Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:16:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4972 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Look, in the vast scope of the universe, our lifespans are teeny-tiny. I'm
> > not belittling life--I love mine annd I sure don't want it to end... but we
> > have no concept what there is after our physical shells are pushing up
> > daiseys. If a religion believes that the 'soul' is not going to heaven due
> > to a medical procedure, who are we to say they *must* have it?
>
> Fine. I agree. But who are you to say that I *may not* have it? Even if
> you're my parent.
You may have whatever you want for you and your child, as, if and when I
have them, I should be the responsible guardian for my child.
>
> > Sure some
> > would say 'Well, what if your religion says you have to go blow up folks...'
> > well then that's different, isn't it?
>
> Not really.
>
> In one case, superstitious zealots are killing innocents. In the other,
> superstitious zealots are killing innocents. I don't see a whole bunch of
> difference.
No, in one case the superzealots are killing innocents, ending lives that
they themselves are not responsible for (even if they were responsible does
not justify killing), infringing on the rights and freedoms of others, the
other is religious person(s) letting nature happen--they are not doing the
killing.
> > The parents raise the kids, pure and simple.
>
> What does that mean? I perceive it as a suggestion that society does not have
> a vested interest in keeping kids safe from their parents. This is the full
> blown assertion that children are chattel rather than members of society,
> entitled to the protection of rights. That dog won't hunt.
Society has a vested interest in keeping kids safe from abuse. Does this
vested interest mean we should install video cameras in cribs and tot's
bedrooms everywhere? Does spanking go against the rights of the child?
Timeouts?
Parents are parents for a reason--they're parents--they are the responsible
entities that brought the child into the world and are given the
responsibility to raise the child. That does not necessitate raising the
kid willy-nilly for that goes against what is best for the child and
society. However, us 'buttinskies' who believe that we know what's best for
raising someone elses kid--that is just not good--if *all* my decisions are
going to be critiqued and second guessed, then what's the point? Of course,
that's my slippery slope, jumping to the end of the page thing... but oh well :)
> > Yes, if there's abuse and I mean real honest to goodness abuse,
> > then that's completely different.
>
> How bad does something have to be to count as abuse? Is it only abuse if the
> parents _know_ that they're doing wrong? If a young parent begins displaying
> schizophrenia, and believes that God has told him to sacrifice his son, do you
> just let that happen?
Again, not only is it the intent, but what the parent does. If the parent
hauls off and whacks a kid across the face 'cause the kid was bad, that's a
little excessive and abusive. The Parent did physical harm. If the parent
builds a pyre in the back yard and wants to sacrifice the kid to whatever,
then the parent is doing something that will end the kids life.
On the other hand, if a parent believes that the child will lose its soul if
the child has an operation, how can we come along and say the kid must have
an operation? It is to the parent as certain a death as if we put the kid
up on the pyre and sacrificed the kid to the god of science and medicine.
Science and medicine may be our god but who are we to thrust that god upon
those who don't appreciate and/or believe in them?
>
> Let me point out that the word -abuse- is synonomous with misuse. To abuse a
> person is to use that person improperly. It includes, in my opinion, a much
> wider range of behaviours than our law affirms.
>
> Do you think that parents should be able to have their children's ears removed?
> Consider carefully, that it makes cleaning the head quicker and easier!
Again, there's harm and there's letting nature happen.
> > Not letting a child undergo a medical
> > procedure, even if it's life-saving, is *not* abuse if there is a violation
> > of fundamental principles.
>
> But wait, it is a violation of fundamental priciples to let the child die
> without medical care...mine. So whose principles matter?
I believe it's the parent first, to the point where the parent is physically
or emotionally harming the child.
>
> > There are many children all over the world, even
> > in G8 countries, that don't get the the surgery they need and they don't
> > have the religious issues--worry about them instead.
>
> I worry about them in addition. And I think that we (not the gubmint, but you
> and I) ought to be helping them.
Agreed, we should help everyone that we can and try to do our best at all times.
>
> > Defying a religious belief, whether we believe in it or not, it's a base
> > principle for them--they are willing to die for that principle, just as we
> > should be willing to die for ours. We should not, however, have other
> > people die for what we believe
>
> But isn't that what happens when parents allow their babies to die untreated?
> Do you really believe that the baby is a Christian Scientist?
Do you believe that the baby is Jewish when the males get their unit
snipped? It's a completely unneeded medical procedure. We in Christian
circles have an ongoing debate between infant and adult baptism--to me it's
'who cares?' but some people, this is like the foundation of their faith.
Whatever-it doesn't matter to me what you believe, as long as your beliefs
do not impact and infringe with my freedom to believe and do what I want,
and that guy over there can believe and do what she or he wants.
> > --and for them--surgery = spiritual death.
>
> Really? I thought they just used illness as an opportunity to practice their
> faith more firmly. They believe that illness and death happen because we don't
> have strong enough faith to keep them at bay. At leat that's how I undersand
> it.
I really don't know about what they believe--to me it's irrelevant as long
as they're not harming the kids. Allowing nature to happen cannot be
considered to be harm and abuse. We may buck against nature with our
medical advancements, but that's for us and we should not force others to
succumb to our gods if they don't want to.
> > ~60 years on this planet weighed against an eternity with our Lord and
> > Saviour?--No contest.
>
> But I _know_ that people die and that it sucks. I don't know that there's some
> "eternity with our Lord" afterward. Why not let said "Lord and Savior" take
> care of the afterlife and we'll take care of the physical life?
The unfortunate thing is that with most religions you have to do things in
this life to justify existance in the afterlife. Good, bad, again, to me,
irrelevant as long as your lifestyle dictated to you by whichever gods you
believe in do not impact or infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.
We, each and every single one of us, are responsible for our own actions.
If we bring a child into this world, we are then responsible for that child
and the actions taken by that child until the child reaches a mature age to
decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. Read all of
this with the ideas listed above, that we cannot abuse the child, no matter
the circumstances.
Life happens. It is our conceit and arrogance to think that our way of
living is superior to anyone elses.
> Chris
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
