Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - For my Libertarian friends
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFor my Libertarian friends
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 192193194195196 269>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 22:34
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What treatment can the government force the child to receive then Rob?


The government is to protect the right to life of all citizens, yes? 

You yourself argued against abortion on the same principles.  I'd exhort you not to back out of those same principles now.

Would you be all right with women in a cult getting pregnant to have a sacrificial abortion to their gods?

Would you be okay with parents shoving icepicks down a child's throat as a religious ritual?  If not, why are you okay with letting a child die from something easily curable?

I think this is an easy one.


I essentially agree with you on most of your points, Rob, but I think what Pat was asking is what types of treatment specifically should the government require be administered? There are various degrees of cancer treatment, ranging from the relatively moderate to the extraordinarily complex and expensive. What level should be required? If they require a very expensive treatment that the parents can't afford, who is going to pay for it?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 22:40
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What treatment can the government force the child to receive then Rob?


The government is to protect the right to life of all citizens, yes? 

You yourself argued against abortion on the same principles.  I'd exhort you not to back out of those same principles now.

Would you be all right with women in a cult getting pregnant to have a sacrificial abortion to their gods?

Would you be okay with parents shoving icepicks down a child's throat as a religious ritual?  If not, why are you okay with letting a child die from something easily curable?

I think this is an easy one.


I essentially agree with you on most of your points, Rob, but I think what Pat was asking is what types of treatment specifically should the government require be administered? There are various degrees of cancer treatment, ranging from the relatively moderate to the extraordinarily complex and expensive. What level should be required? If they require a very expensive treatment that the parents can't afford, who is going to pay for it?


Ah, I see.  Not sure.  Something to think about.

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/817/817632/godzilla-unleashed-20070904020100968-000.jpg

Oh damn, wrong image!


http://www.southdacola.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rodin20thinker.jpg
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 22:59
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What treatment can the government force the child to receive then Rob?


The government is to protect the right to life of all citizens, yes? 

You yourself argued against abortion on the same principles.  I'd exhort you not to back out of those same principles now.

Would you be all right with women in a cult getting pregnant to have a sacrificial abortion to their gods?

Would you be okay with parents shoving icepicks down a child's throat as a religious ritual?  If not, why are you okay with letting a child die from something easily curable?

I think this is an easy one.

Technically I would disagree that it is the government duty to protect the life of its citizens.

However, there's a large difference between an actions which you describe and lack of action. 

Either way, my question was essentially as llama pointed out. If there's treatment X which is 95% effective and treatment Y which is 100% effective, can the government step in and tell the family it must use treatment Y? Using treatment X is essentially taking away 5% of the child's life and so the state can step in and defend that right?

What about mandating vaccinations? What about mandating risky procedures? What if the child himself is a child, but as in the story above, at an age which we can not completely disregard his opinion?

I think you're trying to make a grey issue appear much more decidable. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 23:05
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What treatment can the government force the child to receive then Rob?


The government is to protect the right to life of all citizens, yes? 

You yourself argued against abortion on the same principles.  I'd exhort you not to back out of those same principles now.

Would you be all right with women in a cult getting pregnant to have a sacrificial abortion to their gods?

Would you be okay with parents shoving icepicks down a child's throat as a religious ritual?  If not, why are you okay with letting a child die from something easily curable?

I think this is an easy one.

Technically I would disagree that it is the government duty to protect the life of its citizens.

However, there's a large difference between an actions which you describe and lack of action. 

Either way, my question was essentially as llama pointed out. If there's treatment X which is 95% effective and treatment Y which is 100% effective, can the government step in and tell the family it must use treatment Y? Using treatment X is essentially taking away 5% of the child's life and so the state can step in and defend that right?

What about mandating vaccinations? What about mandating risky procedures? What if the child himself is a child, but as in the story above, at an age which we can not completely disregard his opinion?

I think you're trying to make a grey issue appear much more decidable. 


I think you're trying to be a dick after I've already said, "I got it, now let me think."  Wink
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 23:08
Hey I know sometimes after a day of beer I need to read posts here twice. 

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - October 14 2010 at 23:08
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 23:11
Well, in the interim, let me respond with my own analogy.

The religion in question denies medical treatment- something that could save a life.

