Parents who believed prayer would save daughter charged with reckless homicide

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Perhaps not, but that does not mean it is an acceptable thing. A society can be stable and still allow terrible things or prevent harmless things.

following their god's law is not a terrible thing.

It seems to me that you are arguing that pure strength of conviction is more important than tangible effect.

No, I'm arguing that the govt should get the fuck out of my house.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

following their god's law is not a terrible thing.

It can be. Such as when terrorists do "god's will".

Originally Posted by 7960

No, I'm arguing that the govt should get the fuck out of my house.

So they should, as long you what you are doing isn't going to cause people to die.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Kytro

It can be. Such as when terrorists do "god's will".



So they should, as long you what you are doing isn't going to cause people to die.

How am I causing someone to die by not helping them?

If you're a bystander as an assailant attacks his victim, and you don't sacrifice yourself to save the victim, then you're "causing someone to die"? That doesn't make any sense.

And before you say that it's not the same thing, I'd like for you to consider that you're arguing that the parents ought to sacrifice their labor and time to save the "victim."

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

How am I causing someone to die by not helping them?

Normally you are not, but in general it is accepted parents owe their children a duty of care.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

And before you say that it's not the same thing, I'd like for you to consider that you're arguing that the parents ought to sacrifice their labor and time to save the "victim."

Indeed I am. Part of what society expects of people who choose to raise children. Just like they expect you not kill.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Normally you are not, but in general it is accepted parents owe their children a duty of care.

Including spiritual.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

Including spiritual.

I just don't think we will agree on this. In general, I actually agree despite the deep reservations I have with religion.

I just think society needs to step in when you decide to let your children die because of what you believe.

I am all for freedom, but only for oneself. There is a fine line for sure, but letting your kids die to help them makes it hard to ignore.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

And this is the core of the issue.

YOU say it's fantasy. YOU don't believe what they KNOW. They KNOW they're going to be eternally damned if they violate the word of god and you're pushing your belief on them becuase you disregard it as "stupid" or whatever you want to classify "fantasy" as.

But only "bona fide" fantasies, right?


If they know that they will be damned, let them bring some evidence to a court and they can decide if their child should be allowed die.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I just don't think we will agree on this.

Oh, of course we don't

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

But only "bona fide" fantasies, right?

See, it's this kind of "fantasies" shit that derails the discussion. It's fantasy to YOU

If they know that they will be damned, let them bring some evidence to a court and they can decide if their child should be allowed die.

Here you go.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

Oh, of course we don't

Indeed. Which is in one way a good thing. The more we stimulate thought, the better.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

Here you go.

A shipment of fail has arrived

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

Here you go.

What page does it say that people should refuse treatment from Doctors and die?

[nbiggershaft]

I'm surprised to see you on that side of the argument 7960. I thought I've seen you on the side of the state on this one before.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by 7960

Including spiritual.

The state and society place no responsibility on parents for saving a childs soul. As far as my government is concerned I don't want them legislating using a believe in heaven or hell.

[7960]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I'm surprised to see you on that side of the argument 7960. I thought I've seen you on the side of the state on this one before.

Even though I'm not religious, I've always been on the side of religious freedom because (slippery slope) if they take that, what's next?

[7960]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The state and society place no responsibility on parents for saving a childs soul.

The state also has no right to restrict a parent's efforts to save his child's soul.

As far as my government is concerned I don't want them legislating using a believe in heaven or hell.

Nobody said you have to believe in what they do or even abide by their practices.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by 7960

Even though I'm not religious, I've always been on the side of religious freedom because (slippery slope) if they take that, what's next?

An individual adults religious freedom is not in question, it's whether that freedom applies to your children. Given your chastisement of people who don't give their kids vaccines, I'd figure going out to the extreme of not allowing your children to use basic life saving medicine, you'd want something done.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by 7960

The state also has no right to restrict a parent's efforts to save his child's soul.

They do when those efforts conflict the law.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

What page does it say that people should refuse treatment from Doctors and die?

It says they should refuse blood.

This is based on biblical texts such as Genesis 9:3; Leviticus 17:10 and Acts 15:29.

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia