Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:36:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4734 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
Ooooh, now that's the real question--is the kid denying his or her faith?
Then we have a situation--the kid wants the treatment. If the child
understands the implications of forsaking her or his religion... if we
believe that the child is 'mature' enough to make that decision, then we
have to allow the child to make the decision about medical treatment.
>
> > > > 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.
If you saw a piano falling towards me, you are not beholden to do anything
about it. You have to live with your choices, as I have to live with
mine--i.e. standing under a piano in the first place. You didn't murder me
and I, in my afterlife, wouldn't have an issue with what you did. I would,
as the person I am, dive towards the person, shoving them (and hopefully me
in the process) out of the way. But again, I didn't *have* to do that--I'm
not legally responsible to do that.
> > > > 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.
Some of my logic gets fuzzy as well--don't worry 'bout it.
>
> > 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.
How does society decide whether a parent wanted the kid or not--if the
parents don't want hte child--adoption agencies. THe parent makes that
choice, whether the kid was an accident or planned, it's the parents who
make that decision.
>
> > --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?
We excercise our 'authority' over the planet with mixed results. It's
beginning to dawn on us that treating the world shamefully and exploitively
has disasterous consequences. However, treating the world on which we live
with respect and consideration can gain us nothing but good rewards. This
can be taken into the realm of parenting--a child is a child. I'm not
saying that they become *presto* an adult at exactly 18, but there is a
growth process in which the child needs the love and protection of a family
and cannot sustain his or herself on his or her own. Helping and critiquing
is one thing. Lining up a whole bunch of 'You have to do this...' and 'You
cannot do that...' is something entirely different. Spanking was the way of
the land until like, the late '70's. Were our parents abusive? I know mine
weren't, and I was spanked as a form of punishment. I won't spank my child
'cause there are other things 'n stuff (fuzzy rationale ;) ) but a quick
light swat on the butt might not be out of line after other things are
tried. Whatever, I won't know until I'm a parent.
> > > 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.
Any god that believes in not eating will only have one generation of
worshippers. Every single society places great esteem on food and no one
can dispute the health benefits of eating. Taking food away is abuse.
>
> 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?
Not feeding your child is not in any religion I know, and since we're
talking about belief systems, that's the bottom line--no religious belief
system says 'don't feed your kids' 'cause that would probably be the end of
that religion for one thing... We're talking about a religious belief
system that says 'no sharp object shall pierce the skin...'. That's what
we're talking about--the soul is lost when that happens. If a parent is
responsible for the child then the parent is responsible for *all* aspects
of the child, including the soul (whether we out here believe it exists or not)
>
> And what if the parent believes that the only way to save the child's soul is
> to build the pyre?
Again, separate active abuse to what we perceive to be abuse. Me swatting
the childs hand and saying 'Ta!' (some dutch thing that I never quite
understood but it's better than 'No!') before he accidentally puts it on a
hot element is not abuse to me, but it may be to some.
> > 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.
Who sets 'Our standard of Care'? Again, wo are we to force that standard on
others? I'm not out to kill anybody-I'd rather save than anything else, but
I'm not going to force my standard of living on anybody else but me.
> > 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.
What about spiritual needs? if the operation prevents the spiritual needs
from being met, we have to say that causes just as much harm to the child as
physical, emotional or intellectual harm. What sets the physical above the
others?
>
> > > > 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.
Some would dispute and say that circumcision is healthier for the person as
he gets older. And see, that's the thing--for every doctor that says 'this
is how it must be done' there'll be some other doctor saying 'No, that's so
wrong, you should think about doing it this way over here'. The point is,
is up to the parent to walk this minefield of life for the kid.
5 years ago cholesterol was bad. Pure-D bad. If a parent fed eggs to their
kids during those years, were they guilty of abuse? Now we have 'good'
cholesterol and 'bad' cholesterol. Whatever... what'll happen in a few years?
>
> > 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.
Keeping kids safe from the harms of life is very important, as well as
keeping kids safe from meddling do-gooders thrusting their ideas of what's
right and wrong on them...
>
> > 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.
Parents are responsible for their kids and all facets thereof, they don't
'own' them.
>
> > 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.
agree completely, but added to that list is the idea that you're responsible
for *all* areas of the childs life, including but not limited to the
physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual realms. External meddling
from the 'moral majority' is arrogant and presumptuous first off, and
secondly, is highly suspect since the moral majority changes its tune every
so often. Leave the parenting to the parents (iff there is no abuse, of course)
>
> Chris
Dave
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
