Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo - Page 14

SzczerbiakManiac · 05-23-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

As far as I'm concerned the most harmful thing you can do to a child short of direct violence is raise them within religion.

Sing it brother!
(visible mojo)

tracilicious · 05-26-2007, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

As far as I'm concerned the most harmful thing you can do to a child short of direct violence is raise them within religion. So if I don't get to outlaw what I think are the stupidest decisions parents could make I don't see why others should get to do theirs.

True that.

As far as the seatbelt/cancer analogy goes, I don't find it incredibly fitting. I'm assuming that with the cancer thing they are researching, thinking, talking to specialists, in general trying extremely hard to make the best choice for their child. With the seatbelt thing they just don't care. I think deliberate intent should count for something.

My line is basically wherever my personal philosophies fall. I'm all for people choosing whatever medical treatment they feel is best, so I would side with the family. My line is wavy and portable.

Morrigoon · 05-23-2007, 02:17 PM

I suppose you've got me there, Alex. I do hold some conflicting positions. You could say my 'line' is jagged.

But I think there is a difference between refusing to allow someone to introduce something into their body, and forcing them To introduce something into their body. Refusing to allow entry (eg: drugs) is supporting the body in its "natural" state, versus forcibly introducing something (like chemo) which is forcing a non-naturally occurring disposition. Even if the naturally-occurring one is terminal.

In other words, if they're already dying, not forcing them to live is one thing... taking someone who isn't dying and doing something to them which may kill them is another.

Morrigoon · 05-23-2007, 02:23 PM

As far as religion is concerned, I think the old adage about everything in moderation holds true. Neither extreme position is ideal. I think the happy middle is that people hold some spiritual beliefs, but that they not be freakazoid about it.

Proselytizers are annoying... whether the religion they're evangelizing is christianity, hare krishna, atheism, or any other form of radical religion.

Tref · 05-25-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Proselytizers are annoying... whether the religion they're evangelizing is christianity, hare krishna, atheism, or any other form of radical religion.

Unless, of course, they're right about everything, in which case we're all screwed! Just ask Jack Chick! Whoa! Hey!

05-23-2007, 02:17 PM	#3
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	I suppose you've got me there, Alex. I do hold some conflicting positions. You could say my 'line' is jagged. But I think there is a difference between refusing to allow someone to introduce something into their body, and forcing them To introduce something into their body. Refusing to allow entry (eg: drugs) is supporting the body in its "natural" state, versus forcibly introducing something (like chemo) which is forcing a non-naturally occurring disposition. Even if the naturally-occurring one is terminal. In other words, if they're already dying, not forcing them to live is one thing... taking someone who isn't dying and doing something to them which may kill them is another. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

05-23-2007, 02:23 PM	#4
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	As far as religion is concerned, I think the old adage about everything in moderation holds true. Neither extreme position is ideal. I think the happy middle is that people hold some spiritual beliefs, but that they not be freakazoid about it. Proselytizers are annoying... whether the religion they're evangelizing is christianity, hare krishna, atheism, or any other form of radical religion. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes