Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Nev. Limits Parent Rights in Medical Care

Nevada Carson City 2004

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 07:15 PM

Quote

there ARE lines and it seems to me that mutilation and death are really easy, clear ones to draw.

It's not as clear as you make it out to be. I saw a documentary called "Taboo" on the NGC...This particular episode dealt with tatto's. In this episode a child of, I think he was 2 or 3 IIRC, was deliberately tattoo with a razor on his face, by the elders of the tribe...In that culture it was the norm.

Now suppose you lived in that culture? Would you think it ok for the elders of the village to scar your child's face?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#22 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 07:23 PM

In any event, in this case, I think that the JW only have to protest against the transfusion and forbid it to be done, but I sincerely doubt that they feel the child is tainted or anything like that.  I know women who have had abortions, which is completely against my religion, values and my morality and I don't happen to think they're possessed or tainted.  It's my duty to do what I can reasonably do to prevent that from happening, including witholding consent or whatever, but that's not the same thing as thinking it's due to demonic possession or uncleanliness or anything like that.  I know the JWs have a real reputation for being right out on the lunatic fringe, but I also see people making silly assumptions that just because this is part of someone's religion that there must be some ritual tainting and shunning going on by default.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#23 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 09:19 PM

I agree with Nevada's Supreme Court so long as the child isn't old enough to make an informed and rational desicion. The child should have a say in his or her own life. If the child isn't yet capable of making his or her own decision, then one should error on the side of life.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 07 April 2004 - 09:21 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#24 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 09:19 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 7 2004, 11:02 PM, said:

Would you prefer for this baby to be dead and the parents lives ruined forever?  I wouldn't.
As compared to them believeing that their child has been contaminated and his soul will never go to be with his god? That could ruin a parents life as well.

Edited by G1223, 07 April 2004 - 09:20 PM.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#25 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 09:23 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 8 2004, 12:03 AM, said:

And what if the religion called for female "circumcision" at birth
Yet male children have this done with no complaint from the people. If their are health risks the doctor are to inform tha parents. But the parents are assumed to be able to make a informed choice. Otherwise why allow them any rights?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#26 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 09:28 PM

G1223, on Apr 7 2004, 09:21 PM, said:

But the parents are assumed to be able to make a informed choice.
Until they show compelling evidence to the contrary -- for example by witholding medical care necessary for the child to live or escape longterm and severe debilitation

Edited by QuantumFlux, 07 April 2004 - 09:29 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#27 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 09:39 PM

Then take their rights from them and raise the child totlly with in the state's  services. They will do no wrong there. In fact go after the children of all the religions that have this practise.

After all we have a moral obligation to prevent death lets do it before parents can inflict their beliefs on their children that could lead to a life and dath circumstance.  Then as someone is saying those incense cause seciond hand smoke the mother who goes to church with her kids three times a week is endangering her health Lets get them to safty NOW.

Then the state will decide that parent who have any religious beliefs are a danger becasue those beliefs might  cause them to do something endangering.

Once the state can get in that door how do you plan to keep it out? Kind words?

#28 Rhys

Rhys

    ... a learning experience.

  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 09:46 PM

Uncle Sid, on Apr 7 2004, 08:21 PM, said:

I also see people making silly assumptions that just because this is part of someone's religion that there must be some ritual tainting and shunning going on by default.
Yeah, while "Believers" is a good episode of B5, it is fiction.

Rhys
"It's easy to bond over hating something together - The Internet is total proof of that." Cyd/Codex, The Guild

Change the world!  No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.

#29 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 09:58 PM

[quote name='LJW' date='Apr 7 2004, 10:44 PM']
[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with G.  Let's turn this around.  What if a couple has an infant that has a life threatening illness requiring a blood transfusion.  This couple comes from Timbucktoo.  They live in the US because they are getting education here.  They will be returning to Timbucktoo.  In Timbucktoo culture it is forbidden to have a blood transfusion.  This has nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with the ways of an entire culture.  