In my scenario I'm painting, the religion denies food.  At what point could a government step in and say, "You are a child abuser because you do not feed your children?"  Would it be one day without nourishment?  Or 30?

Still thinking myself, but giving you one to think about in tandem.

Edited by Epignosis - October 14 2010 at 23:12
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 23:17
To be clear, the child desires food and the parents will not provide it for him, or the child desires food and the parents are stopping him from consuming it?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 23:20
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Well, in the interim, let me respond with my own analogy.

The religion in question denies medical treatment- something that could save a life.

In my scenario I'm painting, the religion denies food.  At what point could a government step in and say, "You are a child abuser because you do not feed your children?"  Would it be one day without nourishment?  Or 30?

Still thinking myself, but giving you one to think about in tandem.


Your analogy nicely proves my point that there is not an easy answer to this questions. We all agree (I think) that the government has a right to step in if parents are literally starving their children to death. We all also agree that the government does not have a right to step in after only six hours. There is a line somewhere, but I sure don't know where it is.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 23:22
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Well, in the interim, let me respond with my own analogy.

The religion in question denies medical treatment- something that could save a life.

In my scenario I'm painting, the religion denies food.  At what point could a government step in and say, "You are a child abuser because you do not feed your children?"  Would it be one day without nourishment?  Or 30?

Still thinking myself, but giving you one to think about in tandem.


Your analogy nicely proves my point that there is not an easy answer to this questions. We all agree (I think) that the government has a right to step in if parents are literally starving their children to death. We all also agree that the government does not have a right to step in after only six hours. There is a line somewhere, but I sure don't know where it is.

Economists call this the continuum problem no?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 23:29
I know one thing Libertarians lack.

Patience.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 03:23

Whether it's through religious belief, custom or personal conviction, people's choice to refuse medical treatment for themselves and their dependants should be respected, even if that results in the loss of life. The only time when any authority should step in is in the case of neglect.

That's not to say that sane people shouldn't try and educate these lunatics that blood was created by their god as something that is holy and good, so blood transfusions are holy, good and righteous so anyone who dies after refusing the freely-given gift of life from another human is impure and unworthy of sharing the presence of their god so will be damned for all eternity. Or something like that, since the rational - hey, blood is just stuff and contains no spiritual impurites argument is never going to get anywhere.
 
(sorry Rob, but the Ice-picks and 30 days fastings are not relevant - refusing treatment is not part of a ritual or custom - people don't deliberately get sick so they can refuse treatment as a test of faith. Ermm damn, forgot about snake-handlers)
 
Corporal punishment is never justified as far as I am concerned, beating a child is child abuse regardless of whether it's to teach the little buggers a lesson or for fun and profit. You wouldn't allow your employer to smack you for doing something wrong, nor would you allow a cop to lump you over the head with his nightstick for speeding in a school zone. Age and blood-relationship has no bearing here - it's an authority-figure physically punishing another person, that's abuse of authority and abuse of a person.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 03:51
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

In my scenario I'm painting, the religion denies food.  At what point could a government step in and say, "You are a child abuser because you do not feed your children?"  Would it be one day without nourishment?  Or 30?
I don't know of any religion that does that - most religions fast for a day, (24 hours or during the period between sunrise and sunset) and they have strict rules as to who can fast and what they can and cannot consume. In most case (probably all, I don't know for sure) the young, very old, pregnant and nursing women, the sick and the menatlly ill are exempt from fasting.

Edited by Dean - October 15 2010 at 03:53
What?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 07:18
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

In my scenario I'm painting, the religion denies food.  At what point could a government step in and say, "You are a child abuser because you do not feed your children?"  Would it be one day without nourishment?  Or 30?
I don't know of any religion that does that - most religions fast for a day, (24 hours or during the period between sunrise and sunset) and they have strict rules as to who can fast and what they can and cannot consume. In most case (probably all, I don't know for sure) the young, very old, pregnant and nursing women, the sick and the menatlly ill are exempt from fasting.


It's a hypothetical.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 07:20
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Whether it's through religious belief, custom or personal conviction, people's choice to refuse medical treatment for themselves and their dependants should be respected, even if that results in the loss of life. The only time when any authority should step in is in the case of neglect.

