-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fundies: Cervical cancer preferable to potential increase in sexual activity
- Thread starter FoneBone
- Start date
- Status
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
Condoms are bad too.
B'z-chan said:
did you even read the article? Gad.
For short: religious groups oppose a new vaccine that would prevent an STD because you would have to vaccinate people before they have sex. They say giving it to young people will make them lose all morals and go sex crazy, flaunting god's will. This is of course contrary to what anyone with any common sense would believe.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
DJ Sl4m said:
Actually, in this case it's "Live and let the fundies' kids die."
videogamer
Banned
Well, if there was a cervical cancer vaccine, would the fundie parents opt to give it to their kids? I'd like to know.demon said:
I remember talking to my microbiology professor about vaccinations and how some people didn't take them for religious beliefs. Then he tells me about this horrible story of some 6 year old boy who's family didn't believe in vaccinations. He was playing in his backyard and he slipped and cut himself a bit. Didn't think of it.
A week later, he's in the hospital dying of TETNUS for the love of god. My prof, a doctor at the time took care of him and he told me it was like the most horrible thing he's ever had to go through. And it's a horrible disease. Body twists uncontrolbily, eyes forced open cause you can't control those muscles anymore, and you die when your diaphram no longer moves (or some other reason, I forget). Six year old boy. FUCK the fundamentalists.
A week later, he's in the hospital dying of TETNUS for the love of god. My prof, a doctor at the time took care of him and he told me it was like the most horrible thing he's ever had to go through. And it's a horrible disease. Body twists uncontrolbily, eyes forced open cause you can't control those muscles anymore, and you die when your diaphram no longer moves (or some other reason, I forget). Six year old boy. FUCK the fundamentalists.
videogamer
Banned
ToxicAdam said:
Are you trying to continue your record of self-ownage?
videogamer
Banned
:lol at the lustfreeliving.org ad at the bottom of the page ... it's designed just like the anti-drug websites
LakeEarth said:
In 1987, my pediatrician had a young Jewish child in his care (he himself was Jewish as well), and the kid needed a blood transfusion or he was going to die; the parents refused to allow it due to their religious beliefs (apparently having non-Jewish blood is a no-no in this particular sect), but he proceeded to order it anyway while the child was in the hospital, thereby saving the child's life. He got sued for $1.2M (big money back then)...and lost. In addition, his Jewish patient base of about 800 patients, (about 65-70% of his clientele), stopped taking their children to him for care. He was never the same after that ordeal. Crazy world.
EDIT:
I've never understood why parents are not allowed to beat their children even if it's consistent with their religious beliefs (which of course is wrong), yet they are able to make such decisions regarding the fate of their child's life despite the fact that it's not in the child's best interests and will clearly be of more serious consequence than a mere beating. In an ideal world, a nation would not extend first amendment protection to parents in such cases; a parent should not hold sway over their child's life under any circumstances. If someone believes that they should-- even if it's due to their religious convictions-- then they'll have to explain to me why we prohibit many other practices, particularly where children are concerned, even if it's consistent with the parent's religion. Seems quite the double standard, and the life of a child is a high price to pay for political correctness imo.
videogamer
Banned
Loki said:
Why did the pediatrician do that? I thought it was pretty clear that the parents do what they please regarding their children's healthcare if they use the religion option.
brooklyngooner
Member
xsarien said:
I always think about this. We're always told by text books to be proud of the Puritans and Plymouth Rock, searching for religious feedom etc. But here's the rub: the Puritans were assholes.
Actually, while the Puritans were indeed intolerant assholes, one thing they were not was uptight about sex talk. If your wife wasn't getting it in bed, the whole town would know... and around the mid 18th century, a huge portion of babies were born before the 9th month of marriage. At any rate, I believe he meant Australia.brooklyngooner said:
brooklyngooner
Member
Hitokage said:Actually, while the Puritans were indeed intolerant assholes, one thing they were not was uptight about sex talk. If your wife wasn't getting it in bed, the whole town would know... and around the mid 18th century, a huge portion of babies were born before the 9th month of marriage. At any rate, I believe he meant Australia.
Interesting. Would the community in Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter be considered Puritan? Not that one should be tolerant of adultery; to me though there's always the question of whether it's objectionable from a purely moral standpoint or a fear of sexuality.
videogamer
Banned
My high school class says yes, they were Puritan.brooklyngooner said:
brooklyngooner
Member
Hammy said:
I actually phrased my question incorrectly, but thanks for the wise-ass jab.
