- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Well yeah, if no harm was caused by it then I don't see a problem with it. Does that make it ok? hell no. I just don't feel bad in that scenario.
the cost of free-will
- Thread starter jn56uytrx
- Start date
Well yeah, if no harm was caused by it then I don't see a problem with it. Does that make it ok? hell no. I just don't feel bad in that scenario.
If a child is brought up in a dysfunctional environment, all they will know is dysfunction. Their acceptance of the abuse does not make it ok.
Do you honestly think it is possible that a child has the understanding about the gravity of a sexual encounter with a family member to consent?
What is a child to you, then? If children do not need to be protected and taught morals and ethics?
Second of all, your post is kind of all over the place. You say this is ok, if no harm is done (how likely is that?)
But then you say it's not ok, you just have no sympathy for a child who has been sexually victimized because they should have understood the gravity of the decision upon giving consent...
Last edited:
I can see both sides of this debate. This judgement involves a lot of subjective and arbitrary standards, including the degree of the superiority of chemotherapy, the competence of the child to make his own medical decisions, and even whether the benefits of the treatments are worth the suffering. (If diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of cancer that would require frequent chemotherapy treatments, I might want to skip the prolonged-but-painful life and just make the most of the time I had left while I still felt pretty good.)
The government has no business forcing treatment on an independent citizen, except in cases of dangerously contagious illnesses and quarantines. These parents might be violating the child's rights, however, since they have the power to grant or deny treatment, and profoundly influence the child's opinions as they please. Essentially this is a question of the level of ownership that the parents can claim.
The government has no business forcing treatment on an independent citizen, except in cases of dangerously contagious illnesses and quarantines. These parents might be violating the child's rights, however, since they have the power to grant or deny treatment, and profoundly influence the child's opinions as they please. Essentially this is a question of the level of ownership that the parents can claim.
justme posed a question earlier in the thread about the issue of "child" and if taken away and replaced with "person" is there still an issue?
I agree that an essential question here regards the autonomy of children and the level of ownership anyone else has right to claim over them.
I have already spoken to the fact that I value the decisions people make for themselves. I do not exempt people below a certain age from that respect.
I try to engage in the world with a humility of perspective and recognize that the person actually experiencing a situation is best equipped to make decisions regarding that situation. A person standing external to the situation can certainly offer a view that the person may not otherwise have had access to. I value when that external perspective is shared so the decision maker has more complete information to work with. I value when the decision maker gives serious consideration to the external perspectives offered them. I do not value when someone standing external to a situation takes ownership of a decision as if they are somehow better-suited to making the decision despite their incomplete view.
I do not know how seriously the boy and his mother took the external medical perspectives they were offered. I do not assume that because they did not decide as the doctor would have decided that they did not consider it seriously, nor do I believe they are stupid because they made a decision that was counter to that external perspective. I lack the completeness of their perspective and so cannot pass judgment on all the factors that went into their decision.
I would wish to live in a society that treated me and the decisions I would make with equal respect.
Even in a democracy, government needs to have defenses against populist opinion. This is the reason for the electoral college, why judges are (mostly) unelected, and why senators were originally chosen by state legislatures.
Still, I think this discussion shows a flaw in the idea of inherent rights and responsibility. When are these granted and expected? At conception? Birth? 18? 21?
The conflict exists because of two views of humankind. One says that in our natural state we are independent. Thus, the role of government is simply to protect individual liberties (classic liberalism). Another says that we are inherently social, and thus we ought to work towards the common good (modern social liberalism).
I probably created more questions than answers...
If you did, it will more than likely help to formulate more answers....
One never really knows who one is talking to when judging things involving strangers. Generalizations most often leave victims here and there, which is a flaw in itself. The original post did say "good intentions gone awry", I do believe.
One never really knows who one is talking to when judging things involving strangers. Generalizations most often leave victims here and there, which is a flaw in itself. The original post did say "good intentions gone awry", I do believe.
See the crux of that matter is that it would perhaps not cause harm initially but would cause Devistating future harm because it would influence their behaviour when they grow up.
S
Shai Gar
S
Shai Gar
Aahh yea you are right, but also being abused or neglected as a child will lead to the potential development of personality disorders later in life, which will then pass on maladaptive ways to their offspring.
Childhood abuse can help create introverted protectors that will come to the aid of those being abused. Childhood abuse can help to create the absolute opposite as well.
I would like to see the state of Minnesota issue a statement allowing the woman to return the child for treatment without having to face any criminal charges for either of them. If it is done so to state it was for this case only and not to set any kind of future precedent, it might show empathy and sympathy is part of a legal system in special cases. If the state truly has only the safety and well-being of the child as their primary concern, can they look past what has happened to actually try to get the child help?
If the Mother is seeking other help and finding it, it would give the child the opportunity to return for aid should they see the other help not helping. Is that too much wishful thinking?
I would like to see the state of Minnesota issue a statement allowing the woman to return the child for treatment without having to face any criminal charges for either of them. If it is done so to state it was for this case only and not to set any kind of future precedent, it might show empathy and sympathy is part of a legal system in special cases. If the state truly has only the safety and well-being of the child as their primary concern, can they look past what has happened to actually try to get the child help?
If the Mother is seeking other help and finding it, it would give the child the opportunity to return for aid should they see the other help not helping. Is that too much wishful thinking?
Last edited:
Actually, those called childhood protectors are usually co-dependant. They end up feeling their necessary role is that of rescuer or caretaker. They feel that in order to be worthy of love, they must be rescuing someone. So these protectors end up seeking relationships in which the other party is totally dependant on them. The rescuer is dependant on the victim and the victim is dependant on the rescuer, and neither are able to form a stable identity without the other..
This is what forms a co-dependant relationship.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I was thinking about this more and did realise this.
I just have this impulse where when someone tries to control someone else for just the sake of (or at least when it appears that way to me), I instantly buck it. Which is why I react the way I do.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I agree with IS. that movie is not an example of a co-dependant relationship. The guy is held hostage for godssake.