100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: When religion creates ignorance... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Sun 05/17/09 04:52 PM
|
|
Fanta is saying, it is a parents right to kill their child if what necessary to save them goes against their religious beliefs. See this is the problem. You use the wording "to kill their child." Who said that? I didnt, and I would never assume there is a guaranteed cure for a child with a terminal illness. The parents didnt give the child the illness did they? NO! So who would assume that the parents are killing the child? In this case yes but Fanta has taken discussion beyond that. He is now saying that no matter what the circumstance it is always a parents right to deny treatment even if the results are a known death sentence to the child. To me that is killing. I'm pushing the extreme because every time I ask the question he's dilutes the question with a non-life threatening circumstance, and answers that instead of the actual question asked. That's not killing! That's letting natural events run their course. I have a little experience with unfounded death sentences from doctors who think they know everything! More often than not their know everythings are just assumptions. They Guess! Natural events run their course? Does this mean that I don't teach my child how to brush their teeth? Let their teeth rot because it's a natural event taking it's course. I guess I shouldn't get those braces for them next month. The teeth my child has now are in their natural state. Should I quit giving my child their asthma meds.? Asthma attacks are just natural events for my child. Should I just let it be nature running it's natural course? My child had reflux of the bladder when they were small. I guess I shouldn't have had my child take preventative antibiotics for that. A kidney infection and damage would have been the natural event running it's course. Is that your beliefs? I asked you the questions. My beliefs are to do whatever it takes to keep my child alive and do whatever it takes to give them the best quality of life that I can. They are my priority. If those arent your beliefs then why did you mention them? Do you just like asking superficial what-if questions. Personally I would take her to the DR. Are you silly? If those are your beliefs then no one has the right to intercede with how you raise your child! It would be vain to assume to know better than anyone about how they should choose to raise their child! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Sun 05/17/09 06:03 PM
|
|
That's not killing! That's letting natural events run their course. I have a little experience with unfounded death sentences from doctors who think they know everything! More often than not their know everythings are just assumptions. They Guess! Natural events run their course? Does this mean that I don't teach my child how to brush their teeth? Let their teeth rot because it's a natural event taking it's course. I guess I shouldn't get those braces for them next month. The teeth my child has now are in their natural state. Should I quit giving my child their asthma meds.? Asthma attacks are just natural events for my child. Should I just let it be nature running it's natural course? My child had reflux of the bladder when they were small. I guess I shouldn't have had my child take preventative antibiotics for that. A kidney infection and damage would have been the natural event running it's course. Is that your beliefs? I asked you the questions. My beliefs are to do whatever it takes to keep my child alive and do whatever it takes to give them the best quality of life that I can. They are my priority. If those arent your beliefs then why did you mention them? Do you just like asking superficial what-if questions. Personally I would take her to the DR. Are you silly? If those are your beliefs then no one has the right to intercede with how you raise your child! It would be vain to assume to know better than anyone about how they should choose to raise their child! You know why I asked those questions. You said, "That's letting natural events run their course." I was showing you what happens when we let natural events run their course. Letting natural events run their course sounds so very harsh to me, btw. My beliefs also include intervening when a child is being neglected or abused. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And so do mine!
I guess the difference here is the right to make that choice for someone else. I dont claim that my way is better than another's. As biological parents that is a determination they must weigh themselves! If you adopt the kid then its a whole different ballgame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There ARE cases when death is an absolute certainty and the cure is known. We can take Rose's example of transfusions which most Jehovah witnesses do not believe in. If a child was in an accident and is bleeding to death and has already lost too much blood to just stabilize then that child WILL die with out a transfusion. Is it ok for a parent to deny the child that transfusion, yes or no. No other BS just yes or no, is it ok in your view? My opinion - Yes, absolutely, the parent has the right to deny a child a transfusion. Whether using religion or beliefs as the excuse, they have the right to decide as such. What's the comment - Never assume, makes an ASS out of U and ME?! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question then...Whats your feeling on assisted suicide? Just curious.... Pulling of a feeding tube? I believe assisted suicide should be legal. I'm sure there's enough lawyers and such, that could pound out a decent legal viewpoint to allow people while they were considered sane and with it to fill out and make decisions as to how they want their life to end. I personally have a DNR, that my folks are aware of, and if there was a contract or a way to put down the information NOW, with adjustments made over the years as needed, that if the time should come that I'm in excrutiating pain, have no continued decent existence, then I be allowed to commit suicide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question then...Whats your feeling on assisted suicide? Just curious.... Pulling of a feeding tube? What difference does it make how I feel really? I had to watch my dad die...he had cancer too. He signed a do not resuscitate. If I am sick right now and have no insurance to go to the doctor, will you force me to go or pay for it if I go? Just curious...  Sorry to hear you are sick...I cannot force you to do anything...You are an adult capable of making your own deciesions...Do what 1/5 of americans do go to the ER...Yes I would help you if needed...Im involved in fundraising for other causes and I would do all I can... Hope you get feeling better Sorry for the  or is it?????? Thank you but I am not sick. I was just giving a scenario "Quote" ...If I am sick...you missed that part. Thank you for your offer to help. To answer your question " I was just asking...If your dad suffered at the end would you agree with assisting in his death so he dosnt suffer?" No I could not assist in his death...I did wish/pray for his healing or his release from agony. I kept trying to make him comfortable and kept telling him I loved him... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And so do mine! I guess the difference here is the right to make that choice for someone else. I dont claim that my way is better than another's. As biological parents that is a determination they must weigh themselves! If you adopt the kid then its a whole different ballgame. Their choice leaves when the child is being neglected or abused, IMO. The child is the priority. They are helpless. Why does it matter if they are adopted or not? I don't get that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So fanta..