Hammy said:
Well, he did it because he couldn't bear the thought of a child dying due to a religious dictate, even though it was the dictate of his very own religion. He followed his heart.
I'm not 100% certain on the law on this, but I'm reasonably sure that, as you said, parents have the final say in their child's care, even if they are refusing a relatively simple procedure that can save their child from certain death. What I would ask is if you yourself agree with the fact that parents should be able to do that-- even if it involves religious beliefs. There are very few things that I would trample over the first amendment for, but this is certainly near the top of that short list (and most other circumstances where I would are already covered by law anyway and are recognized as valid exceptions to first amendment rights of speech, religion etc.).
Like I said earlier, if one is going to hold that parents should be able to refuse treatment for their child despite their certain death otherwise, then tell me why we are allowed to prosecute parents for "simply" beating their children even if it's prescribed by their faith. Why? Isn't death far more severe a consequence than physical abuse? I know for a fact that if any parent is suspected of physical abuse-- even if they prove it to be consistent with their religious beliefs-- they're shit out of luck. But we should allow parents to hold the very life of their child in their hands? I can't agree with that...
If there were a hypothetical religion that advocated raping babies, and parents did that to their child, they'd be prosecuted regardless of whether or not their actions were informed by their faith. How is the death of a child any less deserving of protection than beating or rape or what have you? I'm curious to know what you think...
videogamer
Banned
Yes, so he decided that his opinions are superior to his patients'... something you might expect coming from an expert. So he decided to run over his customers' will.Loki said:
It should not matter if I agree with it or not....should I become a doctor, I'm not going to become a martyr so that doctors around America can disregard the parents' wishes.
I think an important difference is that avoiding health care is a passive act while abusing a child requires action. It would be like the difference between giving a lethal injection for euthansia and withdrawing life support. One requires the intent and physical action to "harm". The other is submission to what will come.
I personally don't believe that society should be in the business of respecting the wishes of parents who would allow their child to perish rather than undergo a simple medical procedure to begin with. That said, if I were a physician, I'd follow the letter of the law without question, and if that law stated that I must do as the parent says, then so be it-- the blood is not on my hands. But perhaps I'd work to have it changed.
Like I said, this is one of the very few cases where I believe the first amendment doesn't (or shouldn't) hold water.
Interesting distinction, but it's ultimately unpersuasive imo. You do realize that if, hypothetically, one's religion mandated that you withhold food from misbehaving children, and that led to their death by starvation, then the parent would be prosecuted, right? Even this case is less offensive than the original case, because a parent might not know how long it would take to starve a child to death, and thus the death might be "accidental" (i.e., reducible to neglect rather than murder); in the case of refusing medical treatment, they are in full possession of the facts-- that fact being that their child will die if not treated.
I'm not looking to get into a protracted argument over this, and, like I said, I personally would follow whatever the law is regarding such situations (since I feel that the rule of law is paramount in most every circumstance). I just can sympathize with the doctor's plight in this instance and feel that it's a shame that he was treated the way he was for that decision. When I say that I would "trample over the first amendment" in these cases, I mean that in my ideal world, this would be legally recognized as a legitimate exception to first amendment rights (as are many other situations)-- by no means am I suggesting that I would just charge ahead and do what I felt was best regardless of the law. That would be silly and, ultimately, unethical.
Loki,
It varies from state to state, but it's becoming more difficult for parents to commit medical neglect under the guise of religious freedom. Things are definitely improving.
Hammy,
Most forms of child neglect are passive. Doesn't make them any different from other abusive acts.
It varies from state to state, but it's becoming more difficult for parents to commit medical neglect under the guise of religious freedom. Things are definitely improving.
Hammy,
Most forms of child neglect are passive. Doesn't make them any different from other abusive acts.
videogamer
Banned
Yes, they probably would be persecuted. I've thought about your issue on child punishment again, and I am having second doubts. It really is unfair that the parents are being punished for "abuse" when they are merely following their religion. To protect parents in health situations but expose them to prosecution in other areas, even if they use the religion as their reason, seems like an injustice. Perhaps another way to look at it is to view the religious parents' actions as well intentioned. Because of religious duty, they must do such and such things for their child's own well being (including in the spiritual sense). On the other hand, there are other parents who abuse their kids because they are drunk or prone to angry fits of violence that aims to punish rather than correct their kids. However, it will not be easy to change this. The opponents can give out such and such examples of some kid suffering and dying because their parents wanted to follow their religion... and the public will suck it up. It will not be easy to convince the population to protect some obscure religious groups that want to physically harm their children when necessary.Loki said:
Oh yeah, if you are going to use a baby-raping example, at least include a link. Let's try to stick to examples that can be studied.
levious: Loki used the term "abuse".. which suggests more ill intent than "neglect". I'm not sure about the legal use of the term though.
