CHILD, Inc.

Post Reply New Topic

Something interesting:

http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/



An example:



Thoughts?

THAT'S ret*d. Scientologists

Are you refering to the First Church of Christ? That's nothing to do with Scientology.

Ignorance such as this should be criminal.

Yes, it should, although some of them think of being persecuted because of this. As I heard some of them actually say that.
That's sad.

Whatever it is, it is just stupid to let happen.

I see a legal breach in the entire matter of not consulting the mother about the issue. The husband acted outside of his legal powers by forcing an important decision over the welfare of the child to be controlled solely by him. Because of this matter I would argue that he should be punished.

With the entire matter of the organization's aim there opens up an even greater question of "who owns the right to the child's welfare?" If we argue that society or the state owns it then I can see a reason for intervention, but if parents own it then government intervention is not desirable. This leads to some iffy questions as few people want the government to be the sole controller of children, but few would like the controllers of children to act against their own aims. At 12, the child obviously cannot act as his own guardian or decide for himself, but the entire position of black and white moral rectitude has a few issues in determining the absolute good. I might look at the father with some sympathy even though I completely disagree with what he did if only because of the legal issues.

Isnt this a storyline that has been appearing in the media for YEARS? Every medical drama, half the sci fi shows, theyve all had the one about the kid who is dying of a perfectly curable illness, and his parents deny him life because of some misguided religious call? When are people going to quit with this foolishness?

It might be one thing to deny someone their beliefs, but I'm fairly confident that these children would rather that, than be denied LIFE. Perhaps an adult could make the choice for themselves, but to make that call for someone else... is wrong.

For any organization to deny anyone treatment, whether it be the JWs denying blood transfusions or faith healers denying medical treatment is criminal in my eyes, and those organizations from the top down should be held entirely responsible. Trouble is, there are too many people in this world that refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and people suffer because of it. All for the sake of some BS law they think their deity has passed on to them. Sickening.

That happens in real life, it is in the media, that doesn't mean it's wrong, it's a call to society to change things and benefit children and protect them. Some tv shows use real life events, any other subject on their stories, is based on real events to inspire writers, not only this one, a lot of other stuff.


What foolishness?


So what are you saying? I didn't get that well, are you saying that parents should freely make the decision to follow their faith on certain belief system even if that dangers their child's life? As it seems you said that a child would rather die than deny their own beliefs, so they have the right to die for it?

No, I think Macbeth is saying that what these idiots did was wrong, and the kid should not have been forced to suffer.

God modern miracle cures are called medicine and science.

They should be charged. and Jailed. and educated.

Burn their church down for good measure.

Chosen One had it right. My point about the fictional occurences was that this story gets everywhere, and that given how much coverage it gets in various modes of popular fiction, I had hoped that people would have developed a learning curve about it. As it is, they obviously havent.

This is about a clash of beliefs over common sense. It is, in theory, wrong to deny someone their beliefs. However, we reach a moral dilemma when the belief system clashes with certain human rights. Most peopple would do anything to save the life of a loved one, even giving up their own to do so, which is the ultimate sacrifice in caring about someone. Yet certain religious groups, many of whom expouse caring and kindness as virtues, will deliberately allow a loved one to die. This seems a contradiction to me. I'm aware that it involves such complexities as the immortal soul, but as I said, we are generally referring to children here. Children are not considered culpable for their decisions at 12, nor are they considered wise or educated enough to make decisions properly, so why should their choice to live, at risk of their immortal soul etc, be considered a sin? They should be allowed to live.. its as simple as that. I'm fairly sure that God will understand, and they can always make up for it later by doing good things, if they really are that concerned that he wont.

Finally, when I mentioned the adult right to make decisions, i meant about THEIR OWN person. I debate that it is fair or right for adults to make life or death calls about anyone other than themselves. Strikes me that the world would maybe be a nicer place if people were not permitted to make calls like that. I have no right to terminate someone else, as far as I'm concerned. whoever it might be, and i dont consider "being religious" as an excuse to do so either. (I should quantify that.. I'm referring to people who are self-aware, and at least semi-capable of making the call for themselves. I know 12yr olds, I have children younger than that, and i know that given the choice of life or death, they would choose life.)

oh I see your point, and I'm sorry I misunderstood you, you said it is common sense over belief system, and you are right, but I think is not always the case, as the JWs thing against blood transfusion, in that case common sense wouldn't do it for most, because that is considered a sin, if anyone use that 'common sense' to save their child with it they would be betraying their faith, and betraying God, in a matter of speaking. I have read articles from them saying there are alternatives to that, if there is and everything is fine then that is a good thing, although I don't know if that's really true or not in most cases.

Anyway, this site is not about going against religion actually, it is about the freedom of religion but limited in a way that won't go harming other people, parents neglecting and abusing their child because of it. Although a few people from those denominations wouldn't be happy about it I know.

I never understood why people couldnt just have faith in things that actually work. After all, with an omnipotent, omnicogniescent being overseeing, if he didnt want blood transfusions to happen, they wouldnt work. But they do.

Always seems to be the chlidren who suffer most in these situations, which is inherently unfair. I was under the impression we were supposed to raise them, nurture them, look after them etc.. not kill them.

sigh..when does humanity learn that prayer dosnt help except for moral support?....
it still amazes me that theese amouts of stupidity still exists