If you are a heterosexual person who gives birth to a child it's no ones business how you rear the product of your sexual exploits? That is an interesting premise. If we follow your thinking a biological parent's offspring is merely chattel..no different from a cow, a goat or...even a house or car. So..I guess not taking your child to the doctor while they die from a treatable disease like diabetes is the same as not changing the oil on a car? After all they are both your possessions right? Run them into the ground just cause it's what you believe right? hah I am pro choice and I have been called a monster because of my position more than once. Funny, I could never have an abortion myself nor could I opt out of medical treatment that could save my child's life. If your premise is legitimate then a parent could legally beat, starve, molest, neglect, kill, torture and abandon their child...but...I guess that's okay right? I am deeply sickened by people who support on one hand the rights of a cluster or cells that have no personality, no independence, no life...those same people who don't want to pay for child health care, education or food programs arguing that these parents have a right to deny medical care that might save their child's life. Confused much? Don't tell me I am wrong please for wondering WTF you all are thinking? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And so do mine! I guess the difference here is the right to make that choice for someone else. I dont claim that my way is better than another's. As biological parents that is a determination they must weigh themselves! If you adopt the kid then its a whole different ballgame. I wouldnt trust my pet rat to some people we call parents!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saving the child over the parents rights is really what this is about. Forcing the boy to do conventional medecine over the other holistic treatment. With a judge setting a time frame. Hmmm! I guess it is a good demonstration of rights being revoked if conventional methods aren't inposed during a terminal illness.
It is a messed up situation at best. Reminds me of the woman's parents who fought over her feeding tube removal at the wishes of her remarried husband. Her parents desire for her to stay alive and to continue being kept alive on machines. It is f@%ked up. I am just saying forced medical treatment seems wrong, while at the same time it seems crucial in this scenario. IWould it make a difference though if he had an infectious disease though instead of cancer? What if he had AIDS or Tuberculosis? or Swine flu? Would that make a difference?    What if the kid was a disabled adult? What if he was 8 instead of 13? What if he cut his arm off and his parents wanted the God's to heal him? Just where is the line drawn? Should the government just sit back and say" Oh we don't want to infringe on their rights?"  It is a f&$ked up situation at best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think maybe part of this situation has been lost. I have read about his case in various formats. I recall hearing that the family is treating the child with herbal and traditional treatments. How does that fit into the discussion here? Do parents have a right to reject modern treatments for their child in favor of alternative medicinal practices?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saving the child over the parents rights is really what this is about. Forcing the boy to do conventional medecine over the other holistic treatment. With a judge setting a time frame. Hmmm! I guess it is a good demonstration of rights being revoked if conventional methods aren't inposed during a terminal illness. the point is unless they (those wanting to force care on the child) can give a guarantee they have no right to think they have a right to get involved and if thhey are forced into said treatment then when the child dies those that forced said treatment should be held liable for both pain and suffering and the death of the person being treated and it is called practicing medicine for a reason maybe the fda and the drug companies are afraid the parents plan will work and they won't get there money oh yeah the money who is responsible for the bill if the treatment is forced those that force the treatment i hope |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the strange part to me. The child has Hodgkin's lymphoma. When treated with chemotherapy, it has a very high cure rate of over 90%. If not treated, there is death.
I don't understand how someone could even fathom rejecting the chemotherapy in this situation. It's not really a gamble with the cure rate being so high. It's not a doctor saying that they "might" live with chemo. They're saying it's over 90% with chemo. It's a no-brainer to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many current and common ailments are a direct result from previously governed and mandated foods and drugs?
Do we know about the contents of the common immunizations, or of the previously used ones? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this situation here lies the case...