Edit: my post was way too broad. Uh... like with kids who don't believe what their parents are doing to them: for simplicity's sake, I'll restrict my comments to kids who can not articulate an argument. Uh yeah there is more.
levious said:
Well I'm certainly glad to hear it.
Hammy said:
Well, "injustice" aside, it's simply horribly inconsistent imo given the consequences of each act and the stated rationales for prosecution in the case of child abuse.
Hammy said:
Yes, but then we're back to square one. If "well-intentioned" is being defined as "that which falls under the rubric of religion", then it should hold for either case. Corporal punishment can also, under this view, be seen as "well-intentioned" (see: "spare the rod, spoil the child"; fundamentalist sects can easily take this to an extreme)-- that doesn't make it right.
Of course. Admittedly, I was speaking of a minority among the entire set of parents who abuse their children. They do exist, however, and the fact that they'd be prosecuted for this comparatively minor offense (minor as compared to hastening their child's death, that is) despite the fact that their actions were informed by their religious beliefs goes to show you that we do not honor religious commitments uber alles.
In making the argument for consistency, I wasn't implying that protection should be extended to fundamentalist parents who abuse their children due to their faith, but rather that it should not be extended in either case. Just so we're clear.
I did say that the "baby raping" example was a hypothetical one, so I'm not sure why you're asking me for a link. My point was that they'd be prosecuted the same way child abusing fundamentalists are, and for pretty much the same reason: endangering the welfare of a child.
There probably are belief systems that advocate the rape of children somewhere in the world, though it is not necessary that there be for my point to stand.
(If you'll recall, certain African tribes believe that you must have sex with a child in order to rid yourself of AIDS; I'm not sure if this is advocated by the tribal/traditional religion or if it is simply an outgrowth of their ignorance regarding the mechanism by which the virus is spread-- it's certainly a fairly new belief, however. This is, however, an aside)
I was going to elaborate this very same line of thought (regarding the indoctrination of children into religious systems, how far that should extend, and whether children who can vocalize their feelings/thoughts should be subject to the decisions of their parents at the cost of their life; obviously, before a child can speak is another issue entirely, though it doesn't lessen the force of my overall argument imo). I even had an entire paragraph about it typed out, but then decided that I'd have to consider it further before making a definitive statement, seeing as how I've given it but a cursory examination. I don't like to speak about things unless I feel I've considered them adequately; in this case, for this particular aspect of the scenario in question, I have not, and so will hold my tongue.
Besides, I've had a busy weekend and a rough day, so I'm done thinking until at least Wednesday.
And I should also let it be known that I, too, did some reconsidering, particularly about your distinction between active and passive behaviors on the part of parents. I haven't changed my mind on it, obviously, but it's a somewhat interesting angle; if I come to any conclusions that are different from what I stated above, I'll let you know.
On a gut level, and even on a superficial-to-moderately-scrutinized mental level, the whole notion that parents should be able to behave in such a manner strikes me as absurd and, ultimately, indefensible. I may elaborate on the points above (regarding the vocal wishes of the child) in a day or two, but I can't make any guarantees.
videogamer
Banned
It does not have to be "right". What I am trying to get at is that the government is trying to impose a certain worldview onto these families. You have correctly pointed out that the government is inconsistent with its policies, but you want to push the government into a direction of greater interference in private lives. And yes, I'm talking about young kids who may not really understand what's going on.Loki said:
And yes, you now have me questioning the righteousness of reporting "abused" children to the social services. Of course, I'm forced by law to report such things, but that does not mean that such laws fit in my ideal world.
Well I'm right and you are wrong. =P I was about to go through the rest of your post, but reading your posts makes me feel tired.In making the argument for consistency, I wasn't implying that protection should be extended to fundamentalist parents who abuse their children due to their faith, but rather that it should not be extended in either case. Just so we're clear.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked