RE: Girl dies of stupid parents
January 25, 2015 at 12:00 am
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2015 at 12:01 am by Lek.)
(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.
