Seven-year-old boy living as a girl

[Petminder]

That is strange logic. So if you say I have a treatable disease but am refused treatment by my parents, they are not to blame?

 

The child does not have the choice - it is their parents who make the choice for them.

 

The cause of death would be the disease you have an not the lack of treatment.

It could be the life style choices of everyone that caused the death, choosing to drive a car for instance is proven to cause disease and death.

 

A child can't choose to breath unpolluted air because adults choose to pollute the air they breath.

[Robin-H]

The cause of death would be the disease you have an not the lack of treatment.

It could be the life style choices of everyone that caused the death, choosing to drive a car for instance is proven to cause disease and death.

 

So the parents who caused the death of their child by taking them to receive homeopathic (quack) medicine instead of actual treatment shouldn't have been held liable for the child's death?

 

(Btw, they were found guilty)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/28/homeopathy-baby-death-couple-jailed

[Sidonica]

 

(Its not in a child's best interest to be brought up religious from my point of view but then they aren't my children so its not my place or your place to interfere.)

 

If you knew that a child was in danger from a violent parent who had been hitting their children would you still think it was not your place to interfere? Or is it just religious beliefs that are ok with you? It makes me wonder if you might actually believe in God, a closet Jehovah perhaps?

[Cyclone]

So now you think that everyone with a belief in God, heaven and hell is mental, how nice. I didn't argue against your opinion that blood transfusions can save a life, or against your opinion that it is in your child's best interest.[

 

No no, I think you're mental.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 23:01 ----------

 

 

Their belief won't kill you or affect you, its your beliefs that are affecting them and causing them suffering.

 

They WILL however kill the child in this hypothetical. Why you've tried to reframe it as harming me I don't know.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 23:05 ----------

 

I know what the laws says and I simply disagree that the minority should have to submit to the will of the majority, if it was the other way round would you be happy, if the majority thought that life after death was more important than this life would you be happy for them to inflict their beliefs onto you and your children?

 

So you're okay with parents killing children for religious reasons? Because that's what you seem to be arguing. Despite that not even being the topic we're discussing.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 23:06 ----------

 

Refusing medical treatment wouldn't be the cause of death and everyone should have the right to refuse medical treatment.

Yes. It would. That was the scenario I used, where the refusal of a blood transfusion causes death.

And children are not capable of refusing treatment.

Life style choice, disease and accidents are usually the cause of death, children are dying in the millions because of the non religious choices made by adults.

 

So that makes it okay if preventable deaths are caused by parents decisions?

Edited October 28, 2016 by Cyclone

[petemcewan]

Petminder,

 

First and foremost the rights of minorities are not just swept aside in a modern democracy. A modern democracy is not a tyranny of the majority.And whether you and I like it or not, it's not the tyranny of the majority but the priorities of a secular society, that allows the state to overrule a parent's decision to not allow their child a life saving procedure. In the case of J/W,to do nothing would weigh on the consciences of the non-believers.In a secular society, it's not acceptable to let parents dispose of a child's life on a point of doctrine.

 

The point that Cyclone introduced is crystal clear . It's not an obscure point of jurisprudence/moral philosophy; but an illustrative point of religious doctrine running into the priorities of a secular society.

 

Note, Would I like or would I not like this or that, is immaterial .

Edited October 29, 2016 by petemcewan

[Petminder]

So the parents who caused the death of their child by taking them to receive homeopathic (quack) medicine instead of actual treatment shouldn't have been held liable for the child's death?

 

(Btw, they were found guilty)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/28/homeopathy-baby-death-couple-jailed

 

You've convinced me, We should ban everything that is detrimental to the health of children, prosecute all parents that allow their children to become obese though inactivity and eating the wrong foods. We should immunise all children even if it is against the wishes of the parents. We should impose a strict set of rules on all parents for the safety of their children and prosecute them if they don't adhere to the rules. Government should regulate religion and ban all literature that could be interpreted in a way that isn't consistent with the rules.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2016 at 06:49 ----------

 

No no, I think you're mental.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 23:01 ----------

 

 

They WILL however kill the child in this hypothetical. Why you've tried to reframe it as harming me I don't know.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 23:05 ----------

 

 

So you're okay with parents killing children for religious reasons? Because that's what you seem to be arguing. Despite that not even being the topic we're discussing.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 23:06 ----------

 

Yes. It would. That was the scenario I used, where the refusal of a blood transfusion causes death.

And children are not capable of refusing treatment.

