RE: court forces brain radiation on child

RE: court forces brain radiation on child (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 10:58:50 AM)
On the internet everybody's a brain surgeon, sweetie. [;)] (Even the dogs.)

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 11:03:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is simple, the parent does not own the child so the mother's rights end at the child's nose. I.e. she does not get to make lethal decisions for someone else. But a court does?? Where do you draw the line? She has a legal responsibility to her child that she has in her custody. That's what the law says. This is simple, a parent has the responsibility to do the best possible for their child. A parent does not have the right to harm their child. In this case the mother wanted to try woo that is known not to have any useful effect on brain cancers which would have resulted in the slow agonizing death of the child. The court intervened to save the life of the child. Personally, having been raised by ignorant drunks who neglected my brothers and I to the point where we basically raised ourselves, I'd draw the line much farther in favor of the child than most people. Parents should be able to do no harm, physically, emotionally, intellectually or sexually, to their children. That means if parents beat their kids the courts should intervene. If parents demean their kids the courts should intervene. If parents limit a child's future due to the parents beliefs in untrue things the courts should intervene. If parents molest their kids the courts should intervene. A person who wants the responsibility to raise up a member of the next generation should know that society is keeping a watchful eye on the child(ren) in their care and will not tolerate harm of any kind done to those children.

cordeliasub -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 4:09:38 PM)
I did have my procedure as an adult. That being said, I did a LOT of reading, and yes, there are risks to both adults and children. Yes, the risk is slightly higher with children whose brains are still developing. There are also risks for having one's tonsils out, having vaccinations, and having a tooth removed. I understand that because it is the brain, it must be approached with even more caution. However, I am wondering what it says about our attitudes toward the disabled when we think death is better than cognitive impairment.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 9:01:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: quote: quote: As a collective of citizens banding together to secure liberty for themselves, and to perpetuate liberty for all citizens. Apart from the ones who must die to protect somebody else's liberties, apparently. Error. Apart from those who die. They aren't dying to protect somebody else's liberties. They die. And somebody else's liberties aren't infringed on to save them. Big difference. So your whole argument about the court forcing the mother to have her daughter treated is erroneous, then? You've just contradicted yourself. No, I've worded myself poorly in pointing out the error in your logic, a structural error that I'm fairly sure there's a formal name for (if not, there should be). The poor wording is underlined above. To clarify, when you said «[those] who must die to protect [...] liberties», the reply by me first points out that there's an error, then proceeds to show you where in your reasoning you swapped your erroneous invention for my position, by showing how it should've gone. To clarify further, the underlined part is explaining that, when people die, it isn't that they're dying to protect liberties, but rather that they are simply dying; and that, my position is, that one cannot infringe on the liberties of others for the purpose of saving those who happen to be dying. Hopefully, you will find this clarification easier to follow. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 9:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is simple, the parent does not own the child so the mother's rights end at the child's nose. I.e. she does not get to make lethal decisions for someone else. So, no attempt at answering the question of how and why you classify my position as absolutist, then. Since I assume you're ceding the rest, let's deal with the above. You're conflating a decision that is non-lifesaving with a decision to kill, first off. And second, the State most certainly does not own the child, nor does it own the mother, so does not get to butt in. And third, if you're going to apply the rule of thumb this literally, you might as well say others can't actually treat the child without its consent, nor take it away from its mother, which leaves it at one heavy influence that the child trusts in a position to effectively dictate what the child consents to, with medical personell then bound to adhere to that; never mind that some kids will simply balk at the prospect out of fear, and thus not consent even when the parents do. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 9:21:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: susie My diagnosis was a Grade 3 metastastic left frontal lobe tumor. Makes perfect sense. And, yes, a different beast from the diagnosis in the case discussed in this thread. quote: I assume you are claiming I am wrong. In which case both of you, who obviously know much more about brain tumors than I do, will be happy to show the medical evidence and your medical qualifications on this subject. I'm claiming you're wrong in attacking her for a loosely worded remark on the propensity for the relevant type and grade of brain cancer to recur, while doggedly pursuing the fact that it wasn't clear to you that her remarks were about a child. That's not a medical opinion. That's a simple observation that you're not being very constructive in your exchange with her on this thread. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 9:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Personally, having been raised by ignorant drunks who neglected my brothers and I to the point where we basically raised ourselves, I'd draw the line much farther in favor of the child than most people. Which makes you a good firsthand account, but a poor judge, both precisely due to your closeness to the subject matter and the bias that your history presumably and evidentially imparted, going by the nature of your comments on every subject I've seen concerning children and parenting. While it may be true that such intervention might prevent more instances of the damage that was done to you, this doesn't necessarily mean it would have prevented you, and even that wouldn't be worth the loss of liberty. Also, the notion you describe as your preferred alternative (in which every decent parent fees that society is watching them for any chance to take their child over a misstep, while the shitty parents still don't give a damn) is a nightmare that would leave more kids damaged, not less. Do you know why Maslow chose to make his models based on healthy, successful and well adjusted people, rather than damaged ones? IWYW, — Aswad.

