Freedom to practice your religion -

[mattskramer]

There is a court fight over religion and a child's life. The child is in need of a blood transfusion but the parents, due to religious reasons (their interpretation of the Old Testament) oppose their child's receiving of another's blood. Your thoughts -

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by mattskramer
There is a court fight over religion and a child's life. The child is in need of a blood transfusion but the parents, due to religious reasons (their interpretation of the Old Testament) oppose their child's receiving of another's blood. Your thoughts -

That is tough, but I think the State should take the child and perform the transfusion. The Freedom of Religion is not absolute and doesn't trump valid laws for public safety and welfare. A person would not be allowed to buy and use heroin as part of their religious practices (I don't think), and I don't think they should be allowed to deny medical attention to their child either (an obligation of every parent in america).

 

[DKSuddeth]

there are times when religion needs to be overridden with common sense, unfortunately these don't seem to be the times.

 

[Avatar4321]

i think the life should be saved. Spirit of the Law and not the letter. regardless of religion. The kid doesnt have enough experience to make their own choice on the matter. If an adult refuses it thats a different story. But I think we should give the kid the benefit of the doubt and save their life.

 

[nycflasher]

I agree.
You letter of the law doesn't allow you to take a life, so I don't think you should be able to in the name of religion.

I hate cases like this. I don't want to tell someone what religion to pracdtice or how to practice it, but I don't want to see a CHILD die because of his/her parents religious beliefs(whgich happen to be shared by few).

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by mattskramer
There is a court fight over religion and a child's life. The child is in need of a blood transfusion but the parents, due to religious reasons (their interpretation of the Old Testament) oppose their child's receiving of another's blood. Your thoughts -

Where the beliefs of a given religion lead to the harm of oneself, another, or both, then those beliefs are to be rejected. This is such a case. The medical necessity for the child far outweighs the any religious proscriptions against a blood transfusion.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Where the beliefs of a given religion lead to the harm of oneself, another, or both, then those beliefs are to be rejected. This is such a case. The medical necessity for the child far outweighs the any religious proscriptions against a blood transfusion.

well the day has finally happened. The lowest level of hell is frozen. I agree with Bully.

 

[acludem]

Here is the question I always ask...Does the freedom to practice your religion give you the right to practice your religion on your child? What about the child's freedom of religion. IMHO, it is wrong for parents to deny medical care to a child because of the parent's religious beliefs. Doesn't the child have the right to get the medical care until he or she is old enough to make such decisions?

acludem

 

[MtnBiker]

Hmm what about an unborn child?

 

[nycflasher]

He-he, all unborns are agnostic.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by nycflasher
He-he, all unborns are agnostic.

Originally posted by acludem
Doesn't the child have the right to get the medical care until he or she is old enough to make such decisions?

Let's let them live long enough to decide if they are agnostic or not.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
well the day has finally happened. The lowest level of hell is frozen. I agree with Bully.

You and me both.

ONLY IF THE SOLUTION FOR THE CHILD IS ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY WAY OF SAVING HIS LIFE.

The original form of law in this nation was built upon Biblical principals with 2 original themes called "Natural Law":

1. Do all you agree to do
2. Do not encroach upon the rights of others.

This violates the second for the child.

Additionally, this group discussed would be the Jehovahs Witnesses which are a cult.

For anyone who cares, their ultimate authority on Biblical teachings is not a Bible, but the Watchtower Society which has repeatedly and incorrectly predicted the end of the world. Many of those dates have come to pass. There are newsletters form the watchtower available to view online as well to prove this point.

-The belief of following the Old Testament this way from a cult using twisted scripture results in the New testament being ignored. It ignores the fact of the Old Testament being designed for Jews to follow the law, and not for gentiles. It ignores the New testament rule of following Jesus and the 10 commandments while disregarding the impossible Jewish Law which was previously used as an example of how no man can reach God through works.

While America has a Bill of Rights to protect freedom of religion, we also have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is the case, and a child's liberty and right to life are purposely threatened, regardless of religion, the higher (as dictated by the Constitution) authority of God's law is the dictating force. IT would dictate that the "Natural law", God's law, and life and liberty were threatened, therefore lock these guys up.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Let's let them live long enough to decide if they are agnostic or not.

Um, it was a joke. Just not a funny one I guess.
I figure the closest thing to the spirituality of a fetus would have to be "one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God" simply because I don't think a fetus knows shit.

Where's that Can of Worms .jpg?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Where's that Can of Worms .jpg?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Hmm what about an unborn child?

Not an issue until the fetus is viable outside of the womb.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Additionally, this group discussed would be the Jehovahs Witnesses which are a cult.

I dont think it matters who they are. They can be the JW, Lutherans, baptists etc. Their religious beliefs arent any less valid or any less protected than anyone elses.

But that doesnt give them the right to let a child die.

 

[5stringJeff]

So if you are in favor of the state coming in and forcing the parents to accept a blood transfusion, would you then also be in favor of the state stepping in and stopping an assisted suicide/euthanasia?

BTW, while I understand why the JW's and Christian Scientists believe this way, I think it is foolish for someone to deny basic medical treatment like this.

 

[dilloduck]

I love this debate---now I personally would tell the parents to shove it and try to safe the childs life HOWEVER--what these parents are concerned about is the immortal soul. What if by saving the life of the child they lose their immortal souls and the soul of the child? I think ones choice regarding the immortal soul is far more important than the relative blip our mortal lives are when compared to eternity. Who among us is so wise that we can prove what happens after death? Is the government going to continue to tell these parents how to spiritually train this child and where their personal beleifs are wrong? If so then the goverment better get busy because there are SO many people out there with bizarre religious beliefs. NO ONE can take the moral high ground on religious beleif because NO ONE knows for sure.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
So if you are in favor of the state coming in and forcing the parents to accept a blood transfusion, would you then also be in favor of the state stepping in and stopping an assisted suicide/euthanasia?

BTW, while I understand why the JW's and Christian Scientists believe this way, I think it is foolish for someone to deny basic medical treatment like this.

I am not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I am not in favor of the state stepping in at all.

I am saying they need to react after the crime is comitted, as sad as it may be. It would then be a murder case. -Assisted suicide falls into the same category.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
What if by saving the life of the child they lose their immortal souls and the soul of the child? I think ones choice regarding the immortal soul is far more important than the relative blip our mortal lives are when compared to eternity.

Yet you slam me left and right for being a Christian?

Who among us is so wise that we can prove what happens after death?

Jesus.

NO ONE can take the moral high ground on religious beleif because NO ONE knows for sure.

Not true. YOU don't know for sure.