http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full
this article describes the current legal system regarding parents refusing blood transfusions for their children.
Prince v Massachusetts set out the reigning legal principle:
“Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children...”
The use of the word "martyrs" makes it a very subjective viewpoint. I don't think JWs consider themselves or their children as being "martyrs". By choosing such a colorful word it obfuscates the meaning behind the statement.
My question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
Originally posted by Great King RatI think society should protect ALL children from being programmed into any religion.
The use of the word "martyrs" makes it a very subjective viewpoint. I don't think JWs consider themselves or their children as being "martyrs". By choosing such a colorful word it obfuscates the meaning behind the statement.
My question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
Originally posted by sonhouseI would tend to agree with your general statement here, but many moderate theists wouldn't and rather want to focus on extremes like refusing bloodtransfusions by JWs.
I think society should protect ALL children from being programmed into any religion.
What does it mean when children are being protected from being programmed into any religion? This sounds like they should not be allowed to visit 1 specific church every sunday, because certainly that constitutes as being programmed. Is that what you mean?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderISIS seems to be putting that into practice against those that disagree with
How would you deliver that in practice?
them. I'm sure that is all it takes, a little self justification, and you can treat
anyone as badly as you desire and blame them to boot.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayLol, what a totally random way of dragging IS into the conversation :-)
ISIS seems to be putting that into practice against those that disagree with
them. I'm sure that is all it takes, a little self justification, and you can treat
anyone as badly as you desire and blame them to boot.
Kelly
Oh, you theists and your ways of pointing fingers to other religions. Funny shizzle.
Originally posted by Great King RatNot at all, pointing fingers at other people. It is the no different than the
Lol, what a totally random way of dragging IS into the conversation :-)
Oh, you theists and your ways of pointing fingers to other religions. Funny shizzle.
topic here, smash those that do not agree in this lifetime! There is no live
and let live in the here and now. It is force someone by some means to
do something against their will by some means.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe question concerns when should the right of a parent to raise his child as he sees fit be respected and when should that right be wavered in protection of the child.
Not at all, pointing fingers at other people. It is the no different than the
topic here, smash those that do not agree in this lifetime! There is no live
and let live in the here and now. It is force someone by some means to
do something against their will by some means.
Kelly
Certainly you will agree that parents aren't allowed to do anything and everything to their child, just because it's their child?
Originally posted by Great King RatYes, I agree; however, it is a dangerous place to error on in both directions.
The question concerns when should the right of a parent to raise his child as he sees fit be respected and when should that right be wavered in protection of the child.
Certainly you will agree that parents aren't allowed to do anything and everything to their child, just because it's their child?
Kelly
No JW parent would ever want their child or any child on this planet to die. That would no doubt be the hardest thing any parent could go thru and would surley give their life in trade with no hesitation if they could. I know I would in a heart beat for mine.
This has been discussed many time here on this forum and all one has to do is look up those past discussions to see our views and why we view the command from God himself to abstain from blood as including blood transfusions.
But just for discussions sake though, if you knew that something you did daily put your childs life in danger with tens of thousands of children being killed by it yearly earth wide as compared to the couple children that may die earthwide for not taking blood transfusions that have Witness parents, would you view our stand differently?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98055567
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/26/secondhand-smoke-kills-600000-worldwide-annually/
Sure this is done daily without expecting to see your child die, but yet we all know there is an inherited risk and it is still a decision we make for our children without their opinions counting.
So at what point does a parent make those decisions to protect their child? Does on just go with the flow with what others do and accept or do they follow their conscience and follow what they believe to be from God even if others do not agree?
Originally posted by KellyJayShould "force" ~ by which I mean state intervention ~ be used to stop parents from carrying out female genital mutilation on their children?
Not at all, pointing fingers at other people. It is the no different than the
topic here, smash those that do not agree in this lifetime!