What I am arguing against is a parent imposing a religions restriction on a childs care. This is not without precedent, it happens.
What you are arguing against is a parent not having a legitimate say in a childs care.
Not the same thing.
So you are saying that if I have a child that I will suddenly trust the word of people who are talking out of their ass more than the word of people who are educated on relevant topics?
Or are you saying that I will suddenly become irrational and start to trust a man of god vs a man of science if I have a child?
What I think you are trying to say though is that if I was a parent that I would want the absolute best for my child, but you are coming off as advocating something else.
There have been some interesting viral advertisements, but yea this looks legit.
I guess you don't know many MD's.
Competence is
I would trust them in medical manners more than I would trust anyone whose only qualification is that they had a child.
In theory I agree with you, but in practice it would just be crazy people killing their sane kids instead of sane parents killing their crazy kids.
What is real funny is I was confusing parts of Mormonism with Jehovah Witnesses, just luckily not this particular topic. I was thinking there couldn't be a lot of blood banks in Utah, luckily I came to my senses before posting that.
By the way I am a poly-agnostic. I find that regular agnosticism is just way to restrictive.
Because it wasn't something I had just googled, I was going off of memory of an article I may have read over a decade ago. So when I was asked for a citation I did google it, and it was not hard to find something that supported what I thought I recalled.
what if someone took your child and said that they must submit to some medical procedure that you either view as risky and unnecessary or extremely invasive?
Well risky or unnecessary or extremely invasive are concerns that can be brought up to the doctor if it is a valid concern, and from the doctor to the hospital, and so on, but if it is for a religious reason, no, absolutely no. Risky, unnecessary, or extremely invasive can be argued on merits beyond a schizophrenic belief that some being that created everything and everyone doesn't want you to save that childs life because of blah blah blah. You might as well just allow human sacrifice if you want to argue that parents can kill their children for religious reasons.
and then what will you do when the parents abandon the kid because he has been defiled and raped by the abhorrent medical procedures and is now viewed as being a soulless shell?
Thank you for making my point for me there, do you know how many children die from exorcisms? Just the fact that it is not zero should concern you. Then there are the people who just outright claim that a supernatural being told them to kill their children.
Did the parent go to medical school?
Hell, did the parent even go to parenting school?
Just what do you think it is about a parent that makes you think that they know what is best for their children, especially in matters that they have absolutely no education in?
Just think of them as overly enthusiastic test subjects.
I do not think that doctors should take into consideration the religious preference of a parent when treating a child. Once that kid hits 18, fine then the new adult can make their own decisions, before then you go with the most medically sound option.
I honestly forgot where I read it first, but here is the Wiki on bloodless surgery which credits jehovah witnesses as one of the driving forces for it.
I might find your beliefs utterly silly and without merit, but I can respect that you have your beliefs and that you stick to your beliefs.
It takes balls to go have surgery without the safety net of a blood transfusion, to not just tell the doctor "I'm not really all that religious, just save my life, whatever it takes."
Now if someone is making that decision for a child, lock the fucker up.
Sometimes serious sites put up bullshit on holidays, but they usually put in some disclaimer. I would not be able to recognize a disclaimer in Romanian.
That's like saying that from all the crack babies born in the 80s, some went ahead and became doctors and programmers, so crack can't be all bad.
Actually it would be more along the lines of "War is hell, but at least we make healthcare advances because of it."
If you are wasting public resources to do these type of interventions, then only luck could turn them into something else than waste.
No, people who have trained their whole lives to save people don't come up with new lifesaving techniques due to "luck". And do you know if they are using public resources do do those type of interventions, or are you just making wild speculations in an attempt to bolster your case that there are no positives outcomes of bloodless surgery?
"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics
