(January 26, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 1:29 am)Esquilax Wrote: So how do you make that decision? Aside from post-hoc rationalizations for convenience, how would you make that decision in the moment? Toss aside the easy hindsight with which you've been excusing every bad behavior that has been linked in this thread, and actually give a cogent argument now. It's pretty easy to be you in this discussion, when nobody else knows more than the vaguest details about what your position here actually is.

My position is that because she had a lethal condition, that the parents, who are closest to the girl and her situation and needs, make an appropriate decision for treatment. This was not murder or suicide, but death from a natural cause. Now would you answer my question to you? Why is okay for an adult to avoid excruciating procedures and let a disease run its course but not to allow a child that option? Why is it okay not to put your dog through painful chemo therapy that could save his life, but it's not okay to do that for your child?

---

(January 26, 2015 at 2:35 pm)robvalue Wrote: So Jesus turns up, and instead of just healing her, tells her to take some crappy fake treatment instead, which lead to her dying. When she wanted to live.

If you still want to really believe jesus was involved, you have to accept that he's an utter failure at everything. Everything about this story stinks. The fact that theists are trying to defend the parents' actions is beyond me.

Why is God a failure here? Obviously he wanted her to be finished with the suffering and come home.

Lek.... you fucking moron.........



the concept of god has and always be a failure look at history...

(January 26, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Who said it's not okay to put your dog through chemotherapy? And besides, there are several factors involved, how treatable the cancer is, how old the dog is, how many years it realistically has left and the quality of life. And in certain situations it would be okay to let your child die, For example, if the cancer is treatable or not . In this situation the cancer was very treatable, I don't understand how anyone can defend these parents and their decision.

Is it okay to put a dog down or let the disease run its course, even though he could be healed with chemo? Or are we morally obligated to put him through the treatment? Is it okay to put him down rather that put him through the painful therapy, even if he could survive with the treatment? He's not able to make his own choices, but we have compassion on him. Why do we allow adults to avoid excruciating treatment, even if they could survive with the treatment, but we force children to undergo the same painful treatments no matter what?

The parents did not put their child down. Crucial difference.

(January 26, 2015 at 3:32 pm)dyresand Wrote: Lek.... you fucking moron.........

Dyresand, if you were my only example of an atheist, I'd rather kill myself than become an atheist.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: The parents did not put their child down. Crucial difference.

Okay. I'll change it to "put the dog down or let the disease run its course".

(January 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Lek Wrote: Is it okay to put a dog down or let the disease run its course, even though he could be healed with chemo? Or are we morally obligated to put him through the treatment? Is it okay to put him down rather that put him through the painful therapy, even if he could survive with the treatment? He's not able to make his own choices, but we have compassion on him.

I believe if you actually read my post that you quoted, you wouldn't have to ask those questions.

(January 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Lek Wrote: Why do we allow adults to avoid excruciating treatment, even if they could survive with the treatment,

Because they are adults they are legally responsible for themselves and they fully understand the situation they are in. They are allowed to make decisions over their own body.

(January 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Lek Wrote: but we force children to undergo the same painful treatments no matter what?

Firstly, we don't force them 'no matter what'. Secondly, children are not legally responsible for themselves, the parents are. They are incapable of fully comprehending the situation they are in due to the fact that their brains are not yet fully developed. As a result, it is down to someone with a fully developed brain to make the decisions for them. Seriously, how is this confusing you? Would you not give your kids vaccinations just because they didn't want it because they're scared of the needle? Of course not. But why you ask? Because the child doesn't understand that if it doesn't get these vaccinations, there is a very good chance they will catch a disease and die. And that is why we don't give them a choice.

(January 26, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Lek Wrote: Why is God a failure here? Obviously he wanted her to be finished with the suffering and come home.

As opposed to making it so she didn't suffer at all?

(January 26, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 3:32 pm)dyresand Wrote: Lek.... you fucking moron.........

Dyresand, if you were my only example of an atheist, I'd rather kill myself than become an atheist.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: The parents did not put their child down. Crucial difference.

Okay. I'll change it to "put the dog down or let the disease run its course".

