Faith Healing

[Ibanez]

But living, breathing children don't have the same right to life, and should be be at the mercy of their parents' superstitions?

This ^ has been the crux of this age old debate between the two sides
The very same Government that the Pro-Life side demands intervene is now asked to step aside

The baby has rights inside the womb, not outside.



Right?

[89Hen]

But living, breathing children don't have the same right to life, and should be be at the mercy of their parents' superstitions?

This ^ has been the crux of this age old debate between the two sides
The very same Government that the Pro-Life side demands intervene is now asked to step aside

It's not the crux of my debate here. I'll ask you the same question I just asked Sticky. Is faith healing only an issue in life or death matters?

[YoUDeeMan]

But living, breathing children don't have the same right to life, and should be be at the mercy of their parents' superstitions?

Yes, and beatings. Don't forget, the Bible gives parents permission to kill their children:

If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/stone-rebel ... z3SmG6eA5C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or, we could have some (those who go by dbackjon) people's, "heroes" just fvck those kids in the azz.

Why let a little child molestation get in the way of worshiping a gay role model, right, jon?

[Chizzang]

If you believe an agency of the Government should have the right and power to tell a woman what to do with a fetus inside her body... You certainly can't side step and say that same agency now must ignore the child that she was forced to just gave birth to...

WTF?

[89Hen]

If you believe an agency of the Government should have the right and power to tell a woman what to do with a fetus inside her body... You certainly can't side step and say that same agency now must ignore the child that she was forced to just gave birth to...

WTF?

If you believe a woman can kill her baby inside her body... you certainly can't step in and say she has to care for that baby in the way you deem responsible. Hey, this is fun! I can just make up extreme arguments too.

Who besides you said ignore?

[Chizzang]

If you believe an agency of the Government should have the right and power to tell a woman what to do with a fetus inside her body... You certainly can't side step and say that same agency now must ignore the child that she was forced to just gave birth to...

WTF?

If you believe a woman can kill her baby inside her body... you certainly can't step in and say she has to care for that baby in the way you deem responsible. Hey, this is fun! I can just make up extreme arguments too.

Who besides you said ignore?

I am 100% on the side of the "faith healers"
They should be completely free from government intervention in these matters
as should the woman and her fetus


My argument is 100% consistent over time and circumstances - it does not fluctuate

[89Hen]

If you believe a woman can kill her baby inside her body... you certainly can't step in and say she has to care for that baby in the way you deem responsible. Hey, this is fun! I can just make up extreme arguments too.

Who besides you said ignore?

I am 100% on the side of the "faith healers"
They should be completely free from government intervention in these matters
as should the woman and her fetus


My argument is 100% consistent over time and circumstances - it does not fluctuate

Bully for you.

[Ibanez]

The govt should stay out of it. If you want to stick your head in the sand and kill your child because you think Jesus will save it, then do it. I think it's crazy and asinine, but this opens a Pandora's box of problems.

[89Hen]

I would say "faith-healing" is negligence.

The govt should stay out of it. If you want to stick your head in the sand and kill your child because you think Jesus will save it, then do it.

Fine, you guys got me on the hook, but I'm jumping off before you get me in the boat.

[ASUG8]

Abortion: I can see it when it's unwanted and VERY early in the pregnancy (think zygote) or in cases of rape, incest, or other instances where the child is unwanted and again very early in the process.

Faith healing: a little more problematic given that parent's rights have been so eroded that you can't even give your kid a slap on the ass in public without someone reporting the parent to social services. That said, a toddler or child doesn't have the capability of taking care of themselves and is entrusted to the care of an adult to make decisions on their behalf. The child is likely never told by the parent of the success rate of a medical treatment and can't make the decision on their own. I don't like the government taking on parenting responsibilities but if they can define what child abuse or child neglect are it's on them to determine if this falls in that category. In other words, I don't really know the answer. I agree with freedom of religion, but when it potentially jeopardizes the life of another it becomes less of a grey area IMHO.

Euthanasia: to take it one further, how about this? To me it's a no brainer that should be on the table for anyone who can give informed consent and is facing a diagnosed terminal disease. It's too bad that people have to resort to moving to a particular US state or foreign country to spend their last days dying with dignity.

