A life saved from the madness

Originally posted by divegeester
You support the permitting of the parents of the girl in the OP to allow her to die when she could easily be saved. That is YOUR choice and what you would do if you had the power in that situation. Whatever your faith, whatecer your reasons, they mean less than nothing. Because of this you are a monster, deluded be misconception of what freedom really is, a religious zealot.

Have it your way.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Have it your way.
Kelly

No, actually it's YOUR way. I'm just calling it as it is, if you can correct what I'm saying please feel free to do so.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I still hold that view, but as near as I can tell it was not the rule of law
that was used to take away what the parents wanted they just did it.
The law is something we should obey, if the government sets some
standard that goes against my faith, then I'll pay the price for not obeying
the law. I never said I want to do away with government laws, but t ...[text shortened]... nsent is a common
thing among men. I think the government should set that in my opinion.
Kelly

im not really following you, you seem to be holding contradicting views. can you answer these questions to help me clarify what you are saying?

should the government dictate laws governing the protection of children?

do you agree that the government should have the right to remove children from their parents if it is deemed the parents are a risk to the childs health?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
im not really following you, you seem to be holding contradicting views. can you answer these questions to help me clarify what you are saying?

should the government dictate laws governing the protection of children?

do you agree that the government should have the right to remove children from their parents if it is deemed the parents are a risk to the childs health?

should the government dictate laws governing the protection of children?
Yes

do you agree that the government should have the right to remove children from their parents if it is deemed the parents are a risk to the childs health?

Yes

Originally posted by KellyJay
should the government dictate laws governing the protection of children?
Yes

do you agree that the government should have the right to remove children from their parents if it is deemed the parents are a risk to the childs health?

Yes

straight yes's to both questions? no caveats?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
straight yes's to both questions? no caveats?

The devil is in the details, I'm quite sure where the lines get drawn the
battles would begin.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The devil is in the details, I'm quite sure where the lines get drawn the
battles would begin.
Kelly

So you are now saying that the authorities were right to intervene in the situation in the OP?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The devil is in the details, I'm quite sure where the lines get drawn the
battles would begin.
Kelly

the details are very important. hence why we keep asking you to aviod speaking in generalisations and to be precise about what you actually think.

so, if you think the government should step in and remove a child from a family where the childs health is in danger. would you add a note saying 'unless the childs health is in danger due to religious beliefs of the parents'? or would it need to be more specific? how would you word it?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the details are very important. hence why we keep asking you to aviod speaking in generalisations and to be precise about what you actually think.

so, if you think the government should step in and remove a child from a family where the childs health is in danger. would you add a note saying 'unless the childs health is in danger due to religious beliefs of the parents'? or would it need to be more specific? how would you word it?

I am being as clear as possible for the reasons we have gone over and
over ad nauseam. As quick as you or I draw those lines, then the fight is
on you can be called favoring murder if you are not seen as in complete
agreement with someone else no matter how many times you say that
is not true.

I do believe the government should setup laws to protect everyone,
what else are laws for except for that, not just children but everyone.
That said as soon as you start down the path of saying how, then toes
start getting stepped on.

My complaint was causing someone to sin, even the doctors will act
out trying to do the right thing for the right reasons in their eyes, but
that does not mean they can do whatever they want to anyone else,
there are lines when the doctors get to they should back off. Those that
are setting up laws for the government will be (we hope) setting up
laws that will be there for everyone’s protection.

I told you from the onset, I do my best to respect everyone else’ views
and have been demonized for that position. Draw some lines and pretty
much anything you say can be used to abuse someone.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am being as clear as possible for the reasons we have gone over and
over ad nauseam. As quick as you or I draw those lines, then the fight is
on you can be called favoring murder if you are not seen as in complete
agreement with someone else no matter how many times you say that
is not true.

I do believe the government should setup laws to protect ...[text shortened]... position. Draw some lines and pretty
much anything you say can be used to abuse someone.
Kelly

You are very confused between the nature of the conscience and a deluded person thinking something is right. Simply believing that something is righteous does not make it so and saving a child's life through enforced medical intervention is not "causing someone to sin", not under any circumstances whatsoever. To think otherwise is the route to extremist fundamentalist murder.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am being as clear as possible for the reasons we have gone over and
over ad nauseam. As quick as you or I draw those lines, then the fight is
on you can be called favoring murder if you are not seen as in complete
agreement with someone else no matter how many times you say that
is not true.

I do believe the government should setup laws to protect ...[text shortened]... position. Draw some lines and pretty
much anything you say can be used to abuse someone.
Kelly

I am being as clear as possible for the reasons we have gone over and
over ad nauseam

i disagree, you have been very unclear. you appear to be saying that the government should intervene if a child is in danger, unless the childs parents are put in a situation where they may have to sin. yet you have also seemingly arbitrarily decided what is and isnt a valid sin. you dont agree with the jw's but agree that their idea of sin is worth sticking up for. i gave you an example of an african religion and their idea of sin and you thought it wasnt a valid idea of sin.........so if you are going to give parents the right to decide you need to clearly clarify and explain what concepts of sin are okay and why. otherwise it looks like you are just biased to christian based religions.


even the doctors will act
out trying to do the right thing for the right reasons in their eyes

doctors follow the hippocratic oath.


Draw some lines and pretty
much anything you say can be used to abuse someone.

im not trying to get you to agree with me, im not trying to agree with you. i just think you need to have a detailed explanation of how your thoughts would work and be enforced in the real world. the subject is too important to wave vague concepts at. you need to explain how your rules would apply to all and remain fair, or justify why you are making exceptions to rules.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]I am being as clear as possible for the reasons we have gone over and
over ad nauseam

i disagree, you have been very unclear. you appear to be saying that the government should intervene if a child is in danger, unless the childs parents are put in a situation where they may have to sin. yet you have also seemingly arbitrarily decided what is ...[text shortened]... our rules would apply to all and remain fair, or justify why you are making exceptions to rules.[/b]

If there is a law it should be obeyed, if it sets itself against the Word of God
than I'd take the cost of disobeying it. I don't think protecting a child would
qualify for me as being against the law of God. If another feels that way
then they would have to deal with it just like I would, but it would be
different than the OP since I don't believe laws were involved, just someone
else' opinion against another.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If there is a law it should be obeyed, if it sets itself against the Word of God
than I'd take the cost of disobeying it. I don't think protecting a child would
qualify for me as being against the law of God. If another feels that way
then they would have to deal with it just like I would, but it would be
different than the OP since I don't believe laws were involved, just someone
else' opinion against another.
Kelly

well, im stumped. its like we are having two completely different conversations, vaguely about the same subject. thanks for hangging in there though.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
well, im stumped. its like we are having two completely different conversations, vaguely about the same subject. thanks for hangging in there though.

It is the difference between law and choice.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is the difference between law and choice.
Kelly

okay, one more try.

imagine the government agrees with you and parents should have the choice. how would you go about writing that law? what would it state? how would you clarify what religions and what sins and actions are covered? parents would need to know so they are aware when breaking the law. over to you big guy.