That gets into the issue of what constitutes treatment per se. In the examples you gave, the issue is over what the best treatment is, and not whether medical treatment should be denied by virtue of it being medical treatment. It could be argued that people who deny their children medical treatment for religious reasons do so because they do not consider it treatment per se, but I can say with no lack of confidence that they are wrong on that matter.

No. I am asking you to tell me what some of these "inherent" "parental rights" are. You claim them as a basis for your position, but other than using the term, you haven't actually shown that any exist.

So what ought to be the nature of those decisons?

More like, by what ethical standards?

Complex question. (Logical fallacy)

No. Ethics do not change. For example, slavery is, was and always will be unethical. How people (or societies) handle their personal (societial) ethics may change, but ethics (eg. deontic) doesn't.

Yes it was a red herring. I asked you a question and instead of answering the question you critique it and tell me, "Check your murder statutes, and if you can't figure out the difference there, I suggest you contact an attorney to have them explain it to you." Murder wasn't the point of the question. Can you answer that yes or no question?

Quite right neither necessarily right or wrong, that is why citing it does nothing to further your argument.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If the law ought to be ethical, then ethics ought to determine law.

Quite right. Popular doesn't necessarily make something right either.

What view? I merely placed a proposition to suggest that the question wasn't always relevant.

One could argue that. More pertinent to this thread would be if the parent then used "religious reasons" as a defense should it then be considered acceptable if it otherwise would not be (acceptable)?

For example: Someone buys a used car and doesn't have any regular maintainance done. The brakes fail and either property damage or loss of life ensue. The person would be, by definition, negligent.

Your last example with the kid: If that child got hurt and the parent "walked away" (i.e., did nothing to help the child), then that parent would be negligent. Or if some harm came upon the child after falling and the parent did nothing to help the child to prevent that harm, then they would be negligent.

They do exist, and society/courts have long established that they exist.

The Supreme Court has been consistent in recognizing the importance of respecting Parents authority in the raising of their children. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968). Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first with the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).

So to list them for you...there is a parental right for:

Custody.
Care.
Nurture.

Those rights also include the decisions that affect the list above, and also includes below.


The court noted “there is a "realm of family life which the state cannot enter without substantial justification”. (quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166). In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651 (1972), the court indicated that the State must demonstrate a “powerful countervailing interest” stressing that;

"the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.”

In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court took up a challenge to Wisconsin's compulsory education laws and found that even when claiming a purpose of benefiting the child, the state must demonstrate convincing evidence that its intended policy will actually bring about its professed goal. Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205, 221 & 232-33 (1972).

Infringing upon fundamental rights [Constitutionally protected parental rights] dictates that the state show the infringement serves a “compelling state interest” with no Constitutionally satisfactory alternative to meet that interest. Failure to use such non-infringing means, or other Constitutional alternative in making custody determinations causes the state or order to fail the required scrutiny test and therefore violates parental Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982);

Don't understand the question...

No, by WHOSE standards.

Ethics are far from universal. Your "ethics" may not be my ethics. I may have more...or less...in any given area.

Who is to say that your ethics should rule over mine?

Don't duck the question with rhetoric.

You are here stating your views are above those of a parent. That your views should preempt and control over parents. By definition, that is an elitist view.

So justify it. Why are your views so much more enlightened that they should suddenly alter the historical place, and rights, of parenthood and dictate what parents can or cannot do?

Ethics don't change?

Are you seriously going to come here and say that ethics don't change?

Cause I can give you 2 seperate professions where the ethics have changed, and are CONSTANTLY changing.

1. The attorney client relationship. Yes, attorneys are bound by ethics. Those ethics are constantly changing based on society. Oregon had their ethics altered as recently as 2004.

2. The fiduciary relationship. In simpler words, the ethics for people in financial roles...be it someone handling a trust, or a stokebroker, etc. Those are changing. In fact, every time a law is created (PATRIOT ACT), those ethics get changed.

Again, not a red herring.

Many have indicated that it should be a crime, even murder, for a parent to deny treatment to their child.

But people are also ignorant of what it takes to be a crime....let alone the crime of murder.

And instead of me breaking down 3 years of law school for you, and everyone else, into something easily digestable and understandable (for which I have already had to repeat myself several times indicating that overwhelmingly, crimes need to have intent and an overt act...it is much simpler to have the person who is really into the topic do a bit of research on their own.

Again with the ethics?

Which CC professor indoctrinated you into thinking "ethics" are unchanging?

You brought up slavery. Yet you don't recognize that there was a time, and in some cultures, where slavery was not only ethically sound, but very accepted?

So based on your circular premise above...and your prior conditions that ethics don't change, you should be advocating that slavery is permissible.