[Ibanez]

Abortion: I can see it when it's unwanted and VERY early in the pregnancy (think zygote) or in cases of rape, incest, or other instances where the child is unwanted and again very early in the process.

Faith healing: a little more problematic given that parent's rights have been so eroded that you can't even give your kid a slap on the ass in public without someone reporting the parent to social services. That said, a toddler or child doesn't have the capability of taking care of themselves and is entrusted to the care of an adult to make decisions on their behalf. The child is likely never told by the parent of the success rate of a medical treatment and can't make the decision on their own. I don't like the government taking on parenting responsibilities but if they can define what child abuse or child neglect are it's on them to determine if this falls in that category. In other words, I don't really know the answer. I agree with freedom of religion, but when it potentially jeopardizes the life of another it becomes less of a grey area IMHO.

Euthanasia: to take it one further, how about this? To me it's a no brainer that should be on the table for anyone who can give informed consent and is facing a diagnosed terminal disease. It's too bad that people have to resort to moving to a particular US state or foreign country to spend their last days dying with dignity.

I'm 100% on board for death with dignity.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm 100% on board for death with dignity.

I'm 100% on board with people trying to live their life with a little more dignity.

[LeadBolt]

I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

Purposefully terminating a life or negligently terminating a life. I'm failing to see a meaningful difference there.

That's how I feel about Benghazi!

[89Hen]

Abortion: I can see it when it's unwanted and VERY early in the pregnancy (think zygote)

You have to put a date on it G8 and therein lies the problem.

[houndawg]

Now you are a Child Killer Hen - the hypocrisy is delicious
Why is my argument about citizens rights so consistent and your so all over the map ???

I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

Purposefully withholding medical treatment might very well be purposefully terminating a life.

[kalm]

We close down puppy mills for neglect, but little humans? No way. Because, religion.

Amirite, JSO?

[JohnStOnge]

BUT 100% of the Pro Abortion People on this board
MUST by default be on the side of the Federal Government FORCING these parents to SAVE THE LIVES of their children PERIOD

That thought process, is, to me one of the difficult aspects of maintaining consistency while being against abortion and at the same time against government interfering with parents' decisions about their children. I've posted before that I would like to see a clear line drawn whereby we say government butts completely out of any decision parents make with respect to their children. Such a clear line might dictate not only that government stay out of abortion decisions but also that government stay out of it if parents decide to kill children who have already been born. After all, abortion is just killing your own progeny BEFORE they are born so it's kind of the same thing.

But I think I'm OK. Killing your own progeny either before or after they are born is clearly an intentional attack with the objective of doing harm to that individual. Opting to go with faith healing instead of relying on medical science is not. And I think that kind of thought process could work.

Meanwhile, if we say that government has the right and obligation to step in whenever what parents decide to do is not what's best for their children we really open Pandora's box.

So the thing could be: Government stays out of it unless parents engage in clear attacks clearly associated with an intent to do harm to their progeny. That would cover prohibiting abortion while also holding that, for example, parents who choose to rely on faith healing may do so without government interference.

[houndawg]

BUT 100% of the Pro Abortion People on this board
MUST by default be on the side of the Federal Government FORCING these parents to SAVE THE LIVES of their children PERIOD

That thought process, is, to me one of the difficult aspects of maintaining consistency while being against abortion and at the same time against government interfering with parents' decisions about their children. I've posted before that I would like to see a clear line drawn whereby we say government butts completely out of any decision parents make with respect to their children. Such a clear line might dictate not only that government stay out of abortion decisions but also that government stay out of it if parents decide to kill children who have already been born. After all, abortion is just killing your own progeny BEFORE they are born so it's kind of the same thing.

But I think I'm OK. Killing your own progeny either before or after they are born is clearly an intentional attack with the objective of doing harm to that individual. Opting to go with faith healing instead of relying on medical science is not. And I think that kind of thought process could work.

Meanwhile, if we say that government has the right and obligation to step in whenever what parents decide to do is not what's best for their children we really open Pandora's box.

So the thing could be: Government stays out of it unless parents engage in clear attacks clearly associated with an intent to do harm to their progeny. That would cover prohibiting abortion while also holding that, for example, parents who choose to rely on faith healing may do so without government interference.

Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.

[JohnStOnge]

Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.

To me you're kind of arguing against yourself. If you're saying their too stupid to realize that they're harming their child it's kind of hard to say they're intentionally harming their child.

Here's the thing: Their child is sick. They seek help. They select what they think will help their child. Their motivation is to help their child.

There's no way that falls into the category of an intentional attack with the intent to do harm.

And that Freedom of Religion thing does matter too. How can you say you're allowing Freedom of Religion and say, "Well we're going to step in and over rule the parents because we think that religious belief is bullshit."

You just can't. Even if it means there are individual instances in which a child that could have been saved dies, government should stay out of it.

[houndawg]

Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.

To me you're kind of arguing against yourself. If you're saying their too stupid to realize that they're harming their child it's kind of hard to say they're intentionally harming their child.

Here's the thing: Their child is sick. They seek help. They select what they think will help their child. Their motivation is to help their child.

There's no way that falls into the category of an intentional attack with the intent to do harm.

And that Freedom of Religion thing does matter too. How can you say you're allowing Freedom of Religion and say, "Well we're going to step in and over rule the parents because we think that religious belief is bullshit."

You just can't. Even if it means there are individual instances in which a child that could have been saved dies, government should stay out of it.

Good point, like manslaughter vs. murder1.


Why don't they just have an abortion if they don't intend to properly care for their kid? Cheaper in the long run by far.

[houndawg]

Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.

To me you're kind of arguing against yourself. If you're saying their too stupid to realize that they're harming their child it's kind of hard to say they're intentionally harming their child.

Here's the thing: Their child is sick. They seek help. They select what they think will help their child. Their motivation is to help their child.

There's no way that falls into the category of an intentional attack with the intent to do harm.

And that Freedom of Religion thing does matter too. How can you say you're allowing Freedom of Religion and say, "Well we're going to step in and over rule the parents because we think that religious belief is bullshit."

You just can't. Even if it means there are individual instances in which a child that could have been saved dies, government should stay out of it.

Except that isn't what's happening. They want to step in because faith healing is bullshit.
Of course religion is bullshit too, but most everybody recognizes your right to believe in fairy dust if you want to.

[SeattleGriz]

I just throw this out there, even though I have not read the whole thread. Do I believe in faith healing? Yes. Do I believe you should solely rely on it? No.

God created us in His image, so I assume that means we are to take advantage of the science and technology we have uncovered.

Do I think the State should step in? Yes.

I will elaborate on my seeming contradiction of believing in faith, but not having the faith to wait when I am not on the tablet. Too hard to type.

[kalm]

Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.

To me you're kind of arguing against yourself. If you're saying their too stupid to realize that they're harming their child it's kind of hard to say they're intentionally harming their child.

Here's the thing: Their child is sick. They seek help. They select what they think will help their child. Their motivation is to help their child.

There's no way that falls into the category of an intentional attack with the intent to do harm.

And that Freedom of Religion thing does matter too. How can you say you're allowing Freedom of Religion and say, "Well we're going to step in and over rule the parents because we think that religious belief is bullshit."

You just can't. Even if it means there are individual instances in which a child that could have been saved dies, government should stay out of it.

What if my religion says it's ok to abort a pregnancy?

[SeattleGriz]

To me you're kind of arguing against yourself. If you're saying their too stupid to realize that they're harming their child it's kind of hard to say they're intentionally harming their child.

Here's the thing: Their child is sick. They seek help. They select what they think will help their child. Their motivation is to help their child.

There's no way that falls into the category of an intentional attack with the intent to do harm.

And that Freedom of Religion thing does matter too. How can you say you're allowing Freedom of Religion and say, "Well we're going to step in and over rule the parents because we think that religious belief is bullshit."

You just can't. Even if it means there are individual instances in which a child that could have been saved dies, government should stay out of it.

What if my religion says it's ok to abort a pregnancy?

Sounds like you belong to a crappy religion, baby hater.

[kalm]

What if my religion says it's ok to abort a pregnancy?

Sounds like you belong to a crappy religion, baby hater.

Oh…dodge a deep philosophical rebuttal by making a joke.

Nervous?