(January 24, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It always shocks me, how willing you christians are to advocate for courses of action that will directly lead to the death of children.

Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of calling this a "big brother" situation while simultaneously approving of government interference in other sectors of life, such as who should be able to marry whom. Which is it? Is government interference bad, or good? And for that matter, what's your rationale for calling the specific instance you use as an example bad?

I don't think the government should be able to tell us who we can marry. That's none of their business, as is this situation.

---

(January 24, 2015 at 8:55 pm)Roxy904 Wrote: How is this a "big brother" situation? Have you even read 1984? Probably not, or you might have seen the parallel between doublethinking and religious thinking.

How is trying to keep someone alive a bad thing?

In this case it's a bad thing. In a case of child neglect, it can be okay.

(January 24, 2015 at 9:03 pm)Lek Wrote: I don't think the government should be able to tell us who we can marry. That's none of their business, as is this situation.

Oh, my bad: I thought you were against same sex marriage, and I'd recalled you making arguments against the "redefinition," of marriage in the past. Was I thinking of someone else?

Quote:In this case it's a bad thing. In a case of child neglect, it can be okay.

This is a case of child neglect: she's legally a child, and her parents aren't doing what's best for her, and are in fact enabling a course of action that will kill her. By every possible definition of the term, this is child neglect, unless you're using it in a way in which children aren't defined as people who aren't legal adults, and neglect as something other than the lack of action endangering a child.

(January 24, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, my bad: I thought you were against same sex marriage, and I'd recalled you making arguments against the "redefinition," of marriage in the past. Was I thinking of someone else?

I am against same sex marriage, but I don't think the government has any business saying whether we can be married or not. The government also has no right to change the definition of what marriage is. If two people of the same sex want to make an agreement between themselves similar to a marriage agreement, I can't stop them from doing so and it's also not my business. None the less I think it's wrong.

Quote:This is a case of child neglect: she's legally a child, and her parents aren't doing what's best for her, and are in fact enabling a course of action that will kill her. By every possible definition of the term, this is child neglect, unless you're using it in a way in which children aren't defined as people who aren't legal adults, and neglect as something other than the lack of action endangering a child.

I don't agree that this is neglect. Allowing a 17-year old to forgo excruciating treatment and let a disease run its course is not neglect.

(January 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Lek Wrote: I am against same sex marriage, but I don't think the government has any business saying whether we can be married or not. The government also has no right to change the definition of what marriage is. If two people of the same sex want to make an agreement between themselves similar to a marriage agreement, I can't stop them from doing so and it's also not my business. None the less I think it's wrong.

The various religions can duke it out to define what marriage is. I don't care about that. However, I care very much about adults in committed relationships being able to reap all the benefits that other legally married couples have. The underlying concept is that "marriage" is a legal contract. In many places same-sex couples are denied the right to enter into this contract. A group of people being denied a due right that is afforded to other groups is a significant problem.

Quote:I don't agree that this is neglect. Allowing a 17-year old to forgo excruciating treatment and let a disease run its course is not neglect.

At seventeen, she was a minor when this occurred. Laws are laws. If she were eighteen then she could be stupid and dead if she chose.

(January 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Lek Wrote: I am against same sex marriage, but I don't think the government has any business saying whether we can be married or not. The government also has no right to change the definition of what marriage is. If two people of the same sex want to make an agreement between themselves similar to a marriage agreement, I can't stop them from doing so and it's also not my business. None the less I think it's wrong.

Oh, okay, so it's just sophistry; you want the government to interfere with who can marry who by maintaining the legal status quo, but you don't want the hypocrisy of holding this position in contrast to your view on the other case to negatively affect your argument. Gross.

Quote:I don't agree that this is neglect. Allowing a 17-year old to forgo excruciating treatment and let a disease run its course is not neglect.

A person is a minor, legally speaking, until they turn 18. Their parents have a duty of care to that child, which is not performed when the parents allow their child to die of a treatable illness. Therefore, this is a case in which the parents are neglecting their duty of care by enabling their child in her refusal to take treatment that might save her life. Additionally, it is within the government's purview to remove a child from the care of its parents in cases like this, and to give them treatment that will keep them alive.

Kids don't like doctors; if a child refused to go to the doctor for a life saving treatment because they were afraid, and the parents simply let the child waste away on that rationale, are they not guilty of acting outside of their child's best interests, and neglecting to save them from harm? Why, in your mind, does the age of that child impact this reasoning?

(January 24, 2015 at 11:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, okay, so it's just sophistry; you want the government to interfere with who can marry who by maintaining the legal status quo, but you don't want the hypocrisy of holding this position in contrast to your view on the other case to negatively affect your argument. Gross.

No. I want to end the government's involvement in marriage and allow for civil unions to provide protection for all persons involved in the contract, including children. I want marriage to be a personal thing.

Quote:A person is a minor, legally speaking, until they turn 18. Their parents have a duty of care to that child, which is not performed when the parents allow their child to die of a treatable illness. Therefore, this is a case in which the parents are neglecting their duty of care by enabling their child in her refusal to take treatment that might save her life. Additionally, it is within the government's purview to remove a child from the care of its parents in cases like this, and to give them treatment that will keep them alive.

Kids don't like doctors; if a child refused to go to the doctor for a life saving treatment because they were afraid, and the parents simply let the child waste away on that rationale, are they not guilty of acting outside of their child's best interests, and neglecting to save them from harm? Why, in your mind, does the age of that child impact this reasoning?

We have different views on life and probably will never agree on this. Is it better to live 17 years or 100 years? Is someone who lives to be 100 luckier than one who lives only to be 17? You and I have different worldviews.

(January 25, 2015 at 12:00 am)Lek Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 11:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, okay, so it's just sophistry; you want the government to interfere with who can marry who by maintaining the legal status quo, but you don't want the hypocrisy of holding this position in contrast to your view on the other case to negatively affect your argument. Gross.

No. I want to end the government's involvement in marriage and allow for civil unions to provide protection for all persons involved in the contract, including children. I want marriage to be a personal thing.

Quote:A person is a minor, legally speaking, until they turn 18. Their parents have a duty of care to that child, which is not performed when the parents allow their child to die of a treatable illness. Therefore, this is a case in which the parents are neglecting their duty of care by enabling their child in her refusal to take treatment that might save her life. Additionally, it is within the government's purview to remove a child from the care of its parents in cases like this, and to give them treatment that will keep them alive.

Kids don't like doctors; if a child refused to go to the doctor for a life saving treatment because they were afraid, and the parents simply let the child waste away on that rationale, are they not guilty of acting outside of their child's best interests, and neglecting to save them from harm? Why, in your mind, does the age of that child impact this reasoning?

We have different views on life and probably will never agree on this. Is it better to live 17 years or 100 years? Is someone who lives to be 100 luckier than one who lives only to be 17? You and I have different worldviews.

Yes, a person who lives to be a hundred is luckier than someone who dies at seventeen. According to the article, the adolescent has an 80-85% chance to live if she gets treatment.

Ugh, Lek, you were doing well in the other thread, but your answers here are making me feel ill. You're trying to twist reality a heck of a lot to make it fit both your own prejudices and your religion. I know you may not be aware that this is what you are doing, but I'm letting you know. You're willing to dictate about marriages that have nothing to do with you, for people who have nothing to do with your religion, while allowing parents to murder their children on a whim by refusing them vital treatment without good reason.

---

You're also willing to say basically life is worthless and it doesn't matter how long you live, as long as your christian morality remains intact.

Regarding same sex marriage, laws change all the time, for the better. We strive to be a better civilisation. Why should laws about marriage be any different? Who cares what a bygone definition of marriage is?

(January 25, 2015 at 12:00 am)Lek Wrote: We have different views on life and probably will never agree on this. Is it better to live 17 years or 100 years? Is someone who lives to be 100 luckier than one who lives only to be 17? You and I have different worldviews.

Yep. You don't value life and we do. And you still manage to claim moral superiority.

(January 25, 2015 at 3:43 am)robvalue Wrote: You're also willing to say basically life is worthless and it doesn't matter how long you live, as long as your christian morality remains intact.

Well at least (Ack! ) he's being consistent. I would dare to say that most Christians actually value life, but considering that life on earth is just a waiting period before eternal paradise, why wouldn't you want to die sooner? In his worldview, an early death is a good thing. Fortunately most Christians aren't this consistent in the application of their beliefs.


This is your brain on religion folks...

I wonder if the girl was informed that by changing to the "alternative" treatment, her odds for survival would fall from 75% to 0%. I somewhat doubt it, so even if this is considered the girl's decision, she doesn't have all the facts. If she wanted to live, would she make that choice given the correct information? Is it against her "religious rights" to be told she is effectively committing suicide?