I was watching an episode of Family Guy and...

[otherone]

it is the responsibility of the state to protect. That is not anti-liberty.

It is the responsibility of the state to prosecute offenders. Giving the state powers of 'protection' has opened the doors to all manner of tyrannical mischief.

 

[camp_steveo]

It is the responsibility of the state to prosecute offenders. Giving the state powers of 'protection' has opened the doors to all manner of tyrannical mischief.

ok

but what about children? they have no way of protecting themselves against ignorant parents.

 

[seraphson]

Ill tell you this......i know chemo and various madern medicine has helped people and cured some of cancer......i recently watched my dad die of cancer and go through 9 rounds of chemo.....no1 will EVER tell me that chemo helps people.....even when u win....you lose

I don't like how this post was kind of overlooked. But it's the truth. Chemo can save lives but we must also consider the quality of life to be expected after the treatment (just as much during the treatment). Fate can be a cruel mistress and we have to realize that we can't always defy her.

 

[Tod]

The Catholic Church is a voluntary organization, and there was TONS of abuse there, and not only was there abuse, but the hierarchy covered it up. So the argument that a voluntary organization is necessarily going to be better holds no water.

ANY organization, whether voluntary or state, that is going to investigate crimes and solve problems necessarily has to have the ability to impose against the perpetrator's will, otherwise the perpetrator will continue the crimes.

 

[otherone]

ok

but what about children? they have no way of protecting themselves against ignorant parents.

It's called 'due process'. Children aren't the only victims in society. If a crime is committed, we have mechanisms in place to deal with it. The presumption of innocence is the keystone of our criminal justice system. Take seat belt laws....sounds like a great idea, right? But by advocating those laws, you are advocating having an officer peer into your vehicle to enforce those laws. We have become a nation of sheep looking to the 'government' for direction.

 

[BrittanySligar]

Let natural selection run its course. I mean that in the most altruistic way possible.

On a related note, just think, if we had eliminated religion already, Ron Paul would be president.

Ron got 55% of the atheist vote in NV, and over 50% in IA.

 

[Tod]

Who is your friend, or anybody, to tell a person whether he has business being a parent?

How about anyone who has been a victim of such abuse? Would you tell a child that they have to endure abuse (assuming you could separate out the fact that the child knows nothing else)? How evil is THAT?

 

[Tod]

Let natural selection run its course. I mean that in the most altruistic way possible.

On a related note, just think, if we had eliminated religion already, Ron Paul would be president.

Ron got 55% of the atheist vote in NV, and over 50% in IA.

You are assuming that Ron Paul would be the same person without his own religion.

 

[Superfly]

Let natural selection run its course. I mean that in the most altruistic way possible.

On a related note, just think, if we had eliminated religion already, Ron Paul would be president.

Ron got 55% of the atheist vote in NV, and over 50% in IA.

If we eliminated religion, RP wouldn't have come to the conclusions outlining his policies as he repeatedly states. Not that atheists can't come to the liberty message, but thinking religion and liberty are antithetical is a mistake.

 

[BrittanySligar]

You are assuming that Ron Paul would be the same person without his own religion.

Morality and religion can be mutually exclusive.

 

[Superfly]

Morality and religion are not mutually exclusive.

I think you misspoke. You seem to be saying that religion and morality CAN be mutually exclusive. Otherwise you'd be saying you can't have morality without religion...whiiiich I'm fairly sure is not your stance.

 

[BrittanySligar]

If we eliminated religion, RP wouldn't have come to the conclusions outlining his policies as he repeatedly states. Not that atheists can't come to the liberty message, but thinking religion and liberty are antithetical is a mistake.

You're right. You can't understand austrian economics and libertariansm without religion.

 

[Superfly]

You're right. You can't understand austrian economics and libertariansm without religion.

Wasn't saying that. I think I actually specifically said that atheists can come to the liberty message.

 

[JuicyG]

If we eliminated religion, RP wouldn't have come to the conclusions outlining his policies as he repeatedly states. Not that atheists can't come to the liberty message, but thinking religion and liberty are antithetical is a mistake.

Unfortunately you can`t be elected as US president if you claim you`re agnostic or atheist. I believe even Gingrich emphasized this at some debate, saying he won`t vote for an atheist.

So basically for any president to be elected they have to claim they believe in God which is pretty sad.