I suggest a dictionary to reseach "ethics" before we continue. Because as it stands, you are contradicting your views.

So now you are suggesting "religious reasons" should be an affirmative defense for the crime?

No. That would not be an example of negligence that would be a crime.

It may be "negligent" as in failing to take care of a car...but there is no legal "duty" imposed on a person to do their brakes. As such, there can be no "negligence" for a crime.

Furthermore, you need to start distinguishing between crimes and civil actions. Property damage is entirely a separate entity, with a different burden of proof. It revolves around money. Ergo, in your question above, bad brakes wouldn't make any difference as to having to pay a person back for property damage. A person would be responsible no matter the reason, and have to pay for the property damage. So that entire point is moot.

Negligent by your standards?

But not negligent that would result in a crime.

There are no "good samaritan" statutes. In fact, the SC has stated that any such statute would violate the Constitution.

So while that parent is a terrible parent, they are no able to be prosecuted for any crime.

A straight answer.

Now that you have actually provided something. Let's see where it takes us. Who "establishes" it is not relevant, the reasoning will determine validity or lack thereof.

This could work under either a deontological or telelogical approach.

Is care something a parent ought to do for their child?

Is nurture something a parent ought to do for their child?

If the parent is the care giver, then what ought to be the nature of decisions regarding their child?

No, what standards is correct.

If by this you mean there is no one system of ethics which is used universally, then you are correct.

If you mean that there is no system of ethics which could be used universally, then you are incorrect.


The baseline premises of the various ethical standards (or branches) don't change. Therefore, they will yield consistent results if applied consistently.

Unless the baseline premises of the "ethics" are changing, then the conclusions would be the same. If you are telling me that baseline premises are changing, then it is a separate branch each time.

Law is not ethics, but law can be ethical.

What ought to be the basis for determining whether something is a crime?

This thread is in the philosophy section for a reason.

Slavery is not ethically sound. If one tried to employ deontic logic to advance the premise of slavery as ethical, then it would be refuted during the proof/refutation process.

Again, we are talking about ethics as a branch of philosophy. That branch has branches of its own.

For example: Virtue Ethics, Telelogy, Deontology etc.

First, I didn't actually say it was a crime, only that it could be argued. You were advancing the idea of religious freedom. Does it apply here?

Ought those who drive, operate their vehicles safely?

What happened to intent?

Why would that make that parent a terrible parent?

Holy F^ck steerpike.

Do you ever get tired of using so much rhetoric and verbage in an attempt to pretend to say something when in reality you make no point at all?

Seriously. 90% of what you say is nothing more than you trying to use big words and terms in stating nothing at all.

Yes, and yes.

To do what is best for their child.

Which they do.

But their decisions are based on more than just the physical well being. They are also weighed by a belief in there being more than just the physical...

Essentially, they are weighing the fact that they might damn a soul to hell over their own selfish desires to see that child live.

Right or wrong, that is THEIR choice...their choice they have, and THEIR choice to make.

Wrong.

Standards are changeable according to the dictates of society. Standards are different according to region, and beliefs.

WHOSE is right. What is not, as it implies a universal standard accepted by all.

All that verbage and rhetoric and you don't even realize that Ethics are the rules that man imposes on man?

Doctors have ethics. Different according to places in the world. All of them are an acceptable behavior, but agreed upon by people. Not universal.

Lawyers have ethics. Again, a set of rules. And those rules are different from state to state, country to country, and yes, time period to time period.


Wrong.

Ethics change as the times change.

Give you an example. WWII. Doctors in Germany. Same ethics as the USA circa 2008?

Of course not. Stating such is intellectual dishonesty. A blatant lie.

Again, ethics are rules/guidelines created by man to govern man. They change.

Ready for the killer in your entire argument?

Popular opinion. Politicians see what is desired by a community at that time, and create a law to counter the undesireable behavior.

But how can that be? According to you, those things don't change. Murder today is murder 1000 years ago is murder 1000 years from now. Correct?

But that is not the case. Murder has changed. The very definition of murder has changed. Different states have different definitions for that.

100 years ago, the state would never have thought of infringing on a parents rights to decide this question for debate. Suddenly, now it is.

But according to you, that very premise is impossible, as this question is based on ethics that are unchanging and everlasting.


I have no issues on why it is here.

It is the lack of reasoning with this that I question. And no amount of big words used in a circular reasoning or leading nowhere will change the fallacy of the premise you put forward.

From what standpoint do you argue that slavery is not ethically sound?

From economics? Cause from a purely economic background, slavery would be ethical.

If one tried to keep their argument simple instead of using deontic arguments in an attempt to hope their intellectual elitism somehow will trump all other arguments, it would work a lot better.

