Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Can you enumerate these "parental rights?"
|
LOL.
And below you dare to use "red herring" to me?
You ask for enumerated rights...those rights that are actually expressed in the Amendments?
However, you are smart enough to know that most rights are unenumerated rights...rights that are inherent, even though they are not expressed.
Nice try, but try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
On what basis ought the parent be making the decision?
|
Um, on being a "parent".
As a parent, they are the caretakers. They make the decisions a kid can not make on their own based on immaturity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Whether or not either is ethically acceptable is part of the question.
|
Ethically acceptable?
Whose ethics? What makes you such an elitist that thinks your view is so enlightened that it pre-empts the views of anyone else?
Ethics change. So why does today's values somehow override all history and suddenly put the rights of a family, of a parent, subservient to you?
Talk about arrogance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Red herring.
So should that action be allowed under "freedom of religion?" Yes or no?
|
Not a red herring at all.
If people want to discuss murder, they better have some inkling as to what constitutes a crime. Intent is a part of it. A large part of it. An overt action is also a part of it. Without them, many crimes are not crimes at all.
Should a person be allowed to refuse treatment, be it life saving or not, based on religion? Absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it right.
|
Nor does it make it wrong.
But this topic is about the legality of the issue, is it not?
It isn't about morally ethical duties, or responsibilities, or anything else.
But again, who determines "right"? Since you want to go down that avenue, who decides?
And before you put society up there, I will use your quote against you...
Just because it is "popular" doesn't make it right. So come up with something better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Why shouldn't it be a crime?
|
Again see the comments above regarding intent and overt act.
They are not "acting". Their intent isn't do cause harm. Their intent is actually done out of love, however misplaced we may view that feeling.
And I don't think society is in a position today where we can second guess everyone's intent and then start saying what classifies "love" or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
These assume the personhood of the fetus. If the fetus is not a person, then the question is moot.
|
Viability removes your view.
And once again, we are discussing the effects on a LIVE person. Those mothers created an inherently dangerous condition knowing the effects it would have on a LIVE person.
If they were to abort said person (prior to viability), then the question is moot. But since it went to term, should not the parent be charged with a crime of negligence?
Current laws create liability to people who create a dangerous condition, knowing that someone will become harmed at a future date. Why not extend it to all those FAS kids, kids with ADD and such because mom liked to booze it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Harm can accrue through negligence (neglecting to take an action) as well.
|
Such as?
Do you mean "negligence"?
Do you know the elements to support a claim of negligence?
I suggest looking up "negligent homicide" and see what links get brought up. Read the requirements at it. Cause negligence in these crimes is about a historical pattern, not a single incident.
For example, kid falls down a well. Parent walks away. Homicide? No. Crime? No.