That's not to say that sane people shouldn't try and educate these lunatics that blood was created by their god as something that is holy and good, so blood transfusions are holy, good and righteous so anyone who dies after refusing the freely-given gift of life from another human is impure and unworthy of sharing the presence of their god so will be damned for all eternity. Or something like that, since the rational - hey, blood is just stuff and contains no spiritual impurites argument is never going to get anywhere.
 
(sorry Rob, but the Ice-picks and 30 days fastings are not relevant - refusing treatment is not part of a ritual or custom - people don't deliberately get sick so they can refuse treatment as a test of faith. Ermm damn, forgot about snake-handlers)
 
Corporal punishment is never justified as far as I am concerned, beating a child is child abuse regardless of whether it's to teach the little buggers a lesson or for fun and profit. You wouldn't allow your employer to smack you for doing something wrong, nor would you allow a cop to lump you over the head with his nightstick for speeding in a school zone. Age and blood-relationship has no bearing here - it's an authority-figure physically punishing another person, that's abuse of authority and abuse of a person.


We can't pass ask people to change their religious beliefs about medical treatment, but you can ask them to change it when it comes to spanking? Why is that?

You wouldn't allow a police officer to stop you from eating dinner or taking a vitamin, so why would it then apply to parents?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 07:21
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I know one thing Libertarians lack.

Patience.


Guns N Roses turned me off to it.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 07:53
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

In my scenario I'm painting, the religion denies food.  At what point could a government step in and say, "You are a child abuser because you do not feed your children?"  Would it be one day without nourishment?  Or 30?
I don't know of any religion that does that - most religions fast for a day, (24 hours or during the period between sunrise and sunset) and they have strict rules as to who can fast and what they can and cannot consume. In most case (probably all, I don't know for sure) the young, very old, pregnant and nursing women, the sick and the menatlly ill are exempt from fasting.


It's a hypothetical.
Hypothetical is good if it relates otherwise it is hyperbole.
What?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 07:56
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

In my scenario I'm painting, the religion denies food.  At what point could a government step in and say, "You are a child abuser because you do not feed your children?"  Would it be one day without nourishment?  Or 30?
I don't know of any religion that does that - most religions fast for a day, (24 hours or during the period between sunrise and sunset) and they have strict rules as to who can fast and what they can and cannot consume. In most case (probably all, I don't know for sure) the young, very old, pregnant and nursing women, the sick and the menatlly ill are exempt from fasting.


It's a hypothetical.
Hypothetical is good if it relates otherwise it is hyperbole.



The idea of a hypothetical is to to expose the reasoning behind an issue. It doesn't matter how believable or unbelievable it is. That is totally irrelevant.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 08:04
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


The idea of a hypothetical is to to expose the reasoning behind an issue. It doesn't matter how believable or unbelievable it is. That is totally irrelevant.
Okay - I can accept that.
 
However (Wink) I think that is only relevant if there isn't a pre-existing valid example that does show the reasoning (eg blood transfusions) - or that every exisiting example of the hyperthetical example fails to show it - as is the case in religious fasting.
What?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 08:24
Wouldn't that just be essentially disregarding them entirely since you wouldn't be able to show that no real example exists for the same purposes?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 08:24
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


The idea of a hypothetical is to to expose the reasoning behind an issue. It doesn't matter how believable or unbelievable it is. That is totally irrelevant.
Okay - I can accept that.
 
However (Wink) I think that is only relevant if there isn't a pre-existing valid example that does show the reasoning (eg blood transfusions) - or that every exisiting example of the hyperthetical example fails to show it - as is the case in religious fasting.


Are you implying that there are no such religious in the world where children aren't harmed?  We've had such religions all throughout history, such as child sacrifices to the Phoenician god Moloch.  Here is a document describing ritualistic child mutilations and killing in South Africa- as recent as 2002.  But at the less brutal end, there are controversies like circumcision, for example.

The central issue of the question is at what point does religion overstep a child's right to life and limb?

On one end of the spectrum, some might say the government has no right to meddle in the affairs of religious people.  On the other hand you have people like Mr. ProgFreak and Richard Dawkins who say that merely raising your child to be religious is abuse (if I understand them correctly).

To further discussion, I found this article from 1988 discussing the legal aspect of religious exemptions.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 192193194195196 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 1.105 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.