and wrong.Let's take a converse view of this situation. What if Xian scientist types suddenly swarmed to the majority in this nation? Would you want them crying and screaming about what you have done to your children, in order to prolong their mortal lives? Would you want them to have the power to change what you can do for your kids, or for yourself?As odious as these decisions may be to you, the legal precedent is correct. Freedom for one family, means freedom for all families. States running families means only that the personal tragedy of today, can become the nationally enforced tragedy of tomorrow.

---

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

Sacrificing freedom for security, one gets nor deserves either. That others may ignorantly (to my mind) doom their own children, means that mine cannot be doomed, over my objections, by the state. Neither I nor randman are asking that any child should die at all. That is a piece of rhetorical propaganda on your part... shame on you.However, if one wanted to view this issue in such a context, then you most certainly DO ask that children die to defend your beliefs. There is no question that medical intervention, at the very least inoculations, will definitely kill a number of children. This is without malpractice occurring. One may point that the numbers of dead children might be different, but children will die all the same. That about says it all. The parents did not overtly kill their child. Their child was dying all on her own. They believed they were saving her, and that medical intervention would only add to her problems, perhaps beyond this visible one. This then is a discussion of quality of life.It is obtuse of you to claim that randman did not find it shocking, and indeed myself if you decide to label anyone who does not agree with you in that manner. I certainly find such ignorance, or concepts of extradimensional care, shocking. But my shock or disgust with another worldview does not create an argument regarding the protection of personal freedom in this nation.It is also obtuse of you to suggest that this is a case of right and wrong, that you know what that is, that people who disagree with you do not, and that the state should be a part in making such ethical decisions... I would assume as long as it agrees with you. Yet, my guess is that if society wished to impose the converse belief upon you, you'd scream bloody murder about freedom and rights.By the way they did not simply stand by and watch. They were delivering aid in a way they understood. Its practical efficacy can certainly be questioned, but what such people are doing can't be. That's what having a different worldview can entail, different choices with different results that others may not like.The idea that your way means no dead kids, is really arrogant, and about just as delusional.

---

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

I will answer both of your replies to me, in this single post. I will reiterate Percy's request, that you wait until you are calm before replying. There was no need for all of your anger. The above is a good example. I thought I made my position clear, but perhaps not enough. You could have left it at your initial question. The rant which followed clearly departs from anything I said.In a truly free and tolerant society, adults are treated as such. They have a right to do with themselves as they will. They have a right to act in accordance with their beliefs, no matter how ignorant and odious it may seem to others.As I mentioned in my first reply, children are being used as a very convenient tool to erode such protections. They are of course a very sticky subject in a free society. Are they individuals with full rights separate from their parents and the State? Or are they limited, being the offspring of parents, residing within a family that has protection from the State to follow their own belief system? Or are they limited, being the wards and produce of, by, and for the State? There may be more options but they likely boil down to these three.If the State has a right to interfere with a family's belief systems in order to protect the life of a child, where does this end? You can throw up "life of a child" all you want, but in a nation where the definitions of life and child are varied, and hardly agreed on, it is likely you are going to have to engage in much arbitrary argument to protect your own reproductive and family choices.Honestly, given that concept (children have a right to life protected by the State) then abortion should certainly be illegal. But we can leave that situation out. How does it decide upon inoculations? How does it decide upon treatment for cancer? How does it decide upon twins where one presents a potential risk for the other?Even this current example does not have a clear cut ending. Although I can agree that it is likely the girl would have survived with treatment, there is also a very real chance it would not have helped. People really do die, even with treatment, and with no malpractice.I do not believe the State, which is simply the collected opinion of voters, can make a good decision with respect to what a family should do regarding themselves in any particular situation. I think that mistake should be left up to the family, and so in the case of children, up to the parents. This isolates any tragedy to the people most concerned. Elevating the State to the role of uber-parent only increases the likelihood of ones own children falling under the ignorance of others. Because we have a Constitution which is supposed to keep people from imposing their worldviews on others. That is what I am arguing. That is what freedom and tolerance is about. If you had faith in a nonmedical procedure that would save the child, or a lack of faith in medical procedures, I don't think you would or should. However, if the issue is religious vs secular faiths, I am in favor of giving secular faith the same benefits of religious faith. Yes, it is a sad state of affairs that children are not fully autonomous beings capable of making individual choices, and that they have no contol of who ends up making important choices for them.I prefer children to suffer under the rare chance of having asshole parents, rather than both adults and children suffering under the certainty of every other person in the nation being an asshole. Using your vernacular.Parents have children. The State does not. Both make mistakes. The State tends to make larger ones, when it makes them. Have you read more recent interviews with them? You lose. I am overwhelmed by the clarity of your logic. Yes, parents cannot outright kill children to feed a god's desire. That is not what is being discussed here. I did not say it secured anything. That is your position. I said sacrificing freedom for security, one gets and deserves neither. They did not kill their child. Diabetes apparently killed the child. They chose what to their mind was the appropriate course of action for an illness. There is a vast difference between intentionally killing someone, and choosing the least efficient method for medical attention.Accusing people like randman or myself as asking for children to die is pure propaganda as neither of us want that. It seems we would even argue to such parents that they should seek treatment if they want the likely best outcome. We just won't invade their decision making on that point by force of law.In that way we ensure that the State cannot force us into activities we would not want for our families, which might also end in death (or suffering). My point was that GM avoided the fact that kids die either way. No, this is not true and entirely avoids the point I was making. That an inoculation kills a child, no one is held responsible. That a family decides to have a conjoined twin killed in order to give the other a better life, no one is held responsible. The question of medical intervention always carries risk, it is not all negligence.And I would further like to stake this line of argument in noting that suing someone does not bring the kid back. If a couple does what the State demands, and then their kid dies, suing means nothing. Yes, I can see the difference between these, as well as the difference between some further choices... people having different ideas of what constitutes help, and people overtly killing someone. Your stock dilemma does not capture the reality of the issue it is attempting to address. There was no murder in this case. The best one can argue for is criminal neglect. In any case, when is worldview able to trump murder? Abortion. Infanticide (to increase the value of life for a remaining twin). Not to mention any other medical decision for a child which does not involve potentially extending life to its maximum. These choices are very hard. It usually comes down to a family deciding what is right for their own worldview, though to some other group will often be seen as horrendous and... murder. I did not say GM said it, but she certainly implied it. To label my side as asking for it, inherently suggests that hers does not. One might check the subthread title she chose, if not her direct accusation. Check that argument again... calmly... and you should be able to spot the inconsistencies. You may also find why we would have a Constitution.

