Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Sound decision? Leading question?

FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 11:27:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 11:36:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 11:27:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

Well there is so much that could be said about this so what did you want to cover ?

The freedom of religion (to deny medical treatment) vs life of a child ?

The possible indoctrination of a child and thus her view of life and her decisions based on that ?

The God who allows child to suffer in such ways yet we are told about how that same God in the next life gives them a "heaven" to live in

How about original sin ? every human goes to hell unless they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior so before she dies better make sure she is "born again" christian.

Tired, tired of it all................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 11:45:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 11:36:46 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/28/2015 11:27:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

Well there is so much that could be said about this so what did you want to cover ?

The freedom of religion (to deny medical treatment) vs life of a child ?

The possible indoctrination of a child and thus her view of life and her decisions based on that ?

The God who allows child to suffer in such ways yet we are told about how that same God in the next life gives them a "heaven" to live in

How about original sin ? every human goes to hell unless they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior so before she dies better make sure she is "born again" christian.

Tired, tired of it all................

I was thinking more in the direction of a child being told a circumstance (heaven, in this instance), does that child understand the consequences of the action, are the parents potentially abusing the child's trust, is the child actually just trying to do what they think would make their parents happy, things of that nature. Specifically what could be construed as "indoctrination", but a child's most basic capacity for understanding of such things is also a subject (I feel) worth touching on.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 11:27:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

I see this from different points of view. I understand the wish to keep a child alive at almost any cost. It's hard enough to let an adult loved one go so it's exponentially harder to let go of one's child. I also see the ethical questions raised about letting a four-year-old decide her own fate in this case. She cannot know what death truly means.

On the other hand, I can imagine wanting to spare your child what could be years of vegetative existence, recurring pain, and emotional trauma when there is no hope of it ever making a jot of difference in making her better.

To me, this is less about religion than it is about simple decency and respect for the life, the desires, and the quality of life of this child. This little girl who, through no fault of her own, is facing something that most of us cannot conceive except in the most abstract terms, doesn't want to have to face it again. The question is, should that be honored or disregarded. I would defer to her parents, personally, despite my differences in belief. They love her best, IMO, and in their own hearts are doing what's best for her. It's terrible that we give our sick pets the mercy of release when we know they are suffering too much but we deny that same mercy to our fellow human being.

All I can say is that I am glad I'm not her father. I would be torn apart and can't say what I would do would be right. This is one instance where the comforting falsehood might actually be better than the start, unpleasant truth.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:46:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 1:39:50 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 11:27:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

I see this from different points of view. I understand the wish to keep a child alive at almost any cost. It's hard enough to let an adult loved one go so it's exponentially harder to let go of one's child. I also see the ethical questions raised about letting a four-year-old decide her own fate in this case. She cannot know what death truly means.

On the other hand, I can imagine wanting to spare your child what could be years of vegetative existence, recurring pain, and emotional trauma when there is no hope of it ever making a jot of difference in making her better.

To me, this is less about religion than it is about simple decency and respect for the life, the desires, and the quality of life of this child. This little girl who, through no fault of her own, is facing something that most of us cannot conceive except in the most abstract terms, doesn't want to have to face it again. The question is, should that be honored or disregarded. I would defer to her parents, personally, despite my differences in belief. They love her best, IMO, and in their own hearts are doing what's best for her. It's terrible that we give our sick pets the mercy of release when we know they are suffering too much but we deny that same mercy to our fellow human being.

All I can say is that I am glad I'm not her father. I would be torn apart and can't say what I would do would be right.

"This is one instance where the comforting falsehood might actually be better than the stark, unpleasant truth."

Exactly. I disagree with the "story" behind the motivation of the child's decision, but in the end, for this case, what harm is it really doing? Speaking from a draconian standpoint, a pleasing lie (should it be a lie of course) might be better than a harsh truth.

However, might I complicate this? What if the girl doesn't want to wait? What if the promise of heaven's treasures push her to the point of euthanasia? She has the right to choose her care, does she have the right to hasten things along? Has that/should that be brought up to her, or are we now exposing the problem with a religious bias?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 1:46:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:39:50 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 11:27:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

I see this from different points of view. I understand the wish to keep a child alive at almost any cost. It's hard enough to let an adult loved one go so it's exponentially harder to let go of one's child. I also see the ethical questions raised about letting a four-year-old decide her own fate in this case. She cannot know what death truly means.

