Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,904 Year: 4,161/9,624 Month: 1,032/974 Week: 359/286 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 50 of 286 (461797)
03-27-2008 8:09 PM


Um, has anyone noticed that the couple have 2 more children and that they reportedly said "We didn't have enough faith"? They also said "we are remaining strong for our children" and "Only our faith in God is giving us strength at this time."
I'm kinda scared for the other 2 kids in that household.

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 85 of 286 (461884)
03-28-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Blue Jay
03-28-2008 12:27 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
Last I checked, which was yesterday, 44 out of 50 states have such a statute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2008 12:27 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 184 of 286 (462319)
04-02-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 12:58 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Catholic Scientist writes
quote:
Except for minors, because they’re not able to make their own decisions
Are you implying that minors should be able to drive, drink, smoke, have sex, etc.?
quote:
No, the point was that people are advocating that this girl should have been forced to receive insulin because she has a right to life, however, if this took place before insulin was invented, they wouldn’t be able to advocate that. So does she really have that right to life if the insulin isn’t available?
I don't think this is a fair argument from your side. As far as I can see, noone is making the argument that she had the specific right to the insulin... specifically. People are saying that she had the right to a proven-to-work treatment available, and if that treatment is insulin shot then it's insulin shot she should have gotten.
quote:
I don’t think the government should be able to force anyone to take anything. People get to decide what treatment they receive or don’t, not the government.
But we have already established that children don't have the right to make that kind of decision for themselves. This is why parents are able to make the decision for them. In other sectors, we have also established that if the parents are unable to fulfill the needs of the children then the next people in line to make the decision are the social workers. Unless, of course, you are advocating that social workers have no right to take children away from abusive households.
quote:
The parents chose prayer as the treatment for their child, which was legally a legitimate effort, so the government doesn’t have to step and say that she must receive insulin.
I think this is main part of the issue. Some people here are arguing that prayer ought not to be a legally legitimate method of treatment.
quote:
But molesters and killers are doing an action, these parents did an inaction. They didn’t kill their child, they allowed their child to die naturally.
Abuse does not always involve active physical abuse. Negligence is a form of abuse. There is also a thing called negligent homicide.
quote:
We don’t have to do everything we possible can to make people live as long as possible.
I think this all boils down to where we draw the line between when we must act to save a person's life and when we call it a night. Some people here clearly see the line drawn a little beyond faith healing while others advocate the line being drawn before faith healing.
quote:
How does a person who cannot live have a “right to live”?
Technically, none of us can live without certain intervention of some sort to keep us alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 2:46 PM teen4christ has replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 208 of 286 (462354)
04-02-2008 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 2:46 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Catholic Scientist writes
quote:
No. But, well, they are capable of those things.
I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this one. The issue is whether society as a whole should allow children to do these things or not.
quote:
But if someone doesn't want the insulin shot, you don't have the right to force them to take it.
Some children want to smoke, drive, drink, etc. We as a society have already established that children are not capable of making sound decisions on those things and therefore should not be allowed to make those decisions on their own. How is deciding to die any different?
quote:
The parents made the decision for the girl to receive prayer as treatment for her illness. They fulfilled their legal obligation. Being morally opposed to that as a method doesn't mean that you can force another method on them.
First of all, I don't think we may ever know if not receiving proper treatment was this girl's first choice at all.
Second, you are implying that faith healing is as effective as modern medicine and therefore should be held in the same light.
With regard to the legal obligation part, that is exactly what some people are debating about, whether or not the law that shields these parents from legal accountability for this girl's death is constitutional or not.
quote:
What about these people's right to religious freedom?
Are you arguing that one's reilgious freedom should supercede someone else's right to live?
quote:
Sure, but you shouldn't force other people to put the line where you think it should go. If they want to rely on faith healing, then they should be free to do that.
You are making a strawman argument. Nobody is saying that we should force people from not relying on faith healing. What some people are arguing is that religious people ought not to have the right to force faith healing, which I think is pretty clear that it is an ineffective method of treatment, upon others, especially the youngest members of our society.
quote:
Performing those certain interventions means you can live. If you cannot, then you don't really have a "right" to live.