And trying to later subvert an argument that is lost by making a differentiation so late in a debate is a bad practice to start.

Then those are not rights, but duties.

When is denying medical treatment best for the child?
No. As you have de facto conceded, it is a duty. Rightly, duty isn't a matter of choice.

Irrelevant appeal to popularity.
No matter how you try to parse this. It still amounts to what is right and what is not right.


What is right or not right from a deontic standpoint does not change.

This doesn't kill my argument, but yours. You have been arguing based on existing legal structure and if that is changable based on "popularity," then it undercuts your position. Popular doesn't necessarily mean right.

Do you have an objective basis on which something should be determined to be a crime?

Murder is always unethical.

Strawman.


Actually, it is your "reasoning" which is circular.

What did I say was the basis?

They would be both.

Many reasons.

The pain the child may suffer.
The life expectancy after.
What the child may want.
The salvation of the child.

Each and every one of them is valid. Just because you don't agree, doesn't trump the rights of the parent.

I have condeded nothing.

It is both. A right (as I have proved via court cases), and a duty.

+
=
Wrong.

Right and wrong are not always universal. As pointed out, they are subjective based on region, time period, etc.

Your use of deontic logic is flawed, just as deontic logic is flawed.

You want to put universality to a view which is subjective, as we are clearly pointing out.

You think it is wrong. That taints your original premise.
I think it is right, which would equally taint my original premise using the same process.

Your deontic logic only is as good as your subjective view, and where you start off at.

I am stating your original premise in this area is wrong, for you are taking something, be it ethics, or whatever, as wrong. You want it to be universally right or wrong. Such is not the case.


I would agree that popularity doesn't make something right.

And it furthers my point.

This entire aspect, this thread, is whether something should be legal or illegal: not right and wrong.

Yes, there is some overlap with them.

But again, it completely destroys your starting point, for you are trying to argue universality, of which there may not be any. You are taking your view as being universal, which it clearly is not.

I would put forward that there is no objective basis.

That depends on what time period, the values of the people, the region.

Again, ethics are standards that are flexible and changeable. They are NOT universal.

With your murder...when a state executes someone...murder?

And you view that as unethical? By which standards. Medical ethics? Legal ethics? What?

Take that very issue, murder and go back to the beginnings of man. Instead of lethal injection, they banished the person. That is tantamount to a death sentence, for people could not live alone in the wilds and survive.

Ethical? Absolutely. Widely accepted.

Yet if we try to tailor the entire debate, as you have, to your singular view, and play the role of elitist, we can tailor any argument to win. All depends on the starting point.


How so?

The issue is based on legality. I have answered that. It is correct.

You bring in ethics. Your definition of ethics is wrong. I addressed that.

You try to bring in universality to an issue that is subjective. I have shown that.

You then try to throw out big words hoping to muddy the waters...and to tailor your entire premise on your own views. All of which I have addressed, and countered.

Yet you still continue with that same aspect. You refuse to change any premise, even that which is countered, and continue on the circular reasoning.

Deontic logic.

Which is, in itself, flawed.

So you can keep referring to a flawed use of logic, keep throwing in the big words, relying on a flawed beginning in an attempt to keep your view alive, but it has been refuted.

And no amount of one word answers lacking any kind of reasoning or explanation will absolve you of that.

In the same individual, that is self-contradiction.

All of those "reasons" are trumped by the parent's duty to care for the physical well being of the child.

This shows either a lack of understanding or honesty. When you answered the questions about "ought" as "yes", you conceded them as duties.

Again, this shows lack of understanding. A court case "proves" nothing. That would be an appeal to authority.

A branch of formal logic flawed? I'd challenge you to prove this. But you can't. The claim itself is evidence of being desperate.

What we are pointing out is disagreement.

Your premise of using a rights based approach was intellectually valid. It just doesn't support the position you have been arguing.
This shows your lack of understanding of logic.
This shows lack of understanding of formalized ethical theory.

Not really.
Your ignorance of formal ethics is evident.

Your ignorance of formal ethics is evident here too.
Now it is "which" and not "whose."
Widely accepted = popular. Popular doesn't necessarily mean right.
Your assumption that the legal structure is right. This makes your argument ultimately circular.

You haven't refuted anything. Logical fallacies and/or statements made ignorantly do not a refutation make. You have disputed. There is a difference.

A rights based approach that you were attempting to use doesn't support your position. It appears that you may have figured that out.

Your use of terminology and absurd statements show either feigned or real ignorance. Either way this discussion has lost its usefulness. So I am going to allow you to withdraw with some dignity.

This thread is going nowhere. Locked.