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?