littlewonder -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 9:57:32 PM)
The op is not only ill informed and delusional, her information is dangerous. This isn't the first time she's made such remarks or even the second or third time. Ya know, my dad died from a disease that they told him he would die from in 5 years. Amazingly he lived another 30 years. And I had an x-ray when I was 8 months pregnant. My daughter to this day is healthier and fitter than many her own age and she has a high IQ. Yeah, they discourage x-rays for pregnant women BUT it will not retard your unborn child or make yourself ill if you have one or two.

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 10:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is simple, the parent does not own the child so the mother's rights end at the child's nose. I.e. she does not get to make lethal decisions for someone else. So, no attempt at answering the question of how and why you classify my position as absolutist, then. Since I assume you're ceding the rest, let's deal with the above. You're conflating a decision that is non-lifesaving with a decision to kill, first off. And second, the State most certainly does not own the child, nor does it own the mother, so does not get to butt in. And third, if you're going to apply the rule of thumb this literally, you might as well say others can't actually treat the child without its consent, nor take it away from its mother, which leaves it at one heavy influence that the child trusts in a position to effectively dictate what the child consents to, with medical personell then bound to adhere to that; never mind that some kids will simply balk at the prospect out of fear, and thus not consent even when the parents do. IWYW, — Aswad. You are applying an absolutist doctrine in that you continually, subconsciously?, assume the parent has effective property rights over the child and that any "violation" of those "rights" impacts the liberty of the parent.

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 10:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Personally, having been raised by ignorant drunks who neglected my brothers and I to the point where we basically raised ourselves, I'd draw the line much farther in favor of the child than most people. Which makes you a good firsthand account, but a poor judge, both precisely due to your closeness to the subject matter and the bias that your history presumably and evidentially imparted, going by the nature of your comments on every subject I've seen concerning children and parenting. While it may be true that such intervention might prevent more instances of the damage that was done to you, this doesn't necessarily mean it would have prevented you, and even that wouldn't be worth the loss of liberty. Also, the notion you describe as your preferred alternative (in which every decent parent fees that society is watching them for any chance to take their child over a misstep, while the shitty parents still don't give a damn) is a nightmare that would leave more kids damaged, not less. Do you know why Maslow chose to make his models based on healthy, successful and well adjusted people, rather than damaged ones? Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children. Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself. You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd.

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/28/2012 5:46:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children. Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself. You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd. Who owns a child, if not the parents? Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control? It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose."

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/28/2012 3:35:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children. Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself. You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd. Who owns a child, if not the parents? Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control? It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose." I oppose anything that even hints at the parents exercising property rights over the child. That includes isolating the child as slave labor on a farm and unregulated homeschooling. I'm very concerned that even well regulated homeschooling is used to drastically limit a child's exposure to outside influences and is intended to curtail the possibility that the child will reject some aspect of the parent's beliefs. You can do whatever you choose as long as it does not negatively effect anyone else, including minor children temporarily in your care.

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/28/2012 4:57:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children. Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself. You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd. Who owns a child, if not the parents? Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control? It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose." I oppose anything that even hints at the parents exercising property rights over the child. That includes isolating the child as slave labor on a farm and unregulated homeschooling. I'm very concerned that even well regulated homeschooling is used to drastically limit a child's exposure to outside influences and is intended to curtail the possibility that the child will reject some aspect of the parent's beliefs. You can do whatever you choose as long as it does not negatively effect anyone else, including minor children temporarily in your care. So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?" Are you saying that a "custodial guardian" can be held liable for minor children's actions, but has no actual say in how a child grows up? How is it legal to force insurance companies to carry the children of policy holders until they are 26, if there is no "right" to determine for the children?

