the cost of free-will | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

the cost of free-will

Viscid said:
The kid had a 90% chance of living with chemo therapy. Chances are the kid will die without it. Endangering the life of a child is akin to abuse, and abuse of a child should not be tolerated by the state.

The parents are morons.
Click to expand...

Um, the child agrees with there parents, and I don't see them trying to force this upon him. If the child disagreed with his parents, then there would be a problem, and THAT would be abuse, but this is not.


alt ctrl del said:
I don't think the gov't should tell citizens how to live, and I don't think that crazy parents should possess the FREEDOM to let their child die.

What about the child's rights? Who is going to stand up for those? What freedom does the child posses in this situation? That kid is being denied the right to live by his parents, basically. So it makes sense for the gov't to step in, then.
Click to expand...

See above

alt ctrl del said:
Ok, I'd like to find some legitimate stats on people cured of cancer through alternative methods in relation to people cured using conventional medicine.

I think holistic medicine is quackery. An old friend of mine was seeing a Chiropractor who practiced holistic medicine and he ended up becoming even more sick as a result of the treatment.
Click to expand...

I know two people IRL who have been cured of cancer through alternative methods, not all of holistic medicine is a quack.
 
The flaw in the Vegan arguement it that it's an extremity.
Also, I think the issue here is Religion VS State.
Age can be factored in as well.
 
Mostly.
 
Yeah, people tend to when it makes a good argument against your point.
 
Well, I agree with the post. I don't think religion should be imposed on people until they're at maturity age to decide whether they believe it or not and which faith to follow. However, that's just an opinion.

It seems like what the court has ordered is in contraversy with State VS. Religion, and while it may be better for the child, it's not the child I'm concerned about, I'm concerned about the conflict between the Constitution and Religious Beliefs.
 
IndigoSensor said:
Um, the child agrees with there parents, and I don't see them trying to force this upon him. If the child disagreed with his parents, then there would be a problem, and THAT would be abuse, but this is not.
Click to expand...

Kids are just puppets of their parents and will share any views or opinions that their parents do. The kid is quoted as saying the chemotherapy will probably kill him. Clearly he doesn't want to die. This chemotherapy would probably cure him, which is in his best interest. Where did this view that the chemotherapy will kill him probably come from? Oh dearest dumb mummy, who soon is to have blood on her hands.

Kids can be convinced of anything. They're gullible as heck. 13 is no different. They can't vote or make medical decisions for themselves because they're neither educated or mature enough to be able to. Him agreeing with the views of his mother makes no difference. If he agreed to being physically or sexually abused, it'd still be abuse regardless of the child's consent.
 
Last edited:
Viscid said:
Kids are just puppets of their parents and will share any views or opinions that their parents do. The kid is quoted as saying the chemotherapy will probably kill him. Clearly he doesn't want to die. This chemotherapy would probably cure him, which is in his best interest. Where did this view that the chemotherapy will kill him probably come from? Oh dearest dumb mummy, who soon is to have blood on her hands.

Kids can be convinced of anything. They're gullible as heck. 13 is no different. They can't vote or make medical decisions for themselves because they're neither educated or mature enough to be able to. Him agreeing with the views of his mother makes no difference. If he agreed to being physically or sexually abused, it'd still be abuse regardless of the child's consent.
Click to expand...

No that wouldn't be abuse because he would have agreed to it. Age is just a number to me really, and in this case he seems pretty content with what is going on. Nor are the parents forcing him into this, there is no sign of distress really. No one should be scolded, punished, or force to do anything in these cases. Also when I was a kid, you would be very hard pressed to get me do something I didn't want to do, or be forced into. Particularry if it would cause physical harm to me. I wasn't easy to convince. People don't put enough stock into kids; they are more aware then we think.
 
If daddy is fiddling with little johnny, that's still abuse, regardless of if johnny agreed to it.
 
Shai Gar said:
If daddy is fiddling with little johnny, that's still abuse, regardless of if johnny agreed to it.
Click to expand...

I just don't get that. If the child agrees, thinks it is ok, and feels no remorse about it, and wasn't like overtly convinced to do it, then I just don't see it at abuse. HOWEVER, I do NOT like the idea of it at all, it just dosen't trip my brain into thinking "this is abuse". That changes thouhgh if the child later regrets it or something so it would be stupid to do so in the first place.
 
The fact that something is a law does not effect how I feel about something. It just effects my behavior. Example: I think that it is a stupid law to be required to ware a seatbelt, and largely I don't feel the need to. However, I will do it, as it is law.
 
You never read your driver's ed manual did you? Something about the force of a crash in an automobile accident being 3x your own weight made me pause and put on a seatbelt.
 
Pristinegirl said:
I thought I outdid myself and wrote an excellent post earlier too but everyone ignored or perhaps oversaw it xD
Click to expand...

You might not have even noticed that we noticed you were back from a little time off, either.

Pardon me, too.
 
Last edited:
slant said:
You never read your driver's ed manual did you? Something about the force of a crash in an automobile accident being 3x your own weight made me pause and put on a seatbelt.
Click to expand...

The government is trying to mandate saftey and force yourself to use it. If you get in an accident and die because you aren't waring a seatbelt, it is your own fault. No one should have to tell you do keep yourself safe. It is something you should do on your own acord.

Also, sometimes not whearing a seatbelt saves your life.
 
Well, I don't care whether or not it's a law.
I just do it because I want to.
If I didn't like it, it would be another story.
 
just me said:
You might not have even noticed that we noticed you were back from a little time off, either.
Click to expand...


Awww you noticed that I was back, that makes me so happy. I really missed talking to all of you sunbeams, as my time off was not intentional but essential for my finals :)

(Pardon me for posting about such matter in this thread xD)
 
Shai Gar said:
If daddy is fiddling with little johnny, that's still abuse, regardless of if johnny agreed to it.
Click to expand...

IndigoSensor said:
I just don't get that. If the child agrees, thinks it is ok, and feels no remorse about it, and wasn't like overtly convinced to do it, then I just don't see it at abuse. HOWEVER, I do NOT like the idea of it at all, it just dosen't trip my brain into thinking "this is abuse". That changes thouhgh if the child later regrets it or something so it would be stupid to do so in the first place.
Click to expand...

Wait. What? Am I reading this correctly: You say it is ok for a child to be sexually molested if the child consents to it and then never feels any remorse about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back