Medicine works god doesn't and look what happened. They tried holistic medicine and not the option to get her better using modern medicine. To put things in perspective you got a infection instead of A taking modern medications you decide to go with B a few herbs collected and then brewed in a pot then drink it. What is going to cure you option A which is the smart one or option b and hope it works. Because those parents chose option b they hoped it worked and guess what...

(January 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Lek Wrote: Is it okay to put a dog down or let the disease run its course, even though he could be healed with chemo?

You can do anything you want short of animal cruelty to your dog. Your dog is livestock, it's property. How you feel about your dog personally is your own business...and ultimately, your dog's fate is your business, not your dog's. I like dogs, but there's such a thing as being too sentimental. A poor family shouldn't spend a lot of money on cancer treatments for a dog.

(January 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Lek Wrote: Or are we morally obligated to put him through the treatment?

No you're not. No matter what you do, your dog's life isn't going to be that different from any other dog's. It's not going to join the ballet or write poetry in Paris someday or be admired for how well it treats its employees. A dog's life has value, but not as much value as the life of a human child.

(January 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Lek Wrote: Is it okay to put him down rather that put him through the painful therapy, even if he could survive with the treatment?

Yes, it is, but not because we value the dog's life more, but because we value it less.

(January 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Lek Wrote: He's not able to make his own choices, but we have compassion on him.

And he never will be able to make his own choices, and never will be able to understand why he suffers. Whether the dog lives or dies almost entirely depends on what resources we are willing to expend keeping it alive and why. The dog has no say at all. If we think it should die, we'll put it to death no matter how much it might want to live.

(January 26, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Lek Wrote: Why do we allow adults to avoid excruciating treatment, even if they could survive with the treatment, but we force children to undergo the same painful treatments no matter what?

Clearly, in Canada they don't force children to undergo the same painful treatments. So a girl whose best chance at living a full life (modern leukemia treatments are amazing) was chemo never got a chance to live it because her parents tried to save her with a treatment that has never been known to save anyone from leukemia, ever. If Jesus wanted her home, he should have just taken her.

And that leaves people like you wondering why we would want to save a child's life more than we would want to save a dog's.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 3:32 pm)dyresand Wrote: Lek.... you fucking moron.........

Dyresand, if you were my only example of an atheist, I'd rather kill myself than become an atheist.

A tie for classiness there.

Lek, nothing against you, but I hope you don't think anyone here wants you to become an atheist. I would be fairly pleased if you gained an intuitive understanding of why a child's life might be considered more valuable than a dog's, and thrilled if you started applying critical thinking consistently, but I wouldn't want you to become an atheist without clearing those hurdles first.

(January 26, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: \
Firstly, we don't force them 'no matter what'. Secondly, children are not legally responsible for themselves, the parents are. They are incapable of fully comprehending the situation they are in due to the fact that their brains are not yet fully developed. As a result, it is down to someone with a fully developed brain to make the decisions for them. Seriously, how is this confusing you? Would you not give your kids vaccinations just because they didn't want it because they're scared of the needle? Of course not. But why you ask? Because the child doesn't understand that if it doesn't get these vaccinations, there is a very good chance they will catch a disease and die. And that is why we don't give them a choice.

You're right that children are not fully able to comprehend the situation. That's why we pass the decision to the parents who are able to comprehend and also have the best intentions for the children.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: \
Firstly, we don't force them 'no matter what'. Secondly, children are not legally responsible for themselves, the parents are. They are incapable of fully comprehending the situation they are in due to the fact that their brains are not yet fully developed. As a result, it is down to someone with a fully developed brain to make the decisions for them. Seriously, how is this confusing you? Would you not give your kids vaccinations just because they didn't want it because they're scared of the needle? Of course not. But why you ask? Because the child doesn't understand that if it doesn't get these vaccinations, there is a very good chance they will catch a disease and die. And that is why we don't give them a choice.

You're right that children are not fully able to comprehend the situation. That's why we pass the decision to the parents who are able to comprehend and also have the best intentions for the children.

Except for when they don't.