I don`t believe Ron Paul`s stance on most issues would have been different had he not been religious. It`s likely though he wouldn`t have gone through changing his stance on death penalty had he been atheist. He probably would have had an anti-death penalty stance from the beginning. He was initially for death penalty, than changed his mind and went against it.

 

[BrittanySligar]

I think you misspoke. You seem to be saying that religion and morality CAN be mutually exclusive. Otherwise you'd be saying you can't have morality without religion...whiiiich I'm fairly sure is not your stance.

You're right. Corrected.

 

[BrittanySligar]

Unfortunately you can`t be elected as US president if you claim you`re agnostic or atheist. I believe even Gingrich emphasized this at some debate, saying he won`t vote for an atheist.

So basically for any president to be elected they have to claim they believe in God which is pretty sad.

I don`t believe Ron Paul`s stance on most issues would have been different had he not been religious. It`s likely though he wouldn`t have gone through changing his stance on death penalty had he been atheist. He probably would have had an anti-death penalty stance from the beginning. He was initially for death penalty, than changed his mind and went against it.

Sad, but true.

"over 95% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal god. However, in order to be a politician in the United States, you must claim belief in a personal god. Thus, the most brilliant among, those who have achieved the pinnacle of achievement in their fields, those most capable of reason, are inherently barred from the political process. So, in order to enter politics, it is required that you either be a liar, or delusional." -Dawkins, (para)

The overwhelming majority of atheists / agnostics have become democrats, simply because dems are "less" religious - and consequently, the conclusion is made that democrats must be less intellectually clouded / deluded. It's a travesty.

 

[bolil]

Look, the issue is not really this particular case, even a hypothetical. The real issue is the precedent state forced "medical" care presents. Are there some people out there who, for whatever reason good or bad, choose not to send their kids to the hospital? Yep. Just like there are some parents who choose not to send their kids to the state run school.

If we take a hypothetical like this, and react in with this "think of the children" nonsense please pause for a minute and actually think of the children. If we allow the state to mandate a child is taken for treatment for cancer, perhaps a good thing; tell me then how, many kids will be ordered to receive mandatory treatment for more benign, even relative, things like ADD or depression?

In the scheme of things, the number of parents that would endanger their child over their religious beliefs is very small; but the number of kids the state would inevitably order to treatment would be invariably large, and most of the cases I guarantee would be things like ADD, depression, ADHD and other psychological issues that our truly relative. Don't leave out flu shots, mandatory vaccinations, and this list could go on and on and on.

"Big Pharma... they care about the kids." gimme a fuckin break

If we are to live in a land ruled by law, then we need to be very careful in the precedents we set. If we are incapable of setting precedents carefully, than Murray Rothbard is completely right in abolishing the state. It is often evil wins us over with trifles of good.

 

[Working Poor]

Child endangerment is a floating standard. But there's not really much leeway when a kid is dying from cancer because the parents are refusing treatment.

But it is alright to kill them with chemo right? As long as the FDA approves

 

[dannno]

Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve. A lot of what these super-religious parents are doing is called child-abuse, and they should be tried for that.

And let's not beat around the bush here. Religious freedom is one thing, magic is another.

There is no such thing as magic which could magically make sickness go away. And if you insist there is, without proof or explanation, then you defy the will of the god who has not intervened in humanity for thousands of years.

If you honestly believe you can pray away the worst of illnesses, you are a horrible parent who places your selfish own fantasy world above that of your own child.

Like I said: The child has liberties too. Just like it's wrong to abort a fetus, isn't it wrong to kill a child because one would rather believe that which is both scientifically, and religiously impossible?

What happened in your life to get you to the point where you trust politicians who are owned by big pharma enough to make everybody's health care decisions?!

Imagine there IS a cure for cancer that is found in nature and everybody could be cured of cancer, except that big pharma wants to make money so they use the medical establishment to push a treatment that costs nearly a half million dollars instead of a cure that costs $10? What if I told you that was happening today, and because people support politicians and the laws they make with regard to health care, there are now a few people who are very wealthy and millions of people who are significantly poorer because they or a relative had these expensive cancer treatments?

If you just follow the simple rule that government shouldn't be running our lives, then individuals can decide what the best decision is rather than corrupt men in D.C. Some people will make mistakes, but they will be small, whereas the government through force can make absolutely HUGE mistakes for almost everybody.

 

[jkr]

BUTITSFORTHECHILDRENSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!111111!!11111!11!!!