---

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

First, I want to shift this away from this couple in specific. It appears there are differing accounts of what happened, including the fact that they had no idea she was diabetic (which drastically changes the picture). Let's assume for sake of further argument we are discussing a family that knows a child has a particular illness, is made aware of medical treatments, and chooses their own method. It could just as well be a secular holistic concept as religious dogma. In either case, the modern medical treatment is avoided and death of the child is the result.I take exception to the claim I mangled Franklin's quote. I would argue that the term essential is a description of what liberty is, not what type of liberty is exempt from sacrifice. If I took the latter view, there is no liberty exempt for barter.But to answer the question of how essential treating seriously ill children with prayer is... it is as essential as any other choice a parent can make with regard to the health of their child. Flies' assertion that an atheist would be persecuted does not undermine my argument. If true, it only argues that atheists should have the same coverage, not less. I disagree with your homeopathy claim. This is a modern and fallacious argument. But taken as granted, I am still perplexed as to how the State gets to determine what is the common good on so personal a matter? That you argue the State ought to protect children from the delusions of their parents, delivers my exact line of rebuttal... lots of people think this and are delusional on many different matters. I don't want a bunch of people protecting my children from my delusions, and so I don't protect their children from their own. This segregates the delusions and any resulting tragedies to individual families. This is an opposing concept of what constitutes freedom, as well as medical necessity. No child ought to be given medical service simply because of its purported benefits to most, and treated as worthy sacrifices on the alter of medicine. This is an individual choice as to what is important, what risks and outcomes are desirable.There are plenty of circumstances where medicine also involves suffering and risk for longer term potential benefits. Should you decide what to do, or the State? Why?As long as a parent is making a conscious choice for what the believe is the betterment of their child, I do not believe they are acting neglectfully. Neglect is avoiding making such actions or decisions. The State has no role in telling people their belief about the afterlife (or spirits) is delusional and so such concerns should be thought as avoiding responsibility. Neither should the State be telling people what they should consider appropriate risk, or charge them with such avoidance. No, that is not obvious, though it is clear that many people have decided to make it a replacement for God and Church. Right and wrong is a religious concept and has no real concern in our republic. The question of laws is the balance of rights taken for onesself.I can grant you that children are a very sticky subject regarding rights. But this has nothing to do with right and wrong. This is clearly the case as there are so many different versions of such. Such parents are right according to their worldview and the State has no say on such matters, even if there is an open legal question whether their child has a individual right to modern medical care. That is your opinion. I happen to agree I would rather base my care on worldly materialist science, but that does not make it ethical. And I dare say science has no claim regarding their methods anyway. The point of prayer is not simply that divinity will provide a better material outcome, it is that reliance on materialist means to prolong corporal existence is itself harmful in some way. How would science begin to challenge that notion?I dread the concept that the State can tell them that their beliefs are wrong and delusional in some definitive sense. Where does that end? I feel most people arguing for control over such families, would not be making such claims if their own worldview was not in majority at this time. The right to abortion hinges on the State not deciding moral concepts for individuals. Prostitutes have no arguable similarity to children. The big issue here is the rights of children. Should the parents play the role of primary decision maker? Should the State? Or should the child? Most everyone agrees the latter is impossible, which leaves the other two. Leaving it to the parents, maximizes freedom and minimizes the very kinds of tragedies you are discussing. That is untrue. Clearly the death of any child from an inoculation could have been avoided, yet you have already argued those deaths should be thought okay based on some ultilitarian numbers concept (which is also delusional thinking). What about parents that decide not to have their child go through chemo or some other surgery, in order to avoid the pain or destructive effects?I might also add, that many anti-abortionists would agree with your statement. Clearly those could also be avoided. This gets back to my earlier discussion. Given that children are deemed too young to make such decisions, who makes the decisions for them. Unless you are going to argue that parents are too young to do so, then they should make the decision for their own child. I do not buy arguments that suggest any current majority of voters will inherently do better.You want such parents punished? Haven't they been punished enough? In any case, what I don't want to face is the State punishing me by forcing me to agree with all its ideas of what is good for my family, much less any follow up punishments when they turn out to be wrong.

---

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

First of all, without malice, this was not a case of willful torture or murder. For a person wanting to throw in legal arguments, that should be rather obvious.Second, an appeal to SCOTUS doesn't solve anything. The Supreme Court has upheld slavery and many other things we do not agree with today.I would agree with the decision where community health is the concern. However, a diabetic child, or decisions related to such personal health issues is not a threat to community health. I would also agree that a parent should not withhold treatment they would take for themselves, but this is not the case. I would agree that they are ignorant people, who are not taking advantages available to them by modern medicine. Then again I cannot say anything regarding how that might effect them spiritually. Children are not a license to ignore the most basic protections this secular society grants to citizens, especially in regards to decisions about the welfare of their child. And when that society decides that you are the zealous parent?I am always saddened when the new majority decides it is time to make their opinion the law of the land... even when I happen to agree with most of that opinion.

