Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KhalieLa
    Offline

    KhalieLa It's not a lie, it's fiction. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    United States

    Letting them Die

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by KhalieLa, Apr 13, 2016.

    In Idaho, our Pro-Life Republican Legislature is unsurprisingly pro-death.

    Abortions are contrary to the deeply held religious beliefs of many, so the legislature tries outlaw abortions claiming they constitute murder and go against the will of Christ. BUT, killing your children via medical neglect is totally in keeping with the will of Christ and the Legislature will not infringe on the deeply held religions beliefs of others.

    Why is it considered murder for an Atheist to get an abortion, but not murder when parents kill a 12 year old child for having "a lack of faith?"

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help?CMP=twt_gu

    I seriously need to move out of this state!
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  2. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    It's not contradictory, but both are bad policy. You can have a religious belief that life begins at conception, and a belief that medical intervention shouldn't be used. After all, not having an abortion doesn't require a medical procedure. But from a public policy standpoint I don't agree with these stances.
     
    Oscar Leigh and KaTrian like this.
  3. KhalieLa
    Offline

    KhalieLa It's not a lie, it's fiction. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    United States
    This morning NBC News ran a Letting them Die story. I still don't see how our "pro-life" legislature can defend the religious exemption which prevents prosecution in cases of neglect, homicide, manslaughter, and capital murder when the perpetrator claims s/he was adhering to deeply held religious beliefs.
    http://www.today.com/health/denied-medical-care-because-religion-she-now-wants-her-parents-t87141

    Also, if anyone is interested, Mariah would like to see Paris before she dies. You can support her dreams via this Go Fund Me site:

     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  4. KhalieLa
    Offline

    KhalieLa It's not a lie, it's fiction. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    United States
    Couldn't get the Go Fund Me site to load, trying again.
    https:// www.gofundme.com/ MariahGoingToParis
     
  5. Robert Musil
    Offline

    Robert Musil Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    217
    Location:
    USA
    Yeah, but should we be making public policy at all based on religious beliefs, whether we agree with the upshot of those beliefs or not?
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  6. KhalieLa
    Offline

    KhalieLa It's not a lie, it's fiction. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    United States
    Whether or not we should make policy decisions based on religious beliefs is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is, much of the rhetoric for and against public policy is based on someone's religious ideals.

    If you read the article, it details physical abuse children endure at the hands of their parents. One boy was beaten because he didn't have enough faith in God to get up and walk after his leg (or ankle, I can't remember now) was broken. Children are dying at the hands of their parents because they are perceived as lacking in faith.

    So, why is it considered murder to kill an unborn child, but not murder to kill a 12 year old?

    Women who take mifepristone (RU486), the abortion pill, are called murders. Doctors who prescribe mifepristone are called murders. But no one cries murder when parents refuse to let their children take amoxicillin and the child ends of dying from an easily treated infection.

    If they are indeed pro-life, then why does a fetus have more value at conception than a child does after birth?

    If a drunk driver crashes into a car carrying a pregnant woman, killing her and the unborn fetus, he is charged with two counts of vehicular homicide/manslaughter. But should the drunk driver crash into a car carrying a pregnant woman and she sustains serious, but treatable injuries, and subsequently dies because her husband refused to allow her access to medical treatment, no one is charged with the death of the mother and child. Why?

    If the results are the same in each instance, someone dies, how does evoking religion somehow make it excusable?
     
    Simpson17866 and Oscar Leigh like this.
  7. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    The distinction is simple. One is an affirmative act, the other is not (and is, instead, an omission).
     
