Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:56:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4787 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > 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.
But what I'm asking, is: what if the child wants medical treatment and the
parent forbids it?
> > > 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.
So if I see that a piano is falling from the seventh floor window right above
you and I choose to say nothing -- letting you squash, that's OK? I guess it's
not quite murder, but it is awful. Even if I believed that not allowing you to
exercise your innate telekinesis and save yourself would irritate a diety.
> > > 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?
I happen to think so. I know that at least with the latter, I am in the
minority. And I acknowledge that I'm thinking of "rights" fuzzily.
> Parents are parents for a reason--they're parents
It is essentially random happenstance. Many many parents are parents merely
because they were ignorant of the consequences and details of sexuality.
> --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?
Well, what do you mean? Are you saying that the whole point of being a parent
is so you can exercise your authority of those less powerful? That sounds kind
of messed up. There is value in being critiqued, how else do we get better?
> > 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.
On the other hand, if a parent believes that the child will lose its soul if
the child has a meal, how can we come along and say the kid must have
a meal? 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 cullinary delight.
Your exact logic could be used to defend parents who stop feeding their
kids. witholding medical care is like witholding food. If parents just stop
feeding their kids and "let nature take its course" then is it abuse? Who are
you to force _food_ on a child?
And what if the parent believes that the only way to save the child's soul is
to build the pyre?
> 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?
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that once a kid is old enough
to have an opinion, they can decide what they want about their medical care.
Until then, I think that our standard of care is an appropriate expectation for
young ones.
> I believe it's the parent first, to the point where the parent is physically
> or emotionally harming the child.
Neglect -- which the denial of appropriate medical care is, is a form of
child abuse. If you fail to secure the needs of your children, or legal system
may find you abusive.
> > > 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.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is first order abuse and is illegal everywhere that real
civilization has prevailed. Not only is it not needed, it is harmful. My
cutting the ears off to make the head easier to wash is a circumcision analogy.
> 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.
I'm happy to let you believe whatever you want. It is your actions, when
harmful to others, that I would control. And I don't think that babtising
babies is harmful. Just silly. ;-)
> 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.
I hope that my analogy to eating has made you reconsider. I really can't
disagree with you more strongly. More elusive examples would include being
picked on at school. I think that schools who allow inter-child torment are
abusive and violating their first role of keeping kids safe.
> 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.
I agree. I just don't think that parents own their children.
> 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.
I agree that parents are responsible for their kids. But that doesn't give
them special powers _over_ the kids, it is only extra responsibilities _to_ the
kids. When you choose to have kids, you _must_ do a whole bunch of things,
like educate them and love them and feed them nurture their productivity and
protect them and... But it should be beneath you to play dictator on the small
scale with the misunderstanding that you somehow own them. It is abuse
(misuse) to own a human.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
