• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion and medical procedures for children.

jmvizanko

Uber Tool
Another thread reminded me of the child abuse by religious parents that deny medical treatment for their children based on their beliefs. It is one thing to avoid medical treatment as an adult, because it is taboo to a person. But I find it to be gross child abuse to transfer those same treatments, or lack thereof, onto one's children. You may believe that western medicine has no value next to prayer or using shamans, but until you can prove your methods work just as well, your child's treatment be defaulted to scientific medicine. It is a shame that the courts have ever taken the side of the parents in these cases.

Does anybody think I'm wrong, and why?
 
Last edited:

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I agree with you, but then again I was the one arguing for having to meet basic requirements to get a breeding license and also limiting the upper limit of children legal to spawn.
 

jmvizanko

Uber Tool
I agree with you, but then again I was the one arguing for having to meet basic requirements to get a breeding license and also limiting the upper limit of children legal to spawn.

Would this be something you would want included in the requirements for a breeding license? Not religion, but propensity to treat children with western medicine regardless of religion? Makes sense to me.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Another thread reminded me of the child abuse by religious parents that deny medical treatment for their children based on their beliefs. It is one thing to avoid medical treatment as an adult, because it is taboo to a person. But I find it to be gross child abuse to transfer those same treatments, or lack thereof, onto one's children. You may believe that western medicine has no value next to prayer or using shamans, but until you can prove your methods work just as well, your child's treatment be defaulted to scientific medicine. It is a shame that the courts have ever taken the side of the parents in these cases.

Does anybody think I'm wrong, and why?

I mostly agree with you. I mean, with something like prayer, unless I was regularly witnessing people with horrible diseases miraculously being cured through prayer then I'd be a bit of an idiot to risk my child's life through this method.

I do think that there are instances when a natural procedure trumps going to the doctor. I am constantly coming across incidents where going through the mainstream medical system has ruined a person's life or just put them through unnecessary stress and suffering.

So I think that a person has to use their brain, seriously, when making such an important decision. In the case of the parents who refuse medical treatment in favour of prayer, I don't see why they couldn't do both. I don't personally feel that the parents are bad people or deserve more punishment after losing their child, because their behaviour was based in the lies of others, brainwashing. They truly believed they were going to save their child. I just feel really sorry for them.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
Does anybody think I'm wrong
I don't think you are wrong.

If my children, my wife, or myself get sick then we go to a doctor.

Traditional medicines, prayer, shamans and so on may have been useful in days long gone, but we have modern medicines now. If one wants to use traditional medicine, prayer, shaman practices and so on, they may do so provided they are not dangerous practices in any way (drinking mercury, cutting to let out "evil spirits", refusal of blood transfusions, prayer-only and so on - no way), but I do not think for one moment such practices should override scientific ones.



I find the idea of a breeding licence though to be a disgusting, barbaric idea, and would fight against it every way. I do, however, support baby raising classes. As long as I'm not harming my kids, non-professionals should keep their nose out of my life, and the state shouldn't be telling me whether or not I can have kids. The very idea makes me absolutely furious.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I find the idea of a breeding licence though to be a disgusting, barbaric idea, and would fight against it every way. I do, however, support baby raising classes. As long as I'm not harming my kids, non-professionals should keep their nose out of my life, and the state shouldn't be telling me whether or not I can have kids. The very idea makes me absolutely furious.

I only mean that parents should only legally be allowed to have children if they're demonstrably able to support them financially; if not then as you suggest they can attain the right through programs like WIC and public schools. No one would be UNABLE to have children, it just wouldn't be legal until they are READY for children.

We need licenses to operate machinery to drive from one end of a street to the other because it's potentially harmful to bystanders yet we don't need a license to have absolute control over the wellbeing of another sentient being? That's absolutely crazy to me.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I only mean that parents should only legally be allowed to have children if they're demonstrably able to support them financially; if not then as you suggest they can attain the right through programs like WIC and public schools. No one would be UNABLE to have children, it just wouldn't be legal until they are READY for children.

We need licenses to operate machinery to drive from one end of a street to the other because it's potentially harmful to bystanders yet we don't need a license to have absolute control over the wellbeing of another sentient being? That's absolutely crazy to me.

It also wouldn't hurt to limit the population on this increasingly over-utilized planet.
Are we really any better off by having an ever increasing population? I think not.
Hey, Meow....should we prevent people with awful genetic defects from procreating?
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
It also wouldn't hurt to limit the population on this increasingly over-utilized planet.
Are we really any better off by having an ever increasing population? I think not.
Hey, Meow....should we prevent people with awful genetic defects from procreating?