On the other hand, I can imagine wanting to spare your child what could be years of vegetative existence, recurring pain, and emotional trauma when there is no hope of it ever making a jot of difference in making her better.

To me, this is less about religion than it is about simple decency and respect for the life, the desires, and the quality of life of this child. This little girl who, through no fault of her own, is facing something that most of us cannot conceive except in the most abstract terms, doesn't want to have to face it again. The question is, should that be honored or disregarded. I would defer to her parents, personally, despite my differences in belief. They love her best, IMO, and in their own hearts are doing what's best for her. It's terrible that we give our sick pets the mercy of release when we know they are suffering too much but we deny that same mercy to our fellow human being.

All I can say is that I am glad I'm not her father. I would be torn apart and can't say what I would do would be right.


"This is one instance where the comforting falsehood might actually be better than the stark, unpleasant truth."

Exactly. I disagree with the "story" behind the motivation of the child's decision, but in the end, for this case, what harm is it really doing? Speaking from a draconian standpoint, a pleasing lie (should it be a lie of course) might be better than a harsh truth.

However, might I complicate this? What if the girl doesn't want to wait? What if the promise of heaven's treasures push her to the point of euthanasia? She has the right to choose her care, does she have the right to hasten things along? Has that/should that be brought up to her, or are we now exposing the problem with a religious bias?

Based on what I read, I can be reasonably certain that the concept has not been presented and that question has not been asked. It's basically "If she dies from the disease and we don't intervene, it's God's will that she goes. If we were to take her life or allow her to in some way take it, it goes against God's will." It's kind of an out that Christians in particular like to use, kind of like the witch trials when they would throw a girl in the river. If she floated, the water was rejecting her as a servant of evil. If the sunk she was innocent. If she drowned, oh well, she went to heaven. Not an exact analogy, to be sure.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:00:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I respect the parents' decision to listen to Julianna's opinion, especially since I don't think I would override my own child's wishes in that situation. I do think they've severely compromised their daughter's ability to make an informed choice about what to do because they've taught her that heaven is a certainty. There's nothing wrong with explaining to a dying child that they'll go to heaven. Making it a definite option compared to a life of medical treatments is wrong, though. I understand the urge to comfort your child, but when there's still a choice to be made you should tell them the truth.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:03:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

I see this from different points of view. I understand the wish to keep a child alive at almost any cost. It's hard enough to let an adult loved one go so it's exponentially harder to let go of one's child. I also see the ethical questions raised about letting a four-year-old decide her own fate in this case. She cannot know what death truly means.

On the other hand, I can imagine wanting to spare your child what could be years of vegetative existence, recurring pain, and emotional trauma when there is no hope of it ever making a jot of difference in making her better.

To me, this is less about religion than it is about simple decency and respect for the life, the desires, and the quality of life of this child. This little girl who, through no fault of her own, is facing something that most of us cannot conceive except in the most abstract terms, doesn't want to have to face it again. The question is, should that be honored or disregarded. I would defer to her parents, personally, despite my differences in belief. They love her best, IMO, and in their own hearts are doing what's best for her. It's terrible that we give our sick pets the mercy of release when we know they are suffering too much but we deny that same mercy to our fellow human being.

All I can say is that I am glad I'm not her father. I would be torn apart and can't say what I would do would be right.


"This is one instance where the comforting falsehood might actually be better than the stark, unpleasant truth."

Exactly. I disagree with the "story" behind the motivation of the child's decision, but in the end, for this case, what harm is it really doing? Speaking from a draconian standpoint, a pleasing lie (should it be a lie of course) might be better than a harsh truth.

However, might I complicate this? What if the girl doesn't want to wait? What if the promise of heaven's treasures push her to the point of euthanasia? She has the right to choose her care, does she have the right to hasten things along? Has that/should that be brought up to her, or are we now exposing the problem with a religious bias?

Based on what I read, I can be reasonably certain that the concept has not been presented and that question has not been asked. It's basically "If she dies from the disease and we don't intervene, it's God's will that she goes. If we were to take her life or allow her to in some way take it, it goes against God's will." It's kind of an out that Christians in particular like to use, kind of like the witch trials when they would throw a girl in the river. If she floated, the water was rejecting her as a servant of evil. If the sunk she was innocent. If she drowned, oh well, she went to heaven. Not an exact analogy, to be sure.

What action should be taken should she prompt that question, though? I dig it hasn't been presented, but that doesn't mean it might not get figured out.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:06:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:03:38 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

I see this from different points of view. I understand the wish to keep a child alive at almost any cost. It's hard enough to let an adult loved one go so it's exponentially harder to let go of one's child. I also see the ethical questions raised about letting a four-year-old decide her own fate in this case. She cannot know what death truly means.