 

So that makes it okay if preventable deaths are caused by parents decisions?

 

So I'm mental for thinking it isn't your place to interfere in another persons religious beliefs, but they are not mental for holding those beliefs.

 

Refusing a blood transfusion wouldn't be the cause of death, the cause of death would be loss of blood from what ever injury they sustained. So if the injury was caused by your bad driving the cause of death would be your bad driving.

 

Children are capable of making informed choices, give them the choice or leave the choice to the child's parents.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2016 at 06:54 ----------

 

[/color]

Petminder,

 

First and foremost the rights of minorities are not just swept aside in a modern democracy. A modern democracy is not a tyranny of the majority.And whether you and I like it or not, it's not the tyranny of the majority but the priorities of a secular society, that allows the state to overrule a parent's decision to not allow their child a life saving procedure. In the case of J/W,to do nothing would weigh on the consciences of the non-believers.In a secular society, it's not acceptable to let parents dispose of a child's life on a point of doctrine.

 

The point that Cyclone introduced is crystal clear . It's not an obscure point of jurisprudence/moral philosophy; but an illustrative point of religious doctrine running into the priorities of a secular society.

 

Note, Would I like or would I not like this or that, is immaterial .

 

But the rights of some minorities are swept aside and ignored because they don't conform to the majority. Your willingness to impose a set of rules on a minority group should include your willingness to accept a set of rules from a majority group. If the tables were turned and j/w were in the majority would you be happy to adhere to their set of rules?

Edited October 29, 2016 by Petminder

[Cyclone]

I think I've made it very clear what I think. I'm not going to keep repeating myself simply because you refuse to understand.

You're massively off topic and refuse to drop this side issue, perhaps you should start a thread about it.

[Petminder]

I think I've made it very clear what I think. I'm not going to keep repeating myself simply because you refuse to understand.

You're massively off topic and refuse to drop this side issue, perhaps you should start a thread about it.

 

I understand what you think and I disagree with it, and I'm sure you understand what and think but disagree with it, I did drop it once but you dragged me back into it, I am still happy to drop it when you drop it and it was your post that started this off topic issue.

[Robin-H]

You've convinced me, We should ban everything that is detrimental to the health of children, prosecute all parents that allow their children to become obese though inactivity and eating the wrong foods. We should immunise all children even if it is against the wishes of the parents. We should impose a strict set of rules on all parents for the safety of their children and prosecute them if they don't adhere to the rules. Government should regulate religion and ban all literature that could be interpreted in a way that isn't consistent with the rules.

 

 

Refusing a blood transfusion wouldn't be the cause of death, the cause of death would be loss of blood from what ever injury they sustained. So if the injury was caused by your bad driving the cause of death would be your bad driving.

 

Children are capable of making informed choices, give them the choice or leave the choice to the child's parents.

 

 

Again, you are using some very strange logic to back up you argument, as well as some well known logical fallacies (like the slippery slope argument).

 

Firstly, some of the things you mentioned in your first paragraph we (or other countries) actually do already..

 

We do set out rules that govern the safety of children and we do prosecute parents for breaking those rules. You are not allowed to leave a baby or small child at home on its own for example.

 

Some countries do actually have mandatory vaccinations - such as Slovenia, Pakistan, Latvia..

 

France considers “vaccine refusal” a form of child abuse and in some instances parental vaccine refusal may result in a criminal trial.

 

You haven't answered my question - do you think that the parents whose child died because they denied them proper medical treatment were guilty for the child's death or not?

[Petminder]

Again, you are using some very strange logic to back up you argument, as well as some well known logical fallacies (like the slippery slope argument).

 

Firstly, some of the things you mentioned in your first paragraph we (or other countries) actually do already..

 

We do set out rules that govern the safety of children and we do prosecute parents for breaking those rules. You are not allowed to leave a baby or small child at home on its own for example.

 

Some countries do actually have mandatory vaccinations - such as Slovenia, Pakistan, Latvia..

 

France considers “vaccine refusal” a form of child abuse and in some instances parental vaccine refusal may result in a criminal trial.

 

You haven't answered my question - do you think that the parents whose child died because they denied them proper medical treatment were guilty for the child's death or not?

 

Despite all that we have fat children with avoidable medical conditions and children dying in accidents that could be avoided. No I don't think the parents caused the child's death, they did what they considered to be in the child's best interest and their child died, the punishment in my opinion is over the top when you consider that a bad driver wouldn't be punished so harshly if they killed a child.