Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Family who chose prayer over medicine


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#76    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,355 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:49 AM

Involuntary manslaughter by mishap.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#77    Midyin

Midyin

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Joined:15 Apr 2013

Posted 28 April 2013 - 12:30 PM

The state should take any children that they have left away from them, and fix bothe him and her, so to make sure they can never kill another kid...


#78    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 7,518 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:03 PM

View PostMidyin, on 28 April 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

The state should take any children that they have left away from them, and fix bothe him and her, so to make sure they can never kill another kid...
Should the state do the same to all the Jehovah witnesses out there too....just incase!

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#79    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,383 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:25 PM

Yea.  That is where the idea of the state limiting itself to the minimum amount of interference needed to do what needs to be done becomes good policy.  It is not necessary and certainly outrageous for the state to take children away from parents because of their religion, and even children who desperately need blood transfusions do not need to be taken from their parents.  You just go ahead and administer the transfusion in spite of the parents.  This removes any guilt the parents may feel.  It might be best to have a judicial procedure, but often there will be emergencies so medical professionals need prior legal power in this sort of situation.  (With the US Constitution as it is I don't think this could be done in the States, but many countries have this sort of thing set up already).


#80    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,506 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:05 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 28 April 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Yea.  That is where the idea of the state limiting itself to the minimum amount of interference needed to do what needs to be done becomes good policy.  It is not necessary and certainly outrageous for the state to take children away from parents because of their religion, and even children who desperately need blood transfusions do not need to be taken from their parents.  You just go ahead and administer the transfusion in spite of the parents.  This removes any guilt the parents may feel.  It might be best to have a judicial procedure, but often there will be emergencies so medical professionals need prior legal power in this sort of situation.  (With the US Constitution as it is I don't think this could be done in the States, but many countries have this sort of thing set up already).
This is not a bad idea. The problem is when governments end up with powers such as these, they end up being abused. Corporations in the us end up with power of political officials and doctors. These things have nasty ways of evolving into monstrocities in round about ways. When messing with people's rights, even for very good reasons, we have to tead extremely carefully. Freedom is aways on the chopping block. In a real democracy, the people that government serves can end up being the enemy of that government, if that particular government wishes to survive, it must start to erode the fabric of democracy. I'm opposed to anything the erodes freedom simply to mitigate the tiny risks and problems that pop up in large free societies. I have simpathy for others that suffer from the stupidity of others, but if we are going to be free we can make laws for every quirk of humanity and every danger. Pretty soon it will be illegal to sneeze, climb a tree, swim in a river, go camping, etc etc etc. governments will invade homes for safety inspections if you have kids, if one is seriously hurt you will be under investigation for violating a myriad of 'kid safety codes", kids will not be able to play outside, they will look like football players ridding bikes, and worst of all doctors will be able to dictate what medications are kids take and use. Pfizer and monsanto, will have every child with ants in the pants dossed up on ADD medication, depression medication, anti anxiety medications all in the name of compulsirary medical treatment.

No thanks. My right to choose the medical treatment for my child  despite what people try to get me to believe must remain with me.

In the most extreme cases, well we have to draw a very careful line in the dirt as a democracy on what medicines parents are forced to give to their kids. Leaving it up to institutions like the FDA, AMA, or CDC would be a horrible mistake. These 'government' institutions are often under heavy influence of corporations with a vested interest.



"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#81    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,383 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:23 PM

I am not quite sure what your argument is, but let me respond to what I think it is, which is an excessive valuation of freedom over other needful things.  Everything that can be done by society or by families or by corporations or by individuals can be abused.  Fires can burn houses down.

The case in point is really quite narrow -- can parents deny their children medical treatment that the medical profession deems necessary because of their religion, or for that matter I suppose for any reason.

Suppose there is a strong argument within the medical profession over whether or not a given treatment helps or hurts.  In such cases we would have to say the parents must make the decision.

But when there is no such argument; the medical profession is united or at least very nearly so, people who possess the appropriate licenses -- and this can easily be limited to individuals and not institutions -- can and in many countries do routinely administer without any parental permission all sorts of emergency treatment.  

That in the States the concept of Freedom of Religion is given a higher status than the right of a child to a normal life is to me an abuse of the concept of freedom.


#82    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 7,518 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:25 PM

Who do we hold accountable for this:
http://articles.merc...or-mercury.aspx


or this;
http://vran.org/


Do not get me wrong, I am not anti medicine, but it works both ways and if a parent does not want to use medicines, then it is their choice and there are enough reasons why.  the medical profession will not cease making vaccines as long as the majority work, but who is held accountable for the children who it did not work on?

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#83    Ryu

Ryu

    Born to fail.

  • Member
  • 3,728 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Where you'll never find me

  • One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it. ~ Master Oogway, Kung Fu Panda

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:49 PM

Quote

We CAN NOT force people to use medicines because we do.

Repeatedly doing nothing and then foolishly expecting results every time is NOT medicine at all.


#84    Midyin

Midyin

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Joined:15 Apr 2013

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:03 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 28 April 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:


Should the state do the same to all the Jehovah witnesses out there too....just incase!

I see what you did there. If I say yes then I'm supporting the infringement of religious freedom, but If I say No then you can claim that I'm ok with letting children die...

Your attempt to be clever by askiing a loaded question to force me into a "No win scenario" wasnt clever. it was just translucent and pothetic...
After all, it's just the Internet..

Edited by Midyin, 28 April 2013 - 07:04 PM.


#85    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 7,518 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:57 PM

View PostMidyin, on 28 April 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I see what you did there. If I say yes then I'm supporting the infringement of religious freedom, but If I say No then you can claim that I'm ok with letting children die...

Your attempt to be clever by askiing a loaded question to force me into a "No win scenario" wasnt clever. it was just translucent and pothetic...
After all, it's just the Internet..
And your answer is?

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#86    Midyin

Midyin

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Joined:15 Apr 2013

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:43 AM

View Postfreetoroam, on 28 April 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:


And your answer is?
We've all seen Minority Report, Hipster. At least I did anyway...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users