On the other hand, I can imagine wanting to spare your child what could be years of vegetative existence, recurring pain, and emotional trauma when there is no hope of it ever making a jot of difference in making her better.

To me, this is less about religion than it is about simple decency and respect for the life, the desires, and the quality of life of this child. This little girl who, through no fault of her own, is facing something that most of us cannot conceive except in the most abstract terms, doesn't want to have to face it again. The question is, should that be honored or disregarded. I would defer to her parents, personally, despite my differences in belief. They love her best, IMO, and in their own hearts are doing what's best for her. It's terrible that we give our sick pets the mercy of release when we know they are suffering too much but we deny that same mercy to our fellow human being.

All I can say is that I am glad I'm not her father. I would be torn apart and can't say what I would do would be right.


"This is one instance where the comforting falsehood might actually be better than the stark, unpleasant truth."

Exactly. I disagree with the "story" behind the motivation of the child's decision, but in the end, for this case, what harm is it really doing? Speaking from a draconian standpoint, a pleasing lie (should it be a lie of course) might be better than a harsh truth.

However, might I complicate this? What if the girl doesn't want to wait? What if the promise of heaven's treasures push her to the point of euthanasia? She has the right to choose her care, does she have the right to hasten things along? Has that/should that be brought up to her, or are we now exposing the problem with a religious bias?

Based on what I read, I can be reasonably certain that the concept has not been presented and that question has not been asked. It's basically "If she dies from the disease and we don't intervene, it's God's will that she goes. If we were to take her life or allow her to in some way take it, it goes against God's will." It's kind of an out that Christians in particular like to use, kind of like the witch trials when they would throw a girl in the river. If she floated, the water was rejecting her as a servant of evil. If the sunk she was innocent. If she drowned, oh well, she went to heaven. Not an exact analogy, to be sure.

What action should be taken should she prompt that question, though? I dig it hasn't been presented, but that doesn't mean it might not get figured out.

Yet another question that I am happy that I don't have to answer. My best guess is that she'll be told only God can make that decision and she should wait for him to call her to heaven and be with her grandmother. I don't even see that as wrong or bad, personally. Please note: All opinions expressed herein are mine and only mine and do not reflect that of any other non-theist member of this forum.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:13:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:06:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:03:38 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

I see this from different points of view. I understand the wish to keep a child alive at almost any cost. It's hard enough to let an adult loved one go so it's exponentially harder to let go of one's child. I also see the ethical questions raised about letting a four-year-old decide her own fate in this case. She cannot know what death truly means.

On the other hand, I can imagine wanting to spare your child what could be years of vegetative existence, recurring pain, and emotional trauma when there is no hope of it ever making a jot of difference in making her better.

To me, this is less about religion than it is about simple decency and respect for the life, the desires, and the quality of life of this child. This little girl who, through no fault of her own, is facing something that most of us cannot conceive except in the most abstract terms, doesn't want to have to face it again. The question is, should that be honored or disregarded. I would defer to her parents, personally, despite my differences in belief. They love her best, IMO, and in their own hearts are doing what's best for her. It's terrible that we give our sick pets the mercy of release when we know they are suffering too much but we deny that same mercy to our fellow human being.

All I can say is that I am glad I'm not her father. I would be torn apart and can't say what I would do would be right.


"This is one instance where the comforting falsehood might actually be better than the stark, unpleasant truth."

Exactly. I disagree with the "story" behind the motivation of the child's decision, but in the end, for this case, what harm is it really doing? Speaking from a draconian standpoint, a pleasing lie (should it be a lie of course) might be better than a harsh truth.

However, might I complicate this? What if the girl doesn't want to wait? What if the promise of heaven's treasures push her to the point of euthanasia? She has the right to choose her care, does she have the right to hasten things along? Has that/should that be brought up to her, or are we now exposing the problem with a religious bias?

Based on what I read, I can be reasonably certain that the concept has not been presented and that question has not been asked. It's basically "If she dies from the disease and we don't intervene, it's God's will that she goes. If we were to take her life or allow her to in some way take it, it goes against God's will." It's kind of an out that Christians in particular like to use, kind of like the witch trials when they would throw a girl in the river. If she floated, the water was rejecting her as a servant of evil. If the sunk she was innocent. If she drowned, oh well, she went to heaven. Not an exact analogy, to be sure.