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/28/2012 5:49:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children. Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself. You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd. Who owns a child, if not the parents? Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control? It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose." I oppose anything that even hints at the parents exercising property rights over the child. That includes isolating the child as slave labor on a farm and unregulated homeschooling. I'm very concerned that even well regulated homeschooling is used to drastically limit a child's exposure to outside influences and is intended to curtail the possibility that the child will reject some aspect of the parent's beliefs. You can do whatever you choose as long as it does not negatively effect anyone else, including minor children temporarily in your care. So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?" Are you saying that a "custodial guardian" can be held liable for minor children's actions, but has no actual say in how a child grows up? How is it legal to force insurance companies to carry the children of policy holders until they are 26, if there is no "right" to determine for the children? I'm saying if you choose to become a parent or guardian of a minor it is incumbent upon you to do what is best for that child. And by best I mean in the opinion of society not your narrow opinion. Specifically that means the best education you can conceivably obtain. That means no abuse, neglect or molestation. That means adequate evidence based health care and timely intervention by medical professionals in case of emergent health issues.

jlf1961 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/28/2012 5:54:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead On the internet everybody's a brain surgeon, sweetie. [;)] (Even the dogs.) I am on the internet and I am not a brainsurgeon.... I am an evil would be world emperor with delusions of being an insane mad scientist who wants to start another Ice Age cause I like snow.

tazzygirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/28/2012 6:53:25 PM)
quote: So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?" No one "owns" the kid. They are held in "trust" until their age of majority. That "trust" can be parents or the courts.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/28/2012 7:00:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder The op is not only ill informed and delusional, her information is dangerous. Delusional? I'm not mentally ill and I don't take meds for mental illness, unlike some people. This isn't the first time she's made such remarks or even the second or third time. Interpreting the meaning of remarks is not one of your best talents. For example: I had an x-ray when I was 8 months pregnant. My daughter to this day is healthier and fitter than many her own age and she has a high IQ. Yeah, they discourage x-rays for pregnant women BUT it will not retard your unborn child or make yourself ill if you have one or two. I did NOT say if a pregnant woman had an x-ray, the baby would be born with a low IQ. I said high levels of radiation to a developing brain causes that. I was making the point that if radiation wasn't dangerous to children, x-rays, which are low levels of radiation, wouldn't be discouraged in pregnant women as a precaution. If even low levels of radiation are discouraged, what does that say about high levels? That was my point.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 6:33:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No one "owns" the kid. They are held in "trust" until their age of majority. That "trust" can be parents or the courts. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. IWYW, — Aswad.

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 7:02:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm saying if you choose to become a parent or guardian of a minor it is incumbent upon you to do what is best for that child. And by best I mean in the opinion of society not your narrow opinion. I see. Majority rule, then. Got it. We agree that the parent/guardian of a minor bears a responsibility to rear a child in the best interests of the child. We disagree on who decides what is in the child's best interests. quote: Specifically that means the best education you can conceivably obtain. That means no abuse, neglect or molestation. That means adequate evidence based health care and timely intervention by medical professionals in case of emergent health issues. Best education one can conceivably obtain? So, if I don't go out and take whatever actions I would have to take to get my kid into the best elementary schools, the best high school and into the best college, I could have my kid taken from me, or be charged with not living up to my responsibility? Fuck the parents ideas. Go get Doc Spock and we'll have a groovy time. What happens when it turns out society was wrong? What is the definition of "society" that we are going to use? Are we going to go with family? Friends and family? Local community? State? Nation? Continent? Global Society?

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 7:06:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?" No one "owns" the kid. They are held in "trust" until their age of majority. That "trust" can be parents or the courts. What does that mean, though, tazzy? I don't care for the tone that "ownership" implies, but are we just talking about the same thing, but in using different terms? I mean, we have "garbagemen," "refuse collectors," and "sanitary engineers." Each of those terms can be used to describe the guy that picks up the trash. I agree with Aswad's reply to this same post.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625