Would you all feel it was appropriate  for the government to step in and strip these parents of their culture beliefs by taking away custody and giving it to a hospital?  Do you feel it was appropriate to do this to the parents of the baby with a religous objection because it is about their religious beliefs. (something that others often believe is expendible) vs the beliefs of an entire culture.
[/quote]
Yes, I do.  Simply because if the child dies it will have none of this culture, history, and whatnot.  What's the value of tradition if you kill the people you're suppose pass it down to?

Let's turn this around a little more.  If we can't allow a child to not die because of parents' religious beliefs, does that mean we should allow children to be killed if "god told me to" or some nut thinks their child is possessed/tainted/changeling that they have to kill it in order to obey the wishes of their god?   Should that be allowed under the seperation of church and state?

As for someone's eariler comment on ritual scarring - I have much less of an issue with that, because the child will live.  I don't really like it, but it's not going to cause severe/permanet harm (other than having scars, which while they'll get funny looks if they came some place like America they won't have other medical/emotional issues)  Female circumcsion is more extreem then the male variety.  While circumsiced males have a reduced amount of sensation (and a reduced rate of certain infections) females having had the same operation can't get physical enjoyment out of sex, ever.  That is pretty serious in my world.  Plus the fact that it is generally done so women won't cheat on their husbands later in life I find it mysoginistic.  Also, I've never heard of a male circumsicion done with a piece of broken glass to a child being held down on a table by their parents and other equally sanitary stories.  That comparision doesn't hold a lot for me.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#30 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 09:59 PM

G1223, on Apr 7 2004, 09:37 PM, said:

Then take their rights from them and raise the child totlly with in the state's  services. They will do no wrong there. In fact go after the children of all the religions that have this practise.

After all we have a moral obligation to prevent death lets do it before parents can inflict their beliefs on their children that could lead to a life and dath circumstance.  Then as someone is saying those incense cause seciond hand smoke the mother who goes to church with her kids three times a week is endangering her health Lets get them to safty NOW.

Then the state will decide that parent who have any religious beliefs are a danger becasue those beliefs might  cause them to do something endangering.

Once the state can get in that door how do you plan to keep it out? Kind words?
^ That's a slippery slope. The state currently takes children away from parents who abuse them or can't provide the child with adequate food, clothing, or shelter. And yet the state hasn't taken away children from parents who have merely lost their temper.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#31 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 10:26 PM

G1223, on Apr 7 2004, 07:21 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 8 2004, 12:03 AM, said:

And what if the religion called for female "circumcision" at birth
Yet male children have this done with no complaint from the people. If their are health risks the doctor are to inform tha parents. But the parents are assumed to be able to make a informed choice. Otherwise why allow them any rights?
You obviously have no idea what female "circumcision" entails.  I suggest you inform yourself at which point you might want to alter your position.
Posted Image

#32 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 10:28 PM

Now you begin to see what has me concerned here.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#33 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,502 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 10:59 PM

Quote

Quote

And what if the religion called for female "circumcision" at birth
Yet male children have this done with no complaint from the people.

Oy. I've heard men complain about how nasty circumcision is, and maybe it is, but female "circumcision" is truly vile. I don't know if you want the graphic details, but the harsher practice of it involves cutting out the female sexual organs and sewing up what's left -- because allowing a woman to feel pleasure would make her become a slut, don't you know.

Now, from some years of studying anthropology, I can inform you that there are/were groups who practice(d), in their rites of passage for males, not only circumcision but subincision... and that's pretty unpleasant, too. It involves slicing all the way down the organ in question. Yuck...
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#34 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 11:11 PM

Thank you Norville.  You saved me from fighting a temptation to say something really crass.
Posted Image

#35 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,326 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 11:43 PM

LJW, on Apr 7 2004, 07:25 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 7 2004, 06:02 PM, said:

Would you prefer for this baby to be dead and the parents lives ruined forever?  I wouldn't.
Of course I don't want this baby to be dead.  I would do all my power to convince the parents to change their minds short of taking their rights away from them.  

I do remember that case of the parent s on trial for murder.  Bravo to them for standing by their beliefs.

Personally, I don't agree with their religion at all.  But what happens when the state steps in as says that catholics can't use incense in their services as it causes second hand smoke and all the non-smokers have a right to a smoke free environment?  It sounds like an ridiculous example but what is the difference really.  If we use the excuse of "health of a minor" for the line in the sand where does it stop?  It is a very slippery slope.  

