Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whether it's a legal obligation or not, for the state to step in when parents cause physical harm to children is both useful & legal. Protection of civil liberty is government at its best, with children being the most in need.
So you think that might be my intention, eh.If you want to continue to respond a position that isn't mine and stuff I didn't say, well... okay.
This is a separate issue, & one I've held forth upon (advocatingIn any case, I don't consider humans, children or otherwise, to be the most in need organisms on this planet by a very, very, very, very longshot. I really can't get interested in issues like this when humans are responsible for a sixth mass extinction and doing very little to make amends for that.
So you think that might be my intention, eh.
This is a separate issue, & one I've held forth upon (advocating
population control for the sake of both people and critters.)
I think parents are responsible for caring for their minor children.
They have the right to chose what kind of schooling they will receive; what religious,or spiritual education they want their child to have, etc.
They most certainly have the right to decide what their child will or will not be subjected to, in the matter of health care.
For example, when a child is prescribed medicine, a parent may take a look at the ingredients, and decide if the child can actually use it.
Whether that is for physical or religious reasons is not the issue.
If is is for physical reasons, the doctor finds an alternative - he doesn't insist on what he prescribes, because he is interested in the child's overall wellbeing - physical, mental, emotional.
So what's the problem with the religion reason again?
Clearly it's a bias against a religious view. It's the same as a violation of one's rights to religious freedom.
Parental Rights and Liability
The legal concept of parental rights generally refers to a parent's right to make decisions regarding a child's education, health care, and religion, among other things.
Where is the parent murdering the child, by using alternative medicine?
I read the article after posting.
In a case where a parent does nothing to aid an obviously sick child, they have neglected to care for their child as they ought to. It's child neglect. The law has the right to determine the punishment lf it is against the law.
It's a libertarian thing.
I have a hard time seeing them as separate since efforts to prolong human lives increase population numbers in very direct ways.
I believe that we should follow the Law of the Country. But I do not agree with all the Laws.Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs?
It's a libertarian thing.
Government's greatest role is ensuring civil liberties.
Regarding the infant in the OP's link, it died because
the parents denied it proper medical care.
If we're ever to address population control, it most
definitely won't thru allowing wrongful death.
Hence they're being separate issues.
Not talking about an idealized system. Remarking upon the foolishness of claiming someone has an obligation to do something when the means are lacking to actually meet said obligation. It replaces one alleged problem with another whilst also trampling on a citizen's privacy and culture. If folks want to have an authoritarian state where the government dictates everything about one's private life and culture, sure. Don't stop there. Don't let these people breed in the first place. If we're going to pass judgement like this on someone else's way of life, go all out or leave them alone.
Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP
Contrary to popular myth, crotchetiness doesn't always get worse with age.I'm having a crotchety moment with it. Am I too young to be crotchety? *laughs*
I wouldn't call it "murder" if the intent, however misguided, was life.Refusing treatment for a suffering child is child abuse.
Refusing treatment that would save a childs life and that child dies is premeditated murder.
Well the couple doesn't appear to be very mentally sound. The mother was found cradling her dead newborn around praying family and friends because they didn't want to go to the hospital for the birth.Refusing treatment for a suffering child is child abuse.
Refusing treatment that would save a childs life and that child dies is premeditated murder.
In any case, I don't consider humans, children or otherwise, to be the most in need organisms on this planet by a very, very, very, very long shot. I really can't get interested in issues like this when humans are responsible for a sixth mass extinction and doing very little to make amends for that
When you say we, I am assuming you mean the Law.However, as a Society, we do retain the right to limit Religious Freedom.
Can you give an example ofFor starters, you cannot impose your religion onto other folk, against their will.
impose your religion onto other folk, against their will
Can you give an example ofAnd it's a very fine line, when parents are forcing Bronze Age "Medicine" onto children who are unequipped to make an informed consent.
forcing Bronze Age "Medicine" onto children who are unequipped to make an informed consent.
Moreover? Not all religion is Respected Equally.
In the not too distant past, there were Religions that taught the First Born had to be Sacrificed (killed) as an offering to the Main God.
Such Belief would not be respected, nor granted Freedom To Practice.
In this instance, Freedom Of Religion is ECLIPSED by a Prohibition To Murder, and in the Eyes of the Law, killing a firstborn is seen as Murder.
By the same principle, withholding Life Saving Medical Treatment, is akin to Murder-- although that's not the actual intent, it is the consequence.
So, Freedom Of Religion is Stopped: Cold, if there are actual Lives On The Line.
This is as it should be, I would think.
I wouldn't call it "murder" if the intent, however misguided, was life.
I have a hard time seeing them as separate since efforts to prolong human lives increase population numbers in very direct ways.