What action should be taken should she prompt that question, though? I dig it hasn't been presented, but that doesn't mean it might not get figured out.

Yet another question that I am happy that I don't have to answer. My best guess is that she'll be told only God can make that decision and she should wait for him to call her to heaven and be with her grandmother. I don't even see that as wrong or bad, personally. Please note: All opinions expressed herein are mine and only mine and do not reflect that of any other non-theist member of this forum.

If its God's decision, she should have never been in the hospital to begin with, it was God's decision she get as sick as she did, but, that not withstanding (and I know, its not your argument, you are positing for the sake of understanding) Yeah, its... hm. Its a circumstance to which I don't think humanity has come up with a word that fully expresses the gravity of such a situation.

My friends and I rather glibly call this "No pie". (not a Portal reference) There simply is no happy ending, and no 'moral' victory to take away. Its tough, and share your sentiment about not having to make such choices.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:17:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:13:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:06:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:03:38 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

There is no easy discussion to be had in the article referenced, what are some of your thoughts on the matter?

I see this from different points of view. I understand the wish to keep a child alive at almost any cost. It's hard enough to let an adult loved one go so it's exponentially harder to let go of one's child. I also see the ethical questions raised about letting a four-year-old decide her own fate in this case. She cannot know what death truly means.

On the other hand, I can imagine wanting to spare your child what could be years of vegetative existence, recurring pain, and emotional trauma when there is no hope of it ever making a jot of difference in making her better.

To me, this is less about religion than it is about simple decency and respect for the life, the desires, and the quality of life of this child. This little girl who, through no fault of her own, is facing something that most of us cannot conceive except in the most abstract terms, doesn't want to have to face it again. The question is, should that be honored or disregarded. I would defer to her parents, personally, despite my differences in belief. They love her best, IMO, and in their own hearts are doing what's best for her. It's terrible that we give our sick pets the mercy of release when we know they are suffering too much but we deny that same mercy to our fellow human being.

All I can say is that I am glad I'm not her father. I would be torn apart and can't say what I would do would be right.


"This is one instance where the comforting falsehood might actually be better than the stark, unpleasant truth."

Exactly. I disagree with the "story" behind the motivation of the child's decision, but in the end, for this case, what harm is it really doing? Speaking from a draconian standpoint, a pleasing lie (should it be a lie of course) might be better than a harsh truth.

However, might I complicate this? What if the girl doesn't want to wait? What if the promise of heaven's treasures push her to the point of euthanasia? She has the right to choose her care, does she have the right to hasten things along? Has that/should that be brought up to her, or are we now exposing the problem with a religious bias?

Based on what I read, I can be reasonably certain that the concept has not been presented and that question has not been asked. It's basically "If she dies from the disease and we don't intervene, it's God's will that she goes. If we were to take her life or allow her to in some way take it, it goes against God's will." It's kind of an out that Christians in particular like to use, kind of like the witch trials when they would throw a girl in the river. If she floated, the water was rejecting her as a servant of evil. If the sunk she was innocent. If she drowned, oh well, she went to heaven. Not an exact analogy, to be sure.

What action should be taken should she prompt that question, though? I dig it hasn't been presented, but that doesn't mean it might not get figured out.

Yet another question that I am happy that I don't have to answer. My best guess is that she'll be told only God can make that decision and she should wait for him to call her to heaven and be with her grandmother. I don't even see that as wrong or bad, personally. Please note: All opinions expressed herein are mine and only mine and do not reflect that of any other non-theist member of this forum.

If its God's decision, she should have never been in the hospital to begin with, it was God's decision she get as sick as she did, but, that not withstanding (and I know, its not your argument, you are positing for the sake of understanding) Yeah, its... hm. Its a circumstance to which I don't think humanity has come up with a word that fully expresses the gravity of such a situation.

My friends and I rather glibly call this "No pie". (not a Portal reference) There simply is no happy ending, and no 'moral' victory to take away. Its tough, and share your sentiment about not having to make such choices.

I've never been in that situation and with a little luck, I'll pass before any of my children do. You're right, it's most definitely a no-win situation. She is such a lovely child and she should be out playing and running and discovering things, not bedridden with an oxygen supply hooked up to her. That's part of why I am atheistic. If I were a god that created such lovely little people, I could never bear to have them suffer needlessly. In my considered opinion, her suffering is needless and has no redeeming quality of any kind. Please note the disclaimer above re: opinion.