Trials For Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine

I had to think about this one before saying anything.

This is going to be an AWFUL analogy, but bear with me:

When you bring a pet into your home, you become responsible for it. You must provide food, shelter, and health remedies to it since you become the person responsible for that animal's life.

If you do NOT do this, you are subject to the laws of the land which state that you can pretty much serve time if you don't take care of your animal's well-being.

Now. We can implement these kinds of rules for our pets, but not for our children? And just because there's some kind of "religion" involved means that some people are excluded from taking care of their responsibilities to their children as parents?

Any religion which allows your child to die when there are remedies available is pretty much bullshit. You'd think people could figure that out on their own. OOPS, MY KID DIED FROM SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN AVOIDED! Morons.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Really?

Are you taunting me, Brady.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Janus X

When the person is an ADULT (18 or so), I guess s/he has acquired the necessary maturity to take such a decision (given s/he wasn't indotrinated to some superstition).

We're not talking about an adult's decision for their own well-being . We're talking about the decision adults can/will make for their OFFSPRING.

Quote:

Otherwise, life should always prevail, unless life after the operation would be worse (heavy handicaps, eg.). If we push it a little, noy healing someone we could save violates one of god's (if he even exists) command : thou shalt not kill

Yea, maybe that works for you, but I don't the government has any right to tell a person they can't commit suicide if they want to.

You have no right to decide how or when a person should die.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Why do you have to frame these situations with PEOPLES IS JUST MEAT language?

This is about whether legal guardians can practice neglect as a religious observance.

Are you taunting me, Brady.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess

Assuming a higher value is better ...

Where an expected lifespan is 80 ...

80/80 + heaven(infinite) = infinite
80 + heaven - heaven = 80.

What the holy FUCK is this bullshit.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess

Sassafrass, I was merely applying the only finite absolute that some people understand. More is better. Since these parents are unwavering in their belief of an afterlife and unwavering in their belief of a damning, judgemental God, their choice made absolute sense. Either they could infinitely reduce their child's lifespan and still have their child exist in heaven, or they could let their child live on with the knowledge that it would never make it into heaven. This is broken, false theology, but it is plain and simple what they believe. An infinite existance is better than only a mortal one.

Until any person can prove an afterlife without question, therefore justifying the negligent death of a child, you have a fucking bullshit argument.

What you believe and what is are two different things. What I believe and what is are two different things.

Do you understand this.

Most amazing jew boots