  8. Oscar Leigh
    Offline

    Oscar Leigh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Australia
    This is why I feel the need to scream legislation facts at the world. Okay, here we go.
    Parental responsibility is law. But murder based on religion is not. Neither is stealing. Or raping. Or torturing. But apparently, in your state, parental responsibility is the thing that religion allows you to break!:superagree:
    Under their own consitutions, almost every Western country is secular. Forget "one nation under God", remember "freedom of religion and separation of church and state." These principles are instituted for a reason. So everyone can believe whatever they want about the universe's nature and origin, but they aren't allowed to do things that are unnaceptable to society because of those beliefs. There is not supposed to ever be a religious "no jail card". Ever.
    Think about it this way, religious people who might see this, if we allow religion as an excuse, why is Islamic extremism not allowed? It's not like letting your child die isn't illegal. What's the rhetoric behind that distinction? Politics. Churches and state are separate and all religions are supposed to be equal. And yet, in the West we have blatant Christian privilege. And you have the gall to talk about religious freedom. I rest my case.
     
  9. KhalieLa
    Offline

    KhalieLa It's not a lie, it's fiction. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    United States
    If a 12 year old child of a non-Christian parent is involved in an accident and sustains serious, but treatable injuries, and subsequently dies because the non-Christian parent refused to allow the child access to medical treatment, the non-Christian parent is charged with child abuse, medical neglect, and wrongful death.

    If a 12 year old child of a Christian parent is involved in an accident and sustains serious, but treatable injuries, and subsequently dies because the Christian parent refused to allow the child access to medical treatment, the Christian parent is not charged with child abuse, medical neglect, and wrongful death.

    Why are there two sets of laws? Why can Christians kill their children, but non-Christians cannot?

    And why do Christians cry murder when an non-christian engages in an activity they find offensive (abortion), but cry persecution non-Christians wish to bring the up on murder charges for killing their own children via abuse and neglect?
     
  10. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    @KhalieLa you don't appear to be reading, or at least not considering, anything that is being said in the thread. Are you trying to have a discussion or is this just a platform for a rant?
     
  11. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,859
    Likes Received:
    10,035
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Because Religion, by definition, does not answer to reason. I don't mean that it can never be reasonable, or reasoned with, but simply that reason is not a requisite for a dynamic to exist within the epistemology of Religion. Because reason is not a requisite, attempting to measure its internal dynamics against a meter of reason is like trying to ask Which is pointier, red or seven?

    There is also the dynamic that adherents to Religion are usually dissuaded from questioning the interpretations of text or scripture or doctrine made by the respective powers that be. These respective powers may well not be in agreement even within a given religion, which obviously explains the vast stratification and divergence of any major religion. It happens because there is internal disagreement. Those adherents who feel that medical intervention is wrong are only a small section of the larger paradigm and the rest of the adherents are just as puzzled and baffled at the idea as we are. It makes as little sense to them as it does to us.

    The problem we run into, as you have noted, is when secular law attempts to derive direction from religious thought. The Law tries its level best to answer to reason where Religion does not. We end up with the typical outcome that happens when epistemologies are mixed.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  12. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    @Oscar Leigh the U.S. Constitution has specific protection for the free exercise of religion, so it adds a layer of complexity to laws that are intended to counter religious practice or do so de facto.
     
  13. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    That's actually not the philosophy of the United States, I believe. There are quite a few exceptions to laws, based on the person's religion. Note, it's about the person's religion, not the state's religion. As I understand it, the US doesn't state, or practice, a policy that there are no exceptions to laws based on religion.

    That doesn't mean that it's OK for Person A (parent) to deny Person B (child) what should be their right, based on Person A's religion. I'm not defending that, but I am saying that, yes, there are absolutely some religious "no jail cards."
     
  14. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    I think the vast majority of states shield parents, by law, from liability for refusing care for religious reasons. I saw something this morning that said 44 states, though I didn't verify that independently. There is a push in some states to eliminate such statutory shields, though even if that happens the parents will still be able to raise Constitutional arguments. It can be difficult, because not only is freedom to practice religion a Constitutional right, child-rearing is also considered a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Put those together, and it's not hard to argue you have a Constitutional right to raise your child in the religion you see fit (and historically, that's exactly how this issue would be seen). It'll take a lot of work, and time, to shift the status quo to a uniform situation where the parents can't shield themselves with religion, and then the question becomes if that aspect of the religion isn't protected vis a vis the child, what aspects are?
     