You are playing a game with semantics. People here have been using the word "right" to mean legal right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 4:41 PM teen4christ has replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 216 of 286 (462365)
04-02-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 4:41 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Catholic Scientist writes
quote:
Minors are allowed to drive.
I didn't say minors. I said children. Are you saying that 11 year-olds are allowed to drive, at least in some parts of the country?
quote:
I think if you can operate a motor vehicle, you can decide if you want a medical treatment or not.
Same question.
quote:
The difference is in not allowing someone to do something versus making someone do something.
What? Again, you are playing the semantic game.
Suppose I hold a rock over your head and let it drop on you. You could argue that I intentionally dropped, through my action, the rock onto your head. I could also argue that I simply brought the rock to a place that just happened to be above your head and then, through my inaction, allow the rock to fall back to Earth.
Your semantic game is getting boring.
[quote]I wrote
quote:
Second, you are implying that faith healing is as effective as modern medicine and therefore should be held in the same light.
[/quoet]
No I'm not
Well, yes you did. You are claiming that the parents' choice of prayer over modern medicine was a legitimate effort in trying to do the best for their daughter. If I didn't know better, I'd say you are comparing faith healing to modern medicine as if they are on equal grounds.
quote:
You've got a strawman too. I'm not saying that they should be allowed to force her to rely only on faith healing. What if it is what she wanted?
Again, we may never know what she really wanted, considering they isolated her from the rest of the world. Some people would call this brainwashing.
I remember watching on the discovery channel a couple years back about this Christian cult that promoted sex with children as a way to recruit people. The leader of the cult was finally arrested and charged with child molestation and all of that. The most disturbing thing was some of the children (10-15 year-olds) "rescued" from this cult were so brainwashed that they insisted there was nothing wrong with having sex with adults to recruit them into the faith. Even after the cult leader was imprisoned, the remaining members of the cult continued to practice this underaged prostitution. They got around the law by moving to other countries like countries in South America and Africa.
The point is I saw interviews with several of these really young children that couldn't wait to have sex with adults as a way to bring them closer to God.
At some point we have to question whether these children ought to be able to make these decisions on their own, especially when we know for a fact that they were brainwashed into believing these things.
quote:
No, I'm saying that if they want to die (not receive medical treatment), then you can't force them to remain alive (receive medical treatment).
Again, we may never know what this girl really wanted, since she was isolated from the outside world and was brainwashed by her parents. At some point, we really have to question whether these children can actually make sound decisions.
quote:
I'm not so sure about that. I haven't been and I don't think Stile is.
Then ask him what he meant.
Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 4:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 6:07 PM teen4christ has replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 219 of 286 (462375)
04-02-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 6:07 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Catholic Scientist writes
quote:
BTW, children are minors...
All children are minors. Not all minors are children. Semantic game...
quote:
I think an 11 year old is capable of operate a motor vehicle...
Ok...
quote:
Does that really not make sense?
Try to think of what we've been talking about in regard to the little girl. Her parents never took her to a doctor since she was 3. They pulled her out of public school. They isolated her from the rest of the world. By doing all of these, they put her in danger of illnesses going undiagnosed. This is comparable to me holding a rock above your head. She became mortally ill. This is comparable to the rock slipping out of my hand. Her parents refused to let her have proper medical care. Instead, they relied on faith healing. This is comparable to me not warning you about the rock or push you out of the way and instead rely on God to help you. She died. This is comparable to the rock hitting your head.
It was the parents that put her in the situation in the first place. And through their inaction, they allowed her to die slowly, over a month no less.
quote:
Yes (well I didn't say best), but if you didn't read my quotes out of context, you would have realized I was talking about it in a legal manner. Legally, it was OK.
I agree, and legally it was ok to put black people in chains and make them do forced labor. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is just.
quote:
All this brainwashing stuff is speculation on your part.
Do you or do you not agree that it was brainwash?
quote:
Sure. Do you think it is impossible for this girl to have come to this decision on her own?
What decision? The fact is we don't know what she really wanted and may never know since she had already been isolated from the world.
In short, I don't think there's really not much else we can talk about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024