Speaking of the loss of seperation of church and state.  The government steps each day to regulating religion.
I hear the argument. But again - the issue is (very simply) life.  

Nobody says that it's ok for David Koresh to kill a whole bunch of people in Waco Texas, or for the wacko from Heaven's Gate or Jim Jones to do what they did.  And the biggest outcry of ALL is the harm to children.

Yes, the state has a compelling right and obligation to protect children from the excesses of their parents.  When children are old enough to give independent consent to their beliefs, that's one thing.  But when they are not, their lives cannot be jeopardized because of their parent's beliefs.  And yes, good on the parents for being willing to go to jail - that's their conviction.  But it's theirs.  The children haven't had a chance to grow old enough to have a conviction yet.

Back to G's point about kids being tainted and such - there are some who believe that interracialism is against God's will.  That's not just racism - that's their religious belief.  They believe that interracial couples are an abomination against God.  Will we also defend their right to discriminate against interracial couples because of their beliefs?  How about assaulting them or worse?  And here - we are talking about adults (or at least teenagers) who can defend themselves.  How much more does the state have a compelling interest in interceding on behalf of children?

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#36 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 08 April 2004 - 12:02 AM

Nikcara, on Apr 7 2004, 09:56 PM, said:

Let's turn this around a little more.  If we can't allow a child to not die because of parents' religious beliefs, does that mean we should allow children to be killed if "god told me to" or some nut thinks their child is possessed/tainted/changeling that they have to kill it in order to obey the wishes of their god?   Should that be allowed under the seperation of church and state?
That is something else entirely. Freedom of religion does NOT give one the right to committ murder....
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#37 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:06 AM

You know, I did a debate on this in my bioethics class, and took a position that was fairly equivalent to the parents' in this case and similar ones.

Clearly, I'm going to have to dig out my notes.  (Any information they have will be several years out of date, but several things will still be applicable.)
Sailing free, boundless glimmer, golden whispers, fiery poise, delicate balance, grave and true, bound by earth, feared horizons, courageous steps unknown, shimmering future hidden yet unveiled....

I think you're the first female cast member to *insist* on playing a guy ;) - Iolanthe, on my cross-casting obsession.

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise, this fortress built by Nature for herself... - John of Gaunt, Act II, Scene I, Richard II

"I think perhaps that was a sub-optimal phrasing for the maintenance of harmony within the collective." - Omega, here

"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?" - Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#38 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:20 AM

I find it interesting that the same religious arguments used to try and ban abortion (since every childs life matters) are the same ones I see being used to say that if the parents want the kid to remain "pure" the kid dies (since their religion forbids whatever medical procedure would save the child). Does anyone else think that's hypocritical in the extreme?

Or is it simply a case of "if the child dies due to a medical condition then obviously God wanted the child in heaven, but Abortion is murder"?

Either case, to my thinking again treats children as though they are property, not people.
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#39 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:44 AM

I suppose part of it comes down to your own definition of the 'job' of a parent.

In my opinion, the job of a parent is to make sure that your child gets a chance to be a part of life untill the child has the oppertunity, age and maturity (not the same thing as age mind you) to make a choice for themselves.

I see what these parents did, for religious reasons as a fundemental betrayal of a parents duty to give a child a chance to grow up till they can make their own choices about life.

of course, as always this is only my opinion and YMMV

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#40 Rhys

Rhys

    ... a learning experience.

  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:39 AM

Gefiltefishmon, on Apr 8 2004, 08:18 AM, said:

I find it interesting that the same religious arguments used to try and ban abortion (since every childs life matters) are the same ones I see being used to say that if the parents want the kid to remain "pure" the kid dies (since their religion forbids whatever medical procedure would save the child). Does anyone else think that's hypocritical in the extreme?
Just because they're both "religious arguments" doesn't mean they're the same people making them.

Rhys
"It's easy to bond over hating something together - The Internet is total proof of that." Cyd/Codex, The Guild

Change the world!  No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Nevada, Carson City, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users