---

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 is hardly an important point. Yes, there should not be a disparity between atheists and theists regarding treatment of their children.You have not answered the more important point that if any of these types of people became the majority, then such activity can be pushed on you and other parents using the legal argument you have constructed.Given the rise of fundamentalism, that is particularly troublesome for the US. A parent has the right to live according their own beliefs and attend the wellbeing of their children within that system. Is it your position, that for whatever reason, a majority of voters gets to determine what is the best system of beliefs and institute them (and their corresponding mistakes) on all parents?

---

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

First, if you are the case where your kid dies, appeals to the majority of cases doesn't mean anything. Second, everyone keeps avoiding the fact that it is more than a claim prayer will work better. The point is that (for them) medical intervention causes a spiritual harm, which is totally beyond physical problems.I might totally disagree with that opinion, and argue against it vigorously. But my opinion ought to end at their door. I really cannot say what happens on the spiritual plane, and I should not force them by law to obey my opinions on that matter.

---

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

I realize when you can't mount a cogent argument, you have to rely on slander and obfuscation, but this was a bit over the top... I have never said anything of the sort, regarding slaughter or pimping.My clear statements throughout any discussion on the topic of sex is that there can be laws, just not AoC laws (which are patently ridiculous, with no scientific standing, and counterproductive as a legal tool). Contrary to your assertion, my position supports laws so that parents can restrict the sexual activity of their children to suit their religious beliefs... not laws to allow them to force kids into prostitution. Get it? Empowering parents, not the State.That position is consistent with my position here, where I believe parents should be free to practice their own belief system with their family, not the State to impose singular concepts.Really, if you can't handle mature debate, stop posting.FYI, I will not be dealing with any more sex issues in this thread where they are clearly not on topic. While I realize this forum is less monitored, I hope admins will step in to prevent this kind of activity if it continues.

---

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

You seem a lot more angry these days. I also heard recently that you've switched away from Xianity... which it certainly seems like. I had found your posts, and lifestyle intriguing even if different than my own. If you don't mind sharing, what happened? If you do mind, sorry for asking.

---

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

You said willful torture and murder, not me. That is different than criminal negligence which is what you appear to be setting out here. I believe all murders do involve intention to harm, which is obviously not the case here.On the point of negligence, they thought they were doing right (aka helping) according to their own way of thinking. I believe that is really all that should be asked of anyone. So if you have a child with advanced cancer, and your choice is between letting the child die without the suffering involved with chemo treatments, and doing so with the unguaranteed possibility the cancer might be put into remission, society has the right to force your child to go through the chemo? To say you are stupid?How about if your kid is on life support for a number of years and it doesn't look like there is much hope on recovery? Society gets to make that decision for your child? I agree that this is a huge point of disagreement between us. If the same concepts of child and live were shared by all, and all healing treatments of known risk, then I would agree with you. However, none of these are true. This is why these are decisions for someone to make, and in keeping with the concept of freedom, it is not the State's right to be that decision maker.Where your arguments fail to convince another regarding the right way to live, your vote should not either. I think you are arguing this from a point where you currently hold with the majority on these matters. I would point out that quantity of life is not the only valid worldview. For those that are religious (and some secularists) quality is also an issue. The value of a free society is that people are free to practice their own belief systems.To accept your position is to fully embrace the arguments against abortion. I think you misunderstood my point. I am saddened when the new majority attempts to impose its opinions on others. It is not true that that is what "we" do every day, nor what courts and legislature are for. Many of the founding fathers made this explicit. They warned that it is likely majorities would try, but that they are to be fought. The gov't that governs best, governs least. One does not have to choose between anarchy or imposition of majority opinion. That is in fact why the Bill of Rights was created, to create a limited gov't.AbE: By the way, if you haven't figured it out already, molbio was referring to me when she said Holmes. Feel free to read through the thread she linked to and let me know where I said anything close to what she claimed. Though I would advise not wasting your time. She was just jerking my chain, using you. It makes for great ad hominem and guilt by association though.Edited by Silent H, : moldio