If the family does not believe in intervening in what they deem to be 'Gods' will - that which happens naturally without human intervention - then it is their right to do so. What right does anyone have to intervene? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Mon 05/18/09 10:06 AM
|
|
So fanta.. If you are a heterosexual person who gives birth to a child it's no ones business how you rear the product of your sexual exploits? That is an interesting premise. If we follow your thinking a biological parent's offspring is merely chattel..no different from a cow, a goat or...even a house or car. So..I guess not taking your child to the doctor while they die from a treatable disease like diabetes is the same as not changing the oil on a car? After all they are both your possessions right? Run them into the ground just cause it's what you believe right? hah I am pro choice and I have been called a monster because of my position more than once. Funny, I could never have an abortion myself nor could I opt out of medical treatment that could save my child's life. If your premise is legitimate then a parent could legally beat, starve, molest, neglect, kill, torture and abandon their child...but...I guess that's okay right? I am deeply sickened by people who support on one hand the rights of a cluster or cells that have no personality, no independence, no life...those same people who don't want to pay for child health care, education or food programs arguing that these parents have a right to deny medical care that might save their child's life. Confused much? Don't tell me I am wrong please for wondering WTF you all are thinking? If it's my child or anyone elses one thing is for sure. Its not yours and it isnt any of your business. Bringing irrelevant accusations and assumptions to your argument is sickening.  Trying to change the attention to child neglect and abuse is sickening. This thread is not about abuse or neglect! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So fanta.. If you are a heterosexual person who gives birth to a child it's no ones business how you rear the product of your sexual exploits? That is an interesting premise. If we follow your thinking a biological parent's offspring is merely chattel..no different from a cow, a goat or...even a house or car. So..I guess not taking your child to the doctor while they die from a treatable disease like diabetes is the same as not changing the oil on a car? After all they are both your possessions right? Run them into the ground just cause it's what you believe right? hah I am pro choice and I have been called a monster because of my position more than once. Funny, I could never have an abortion myself nor could I opt out of medical treatment that could save my child's life. If your premise is legitimate then a parent could legally beat, starve, molest, neglect, kill, torture and abandon their child...but...I guess that's okay right? I am deeply sickened by people who support on one hand the rights of a cluster or cells that have no personality, no independence, no life...those same people who don't want to pay for child health care, education or food programs arguing that these parents have a right to deny medical care that might save their child's life. Confused much? Don't tell me I am wrong please for wondering WTF you all are thinking? If it's my child or anyone elses one thing is for sure. Its not yours and it isnt any of your business. Bringing irrelevant accusations and assumptions to your argument is sickening. Trying to change the attention to child neglect and abuse is sickening. This thread is not about abuse or neglect! um actually it is...its in the original post.....they are looking at medical neglect... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies in advance to Satanist for using them in this example. If I err in assigning the use of human sacrifice to the religion wrongly I am sorry.
If I am a Satanist who believes in human sacrifice and I use my ten year old child as an offering killing the child in the process is it anyone's business other than mine? According to Fanta's argument killing my child in the name of my religion is or should be no ones business but mine. Nice... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So fanta.. If you are a heterosexual person who gives birth to a child it's no ones business how you rear the product of your sexual exploits? That is an interesting premise. If we follow your thinking a biological parent's offspring is merely chattel..no different from a cow, a goat or...even a house or car. So..I guess not taking your child to the doctor while they die from a treatable disease like diabetes is the same as not changing the oil on a car? After all they are both your possessions right? Run them into the ground just cause it's what you believe right? hah I am pro choice and I have been called a monster because of my position more than once. Funny, I could never have an abortion myself nor could I opt out of medical treatment that could save my child's life. If your premise is legitimate then a parent could legally beat, starve, molest, neglect, kill, torture and abandon their child...but...I guess that's okay right? I am deeply sickened by people who support on one hand the rights of a cluster or cells that have no personality, no independence, no life...those same people who don't want to pay for child health care, education or food programs arguing that these parents have a right to deny medical care that might save their child's life. Confused much? Don't tell me I am wrong please for wondering WTF you all are thinking? If it's my child or anyone elses one thing is for sure. Its not yours and it isnt any of your business. Bringing irrelevant accusations and assumptions to your argument is sickening. Trying to change the attention to child neglect and abuse is sickening. This thread is not about abuse or neglect! um actually it is...its in the original post.....they are looking at medical neglect... That's the presumption! The argument is whether a parent must follow the popular intervention into their parental and cultural rights. It's about whether we as a society should dictate those rights and allow the busy-bodies to commit cultural genocide because the feel superior in their life and belief system! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Mon 05/18/09 10:32 AM
|
|
Apologies in advance to Satanist for using them in this example. If I err in assigning the use of human sacrifice to the religion wrongly I am sorry. If I am a Satanist who believes in human sacrifice and I use my ten year old child as an offering killing the child in the process is it anyone's business other than mine? According to Fanta's argument killing my child in the name of my religion is or should be no ones business but mine. Nice... No one has suggested such an extreme. Maybe your just getting lost in the common sense of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