Part of me wants to say yes but my intellect tells me no, we can't do that...

However if technology becomes available to correct chromosomal defects, for instance by injecting a healthy copy of the gene from the same parent or the partner, I don't see a problem with that becoming mandatory.

Before that's possible, I also don't see a problem with at-risk parents receiving free genetic screens so that they can make an informed choice.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
I only mean that parents should only legally be allowed to have children if they're demonstrably able to support them financially; if not then as you suggest they can attain the right through programs like WIC and public schools. No one would be UNABLE to have children, it just wouldn't be legal until they are READY for children.
I still absolutely loathe the idea and I would fight it every possible way.

How would them being able to have them but it being illegal even work?

Plus, I'm one of the ones whom your criteria would probably deem illegal to have kids. :rolleyes: My wife and I were 18 and unmarried when we had our first child, my wife got fired from her job when they found out she was pregnant, and called they called it a redundancy else to avoid getting sued for unfair dismissal. We live in an area with high unemployment, high (hard) drug rates, and a gun problem. Hell, my next-door-neighbour is a drug dealer, and the ones before him were part of an organised crime family. My area is so rough I could get a gun for about $120 and have it in my hands in about an hour. That's just the tip of the iceberg in things I normally keep private.

Doctors attempted pressure to get us to get rid of the child---from telling us we shouldn't have children, to outright lies by claiming our first born had a hole in her heart, Down's Syndrome (which would come complete with severe mental retardation), and only one tube for breathing and feeding. It was one hundred percent absolutely certain, they assured us. We should have an abortion.

The claims didn't add up (different claims from different people). We didn't have an abortion.

She's three years old now. No tube problems, no Down's syndrome, no retardation, no hole in her heart. Absolutely fine except for some hearing loss, but that comes from me and isn't holding her back, she's one of the smartest in the school. She can speak English, some Welsh (despite us not living in Wales) and quite a bit of Sign Language.

By your idea, my daughter would probably not be legal. This idea of yours infuriates me and makes my blood boil.

We need licenses to operate machinery to drive from one end of a street to the other because it's potentially harmful to bystanders yet we don't need a license to have absolute control over the wellbeing of another sentient being? That's absolutely crazy to me.
Parenting is not something you can pick up from a book or can really learn from theory, and it's absolutely crazy to think it's something that's easy. Parenting is difficult and it involves learning from one's mistakes.

I was originally paranoid I was going to be a terrible father who would raise them badly, but I'm a damn good dad who should be proud of my two children--people tell me, not vice-versa.

I've met some right idiots who're childcare theory savvy. They may know how to raise a kid because of what they've learnt through a book, but they've been bloody awful parents. Including one who said she thought spanking is child abuse but had no qualms about "trousers down in corner time"--anywhere she went, and another who was concerned about her child getting obese, so would give her child under half a baby tin of spaghetti (205g a tin) each meal time.

These are two of the extreme examples, and I did the right thing and reported them to the child protection services. Both of these children in question now live with their fathers who raise them well. I report neglect.


Keep the state out of whether or not people can have kids.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Religion should not be used as a gloss for neglect.

Parents who derive their children from medical care - for any reason - should have their kids taken away from them by the state.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Nope, what is it about?
It's one of my favorite movies....it deals with the issue of allowable reproduction.
Gattaca (1997) - IMDb
"In the not-too-distant future, a less-than-perfect man wants to travel to the stars. Society has categorized Vincent Freeman
as less than suitable given his genetic make-up and he has become one of the underclass of humans that are only useful for
menial jobs. To move ahead, he assumes the identity of Jerome Morrow, a perfect genetic specimen who is a paraplegic as
a result of a car accident. With professional advice, Vincent learns to deceive DNA and urine sample testing......."
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I still absolutely loathe the idea and I would fight it every possible way.

I don't know, I think you're right... it's not an easy position to support. I may abandon it. But I still think there should be an upper limit on spawning -- something reasonable like 4, or maybe have it change based on population stats. If population growth doesn't trend towards zero (though it is doing so in some places, true) it's going to have to happen at some point anyway: might as well avoid the eventual crisis.