  15. KhalieLa
    Offline

    KhalieLa It's not a lie, it's fiction. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    390
    Location:
    United States
    I will grant that religion does not answer to reason, but laws are supposed to be based on reason. Laws are supposed to apply equally to all members of society.

    Naturally, we can all think of examples where laws are not applied equally. This is not a reference to instances where laws are overlooked (White driver gets pulled over for speeding, but is not ticketed. Black driver gets pulled over and is ticketed. In both instance the laws are the same, even if someone choose to overlook the actions of the white driver.) I am referring to an instance where their literally is an exemption to a law because of religion.

    This would be akin to having a law that actually said, speeding is illegal, except if you are white and on your way to work, then you will not be ticketed.

    This is the part that I find so bloody confusing.

    The first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Child abuse is illegal, except if proscribed by religion. Medical neglect is illegal, except if proscribed by religion. It sets us up for two classes of people with two separate laws. Grandma dies of medical neglect in a rat hole of a nursing home and the home is investigated for wrongful death. Grandma dies at home from medical neglect, because her family tells her that if she were a better christian she would get better, then no charges are flied.

    If Christians are handed a get out of jail free card, why can't a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindi also claim they are exempt because they interpret their holy texts to include medical neglect as part of the teaching of their religions?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2016
  16. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,623
    Likes Received:
    1,718
    Location:
    Virginia, United States
    I think she's just venting. I don't blame her. It is pretty fucked up.
     
  17. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    Yes. But there are some specific legal and historical reasons why it is the way it is. Interesting subject matter for discussion. I'm not in favor of allowing parents to apply this to kids. If an adult wants to refuse treatment for religious reasons, fine.
     
  18. Oscar Leigh
    Offline

    Oscar Leigh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Australia
    It should be the child's decision.
     
  19. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    If the child is three, guess which way they're deciding :)
     
  20. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    I would be inclined to think that physical survival, and permanent physical damage, could reasonably be placed in a different category from other parenting choices that don't involve those things. I realize that right now they're apparently not in a different category, but the boundary doesn't seem terribly fuzzy.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  21. Oscar Leigh
    Offline

    Oscar Leigh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Australia
    Freedom of religion is supposed to protect free worship. It doesn't mean whatever illegal thing can be excused. So why should it mean that at all? Especially when most religion never get such exemption.
    I take solace in the fact cases of relying on prayer instead of hospital, where the child died, have shown that Australia does not support religion over parental responsibility.
    Also, when I said it should be the child's choice. Yeah, changed my mind. This shouldn't be an option. It's too horrible. I don't care what you believe, if it doesn't work you are killing your child.
     
  22. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    Seems reasonable. It's interesting how much our historical roots in fleeing religious persecution remain embedded in our jurisprudence. Even today, the one of the prongs primary test for validity of a law that impacts religion is whether there is 'excessive entanglement' between the government and religion as a result. There is a great fear of government gaining power over religion.
     
  23. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,075
    Likes Received:
    5,272
    Location:
    California, US
    At is pertains to the U.S., I think you're stating the case overly broadly. No one argues that every thing whatsoever can be excused on a religious basis, but it is true that religion that special protections in the U.S., and those protections are taken into consideration by courts when determining whether a law that impacts religion is valid.
     
  24. Oscar Leigh
    Offline

    Oscar Leigh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Australia
    Yeah, I know. I'm just saying this is ignoring parental responsibility, it's not the same as snipping a child's foreskin or something. It's murderous negligence, intentional or not.
     
  25. Oscar Leigh
    Offline

    Oscar Leigh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Australia
    It should have power over religion. The law is the rules of the land. Religion is the thinking of some. And ancient rules that are never completely followed anyway, and interpreted differently amongst the followers. Not exactly as important or solid.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page