I often get asked where religious liberty should end, and I often respond with “there’s a gray line”.But the death of children is clearly over that line.I don’t know the details of the Travolta tragedy. It’s not my business, but it IS a good basis for discussion. Scientology (a malevolent scam for foolish people) does not “accept autism” as a possibility, so the parents don’t normally treat it. Duh. This goes along the lines of Christian Scientists withholding medicine from their kids, deciding to pray to their god instead (again, duh).This is not gray. This is parents killing children in the name of mythology. This is bad parenting, to the point of the state having the rightful need to protect the children and remove them from the parents. Child abusers lose their kids, and withholding medicine is child abuse, whether it’s done for religion or not. My sympathies go out to the Travoltas, and I AGAIN say I don’t know the details of their son’s death, nor should I. However, if the speculation is correct, and he was receiving the wrong medication because Scientologists don’t believe the real condition exists, then they ARE responsible.ANY parent responsible for killing their own kid due to idiotic teachings cannot blame the teachings — they must take the responsibility for believing the idiocy and pay the price. Religious liberty ends BEFORE the kids’ well-being is endangered.
“This is parents killing children in the name of mythology.”
I wouldn’t of phased it that way Dave. I think the parents wanted to practice scientology, not kill their children in the name of it. It wasn’t premeditated, which it would have to be using the statement.
“This is parents killing in the name of mythology.
I do understand your concerns about Scientology.
geoih, I liked your post, valid points:
“What you’re ultimately advocating is that the state is actually the parent, and biological parents only exist at convenience of the state. So, why not let the state decide who gets to have children at all?”
Think about it, that condition already exists. If you are a drug addict, and you are not properly caring for your children, the state will, reluctantly (understanding the additional trauma to those already victimized) remove custody and place the child in licensed foster care. Now, let me cement the analogy. Darwin said that religion is the “opium of the masses” and he was right, an injected ingredient that prevents one from making clear decisions and causes one to lose sight of priorities. When that addiction causes the death of a child, the addict is responsible under the law, as well he should be.
On the subject of the state deciding who gets to have children, probably a bad idea in view of the agenda of greed and corruption that is capitalism, but here’s some food for thought. Darwin spoke of a force called “natural selection” which basically proposed that the gene pool is protected because the defective die, and therefore don’t reproduce. But, now, we have the miracle of modern medicine. If a baby is born with a congenital defect, a team of surgeons fix it and then pat each other on the back. They fixed the malfunction, but not the DNA. Baby grows up and lives a long life, has a bushell of children. Happy ending. Cinderella story. Only the genetic defect, whether recessive or dominant is passed on to all of baby’s children. I think you know where I am going, while this life saving procedure turned into a happy outcome, the end result of such interference is as inevitable as free trade was to our economy. But in general people are offended at laws requiring sterilization of the mentally retarded, let alone any other potential threat to the gene pool.
No good deed goes unpunished, and like the rest of the world, the medical profession doesn’t care about the ultimate outcome, they’re getting rich TODAY, and that’s all that matters now.
The law of unintended consequences.
NeoWolfe
Again what finds himself without a valid point, so he turns to personal attacks”
“Don’t be too hard on Neo. He really has no idea what he is advocating. It’s part of his free-from-thought ideology.”
What, even though you may never have a point in an intelligent discussion, you can take comfort in the fact that you will always have that point on the top of your skull. Keep it honed and sharpened, you never know when you may need to head butt a Jewish sympathizer.
NeoWolfe
NeoWolfe
Unlike you the medical profession understands that less than 20% of congenital defects are due abnormalities in DNA. Once again you fill your knowledge void with assumptions – part of that “free thinker” thingy – rather than with facts – part of the scientific thingy. Within the scientific community we call that talking out of your anus – well not those precise words.
Quote from neowolfe: “Think about it, that condition already exists.”
Even if it does, it doesn’t make it right.