I just hate that so many kids miss out on the full quality of life because their parents are irresponsible. I guess an alternative that you might perhaps like is simply strengthening programs for parents in need and just making sure that every kid receives a quality education and quality things to eat to stimulate their healthy development.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Another thread reminded me of the child abuse by religious parents that deny medical treatment for their children based on their beliefs. It is one thing to avoid medical treatment as an adult, because it is taboo to a person. But I find it to be gross child abuse to transfer those same treatments, or lack thereof, onto one's children. You may believe that western medicine has no value next to prayer or using shamans, but until you can prove your methods work just as well, your child's treatment be defaulted to scientific medicine. It is a shame that the courts have ever taken the side of the parents in these cases.

Does anybody think I'm wrong, and why?

If there was treatment available for my ill child, I feel I'd be criminal to deny my child of it.

The only situation where I might forego medicinal intervention and opt for spiritual healing instead is if we were dealing with a terminal situation, where medicinal intervention was too risky or would deprive my child of any joy there was left to be had in life.
 

xkatz

Well-Known Member
Does anybody think I'm wrong, and why?

I don't think religion should EVER hinder medical procedures/treatments and I hope that people don't use that as a reason to not undergo a medical procedure.
 
Last edited:

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I think most people would do anything to save their child if he or she was hurt or ailing. That some people won't is beyond my comprehension. There is nothing in the bible about avoiding doctors. I usually am tolerant of people's beliefs- but when they harm someone, especially a child, it totally bothers me.
 

Skepsis2

Member
Another thread reminded me of the child abuse by religious parents that deny medical treatment for their children based on their beliefs. It is one thing to avoid medical treatment as an adult, because it is taboo to a person. But I find it to be gross child abuse to transfer those same treatments, or lack thereof, onto one's children. You may believe that western medicine has no value next to prayer or using shamans, but until you can prove your methods work just as well, your child's treatment be defaulted to scientific medicine. It is a shame that the courts have ever taken the side of the parents in these cases.

Does anybody think I'm wrong, and why?

You could take a large sample of people with a particular disease. Divide that group into 3 equal subgroups. Give the first subgroup the modern medical treatment. Give another subgroup a placebo. Have the last subgroup and as many others as you like pray for healing. At the end of your pre-determined time compare the results of all three subgroups.
What do you conclude if you find that the first subgroup is significantly improved and the others not so much?
 
Last edited:

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
I don't know, I think you're right... it's not an easy position to support. I may abandon it. But I still think there should be an upper limit on spawning -- something reasonable like 4, or maybe have it change based on population stats.
I can understand your idea, although I don't support it. :)

Overpopulation is a definite problem that humanity does face in the future. Four is a more reasonable number than I've heard from many, who usually say something like two. I don't hear of many who want more than four kids, though.

However, I think that a lot of people tend to only have one or two kids more readily in developed societies because of lower infant mortality and such, and that children cost. A lot. Years ago people would have had ten, twelve children, because only three or four of them may have survived.

Nowadays, people tend to have about one to three kids in the Western world, which I think is kind of ideal. Poorer places, and poorer people, often have more.

800px-Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png


If population growth doesn't trend towards zero (though it is doing so in some places, true) it's going to have to happen at some point anyway: might as well avoid the eventual crisis.
Problem is, then we have another crisis on our hands. Who works to look after the elderly? There'd be nothing like a pension system like that, since there'd be nobody to take it from.

Looks like moderation is key.

I just hate that so many kids miss out on the full quality of life because their parents are irresponsible. I guess an alternative that you might perhaps like is simply strengthening programs for parents in need and just making sure that every kid receives a quality education and quality things to eat to stimulate their healthy development.
Yeah, I hate it, too. I think to combat overpopulation, rather than legislation, more information needs to be provided to those who need it, as well as ways to decrease child mortality such as clean water.

Free programmes on childcare, compulsory classes for expecting families, basic (baby) first aid and food hygiene* as well as nutritional information, free contraception, information on childcare costs, and so on, and an education on contraception in general**.

It's surprising how many people even in the West have no idea about this :eek: The number of times I've seen people pick up food from the floor in the mall and go to eat it themselves (or sometimes, even feed it their kids!). Bleugh.
The problem with the Catholic church's stance on contraception, for example, is a dangerous one, both from overpopulation and diseases. There is also a growing idea in my area with some Muslims' coming to the conclusion that contraception is haram (forbidden) and them being sort of similar to the philosophy of the Quiverfull movement, even though I know contraception being haram is not an Islamic concept, it seems to be becoming popular where I live for some reason. :shrug:

I think such programmes would help in avoiding overpopulation, no laws needed. What do you think?
 
Top