---

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

I think your personal efforts are admirable. I don't wish to come off as saying you are uncaring, or that I disagree with the way you care for kids. Heck, I don't even want to come off as agreeing with the methods of the parents we are discussing.I agree that even more prayer just heightens the ridiculousness. Then again, my guess is that's just what they'll do.I will disagree however that all such parents are using religion as an excuse for inhumane treatment. Maybe some are. But I've known people like this that have abstained from medicine themselves (some died, some not). It is a real outlook on the world. As strange and odious as it may seem, I cannot agree with any claim that it is not genuine. I also disagree with people thinking too much about children in other families. That is only a recipe for anger and frustration. And as I said, I really do worry that they are becoming a tool to pry back freedom in general.I may happen to agree with what you would do with such power, I simply do not agree with how it has been used in the past and might be used in the future by others... particularly ideologues (secular or religious).Where we are in disagreement, I hope that it is without rancor.

---

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

It is a serious pet peeve of mine when people post links, which they have apparently not read, or understood. If I take the time to write a reply, I really do read the links supplied to me (or state up front that I have not).The post I was answering (to which you replied) stated that their actions were willful torture and murder, which he had altered later to say there are other forms of murder. All I said is that I believe all murders involve intention to harm. I took your statement and link seriously, though it would be one of edification on legal terminology regarding murder, rather than substance of this discussion... because of course as we have already seen the LAW states that this is not a crime, hence the thread.But anyway, I looked at your link. The full description would not apply to these people. They did not avoid caring. They supplied what turned out to be inadequate care for the condition. There is a major difference between someone who thinks the only solution is to do X and avoids it, and someone who believes they may also do Y.I would also point out, that the article makes clear it does not carry the same weight as 1st and 2nd degree murder, and is more in keeping with manslaughter... which I would also agree to be a legal equivalent.On your assessment of this case. Have you read the articles? From some I have read, no one even knew she had diabetes. That alone, makes it different than what you have described, but for sake of argument let's say they knew. and yet... Admit it, as an EMT you know the latter statement is the correct one. People do die, even with medical treatment. It happens.These people were also treating something they felt was just as if not more important which is her soul. That goes into quality of life for religious people. I am not one of those, but I can certainly understand that if one holds that view, it would.All medical science can do is prolong quantity of life, and in some small ways improve physical quality of life. There are many other aspects to quality of life which may supersede those. This is as true for religious as secular people. Actually, I administer whatever aid I can while having someone else dial 911... unless a doctor or EMT are present. Some may pray. That is the reality of living in a world with many different belief systems.What I would most fear is having a faith based culture mandate that when I'm injured everyone pray, or dialing 911 results in a prayer squad showing up. I have no sympathy for their ignorance, yet I do feel sorry for their tragedy. What will jail time serve for anyone, especially their remaining children who would likely be forced into foster homes?One thing I find amazing by everyone freaking out on these people, is that they ignore some rather strong evidence in favor of the parents, twisting it to condemn them instead. They do have other children, and have successfully raised them to this point, some of them almost age of majority. Hence, the evidence is that they can raise and care for children. You have taken a singular tragedy in that family and erased the contrary evidence to your position... the message we must take is that other kids are in danger!As it turns out, the other kids are not just fine, but agree with the actions of the parents. Perhaps the little girl also felt this way, even as she was dying. It is a different world view.

---

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

Hello Flies. Again the admin has stated people should refrain from writing when angry. This is what I requested in my reply, and you have failed to do so. I will not be replying to you, until you can write a cogent, mature argument.I also happen to like the Constitution. I want it. Simply stating that I don't, and you like it better is not adequate. Then again, neither was the rest. Calm down, review my position and arguments without your filter, and then blast away using real arguments. More light, less heat.Goodbye Flies.

---

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 is a curious position. Medicine is an ever evolving science. As such children are sometimes specifically used as guinea pigs for new treatments. Guess who has the call in that case? The parents. And if it fails they are not blamed.That said, I think your actual point was that parents should not rely on methods that have been outmoded by modern medicine, have no basis within it, or is not currently testable within that framework.Well I'd agree that I wouldn't and I wish others would not. But relying on such is not making guinea pigs of children. That statement means the parents are using the kids to test something before using it on themselves. That is wholly untrue. It is a reliance, not a testing, of a method they themselves would use on themselves just the same.I would add that there is no scientific way to deal with spiritual concerns. That we might heal a wound today, does not suggest what happens to a person's spirit from that treatment. That is part of the different worldview. They have different concerns than merely prolonging of life via a specific set of treatments. You need to heal your mind from this anger. It is doing neither of us any good. Logic is not mumble jumble. The value of tolerance is not mumble jumble.Wasn't it you and I against quite a number of people in an earlier thread, defending the use of physical punishment by parents in raising children? I am now facing the same arguments from you. Don't you see that? Let me be clear. I am not accusing you of using children as a tool. I stated that lately children have become a tool. I am not so much worried about how you would use it, but having set a precedent that concern for children allows the State to gain stewardship (as lyx put it), would allow people I do worry about to that same access.This is a problem the other poster and I have repeated and no one has dealt with, other than to laugh off that the majority can change.All this said, while I understand that you care for those children, the insulting part is to suggest that they do not. They have a different concept of the world than you, hence their methods will look offensive to you, like not caring. But to judge them that way is to judge religion, particularly when the state is employed. To start with, I did not understand your example. What difference would there be between truly believing letting a person lie there is a valid solution, and trusting in Jesus is a valid solution? Both would have had to be a faith oriented concept.If the question is that only allowing a particular brand of faith to care for children in their own way, then yes I would see the ridiculousness. Other than that, no.I do not believe I can tell another person what the correct view of the world is, nor impose that upon him or her. Since I view parents, rather than the State, the proper steward (I'll use lyx's term from now on) for children, then I cannot impose my system on them when it comes to deciding what form of medical and spiritual care to follow for their children.Do religious people seem ridiculous to me? Yes. That does not change the fact that I want their hands off me, when I do something ridiculous to them... say have an abortion, or let a conjoined twin die, or remove a feeding tube.As far as not infringing on religion or any way of life goes, it seems bizarre to say we'll allow you to say whatever you want, but you cannot practice the system you believe in when the majority disagrees. You cannot possibly use my position to advocate genocide. Oh wait, yes you can as I have heard countless times by anti-abortion advocates. Yes, if you view the fetuses as persons, in that case alone, you can view my position as able to support genocide.Legitimating State stewardship of children, means agreeing that should anti-abortion foes gain the majority, they can end all sorts of things, including modern medical work such as stem cell research. Which by the way is viewed as genocide as well, being just a further nazi-fication of abortion.Please do not treat me this harshly again. We may have opposing views on this issue, but I respect your person (and have for a long time). Please respect mine.

---

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

Thank you molbio for making my position clear, and refuting your own claims... That is absolutely true. AoC came about as part of a progressive campaign during the late 1800s/early 1900s to institute a variety of laws against sex in general. It is one of the few still left on the books from that age, many others repealed based on their having no support in science. Currently science has undercut any support for AoC laws, just the same as the others.I'm not going to apologize for supporting science against State institution of anachronistic Victorian-religious-prudish dogma.That does not however, suggest that parents can pimp their children, which was your claim. I simply support different kinds of laws, based in reason and directed toward empowering families and children. Yes, that is a very good quote to select of mine. Clearly that is discussing laws to empower families to protect themselves against rapists and child molesters. How you can pull an advocacy of parents pimping their children, is a testament to some deep problem you have with understanding english.I wasn't planning on addressing sex issues within this thread, but that particular quote not only refuted your earlier claim, but underlined the consistency in my position across the board.I am for removing State parentalism. I am for supporting parents to protect and raise their children according to their own beliefs. Including anachronistic Victorian-religious prudish dogma.

---

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