I’ll save you the argument on how I decided what is “right” by stating a premise: I own my body. If you wish to argue with that, then an argument is a waste of time (because I won’t accept a different premise).
You see Dave, what I’m talking about?
geoih said:
“Quote from neowolfe: “Think about it, that condition already exists.”
Even if it does, it doesn’t make it right.”
Then some rant about control over his or her own body. What the hell does that have to do with the points I made?
Then Whatsbetweenmylegs said:
“Unlike you the medical profession understands that less than 20% of congenital defects are due abnormalities in DNA.”
While that is total bullshit, lets just change the senario to purely genetic defects. Same surgeons, same procedure, same happy outcome, same Cinderella story, same mini tribe of children with dominant dna defect. Somewhere, nematod, you missed the point again. But that’s what you do. You don’t discuss, you disrupt.
NeoWolfe
NeoWolfe
Really? Inform me. What percent of congenital abnormalities are due to genetic defects?
In other words lets just forget what you actually wrote eh?
Neowolfe
Your point was obvious. What is also obvious is that you don’t know what a congenital defect is. Equally obvious is the gross ignorance exemplified by your statement that “medical profession doesn’t care” about this obvious problem. Ever hear of genetic counseling? Obviously not.
What wasted our time again by saying:
“”Your point was obvious. What is also obvious is that you don’t know what a congenital defect is. Equally obvious is the gross ignorance exemplified by your statement that “medical profession doesn’t care” about this obvious problem. Ever hear of genetic counseling? Obviously not.”
You are right, I have never heard of genetic counseling, in fact, I tend to believe you made it up. As you made up the statistic about congenital defects. The operative word in congenital is “gene” as in genetic. If I did use the wrong word, that does not excuse your mental feebleness in missing the point of the post. That modern medicine has bypassed natural selection, and that another unintended consequence, another human disaster inevitably looms on the horizon. And believe it or not, this time, the Jews didn’t do it.
NeoWolfe
NeoWolfe
Buffoon.
What, wikipedia,
:Congenital disorder involves defects or damage to a developing fetus. It may be the result of genetic abnormalities, the intrauterine (uterus) environment, errors of morphogenesis, or a chromosomal abnormality.
Buffoon,
NeoWolfe
Quote from neowolfe: “Then some rant about control over his or her own body. What the hell does that have to do with the points I made?”
It has to do with the original point, of which you don’t seem to have any concern about (i.e., that if you don’t like the way a parent is raising their child, then you have no qualms about kidnapping that child through the power of the state).
If a person owns their body, then it is no business of the state when people decide to have children. Your casual advocacy of the state’s coercive authority into the decisions of individuals on reproduction and the raising of children is essentially an acceptance of slavery to the state.
Do you agree that individuals, parents, perspective parents, children, etc., own their own bodies and are not slaves of the state, or are they all mere property of the state and subject to the whim and coercive authority of the state?
geoih
I wouldn’t bother asking Neo for his opinions. They are just too unstable to bother documenting them.
But I think you are looking at this from two extremes only as exemplified here:
Clearly overpopulation is a huge problem and something must be done about it. If education doesn’t work – and I doubt that it will be sufficient – then the state will have to step in. One’s right to procreate must be balanced against the rights of others to live in a relatively healthy environment.
Quote from what: “Clearly overpopulation is a huge problem and something must be done about it. If education doesn’t work – and I doubt that it will be sufficient – then the state will have to step in. One’s right to procreate must be balanced against the rights of others to live in a relatively healthy environment.”
I would agree that population is an issue, but there are many factors that can effect it. The Malthusian view is over simplified. There is plenty of evidence to show that a post industrial society naturally leads to reduced populations. This is perhaps due to the increased resourses needed to raise a child in such a society (i.e., it takes more effort to raise an engineer, or even an electrician, than a simple laborer).
To say that the group gets to tell you what to do with your individual body, then you can only conclude that the group, or the state, is the master and we are all slaves.