Amish family leaves U.S. to avoid forced chemo treatment for daughter

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You're right. The government can not control behavior.

The purpose of laws should be to provide punishment and restitution for damages to others. There is an inherent negative consequence for irresponsible behavior without trying to draw arbitrary lines.

Example: Keeping a gun in my home should be legal. Shooting my gun should be legal. If I shoot someone else's car, I pay for the damages. If I shoot a person, I pay their medical expenses and go to jail. We can criminalize things without drawing arbitrary lines around 'irresponsible' behaviors.

I know there's a certain mantra on this site that the only laws we should have are those that address actions that have uniquely identifiable victims. While I agree with this to a large extent, how does one address things as simple as littering public roadways? Or vandalism to public parks? Some laws are necessary to protect the public interest--where you cannot affix a singular name to a complaint or even identify all the victims of an action.

But I agree that some folks can safely drive with a BAC > 0.08; some can drive and text; and 50 MPH speed limits may not be necessary on roadways at times when traffic is very light...some of us can actually drive without wearing our seat belts.

 

[88GT]

When you are unwilling to acknowledge that it is NOT in the child's best interest to lay on the road and bleed out, there is really no point in discussing it.

I am not unwilling to acknowledge it. Like steveh, I am unwilling to acknowledge that the state is capable of determining what it is. And I am unwilling to acknowledge that the government is an acceptable substitute in the event that the parent fails in his duty.

To deny a child basic, life saving medical treatment is neglect of a dependant.

This is only true if you believe that the prevention of death is the top priority. My point is, and has always been, that this may not be the top priority for a family. And the state has no justification for stepping in and telling these parents that they can't raise their children the way they want.

Since we obviously disagree as to what constitutes neglect, our elected representatives pass laws, CPS and LEOs attempt to interpret and enforce them, and the courts sort it all out for good or ill.

no, our elected reps have passed laws because busybodies can't stand the fact that someone would raise a child in a manner he doesn't approve of. We didn't have these laws until recently. And they are the direct result of one man trying to tell another man how to live, and using the state to achieve what he can't do on his own.

What is your proposed mechanism for protecting children not as fortunate as yours?

This is a straw man. I have already given my position regarding what should happen when children are injured or killed at the hands of their parents or guardians. I don't believe that children who live with parents with non-mainstream views necessarily need to be protected from those views.

You said earlier that the State may intervene when the parent causes harm. Who defines "harm"? "Harm" is a very ambiguous line.

I have said it a few times in this thread. Harm = injury (quantifiable and definable) or death through the use of force, the parents being the causal agent.

 

[actaeon277]

...
Errrr. Scratch that. Not to be directed at you. I completely flubbed the authorship of the posts I was reading. My bad. However, the premise still remains. (Again, I'm sorry.)

That's ok. By now I figured I was on everyone's ignore list.

 

[Bunnykid68]

When you are unwilling to acknowledge that it is NOT in the child's best interest to lay on the road and bleed out, there is really no point in discussing it. To deny a child basic, life saving medical treatment is neglect of a dependant.

Can we blame the State then if this accident happens on a country road and the kid bleeds out because the State didn't get there fast enough to save the kid?

 

[steveh_131]

I know there's a certain mantra on this site that the only laws we should have are those that address actions that have uniquely identifiable victims. While I agree with this to a large extent, how does one address things as simple as littering public roadways? Or vandalism to public parks? Some laws are necessary to protect the public interest--where you cannot affix a singular name to a complaint or even identify all the victims of an action.

But I agree that some folks can safely drive with a BAC > 0.08; some can drive and text; and 50 MPH speed limits may not be necessary on roadways at times when traffic is very light...some of us can actually drive without wearing our seat belts.

I suppose taxpayers are the victims in this instance. I am not opposed to vandalism laws.

 

[joliverjr]

Why am I, personally, to blame for your parents' behavior?

You need to step back and get some perspective.

I didn't say you are personally to blame for behavior. I said people that support allowing abuse under the guise of religious freedom are. We are a society whether you like it or not. In fact, your 5k+ posts are screaming evidence that you like it a lot. Being part of that society imparts certain responsibilities. Looking the other way to let religious fanatics abuse children via sparing rods or neglect is criminal. I remember going to school officials. They called CPS (called something else at the time). Religious freedoms are the reason we weren't able to get out from under that fanatic. It is also why the stupid vice principal (Baptist) didn't want to call them in the first place. Probably a lot less likely to happen that way today, thank goodness. And I mean that. Thank goodness because it is when, as Burke says, good men do nothing that evil will triumph.

As far as a source, the sources are very readily available. People that ask for sources regarding statistics of very well known diseases when it all comes up on the first page of a google search are purposely being daft. Don't be daft. Your 5k+ posts also indicate you have a clue concerning internet usage.

 

[joliverjr]

Don't flatter yourself newbie.

Newbie. That's so cute. I mean, it is kind of like a 400lb person making fun of a 150lb person because they are in shape. A tad awkward. You have 11,800+ posts since March of 2010. Do a little math. Besides, usually people ignorantly use the word newbie as though just coming to a site somehow equates to being just out of diapers and without real world experience (I'm 37, prior service military, have 4 kids and 1 brand spankin' new grandkid, meet a lot of people as an outside sales pro, etc). Which is ironic considering that the greater real world experience surely comes from not sitting in front of a computer. Maybe you are disabled (or whatever the PC term is today for someone that can't get up from bed due to medical reasons). If so, I can't blame you for spending so much time in front of a computer on a forum. However, if that isn't the case, then it stands to reason that the one with real life experience is likely not the one averaging 260+ posts per month on a single forum and you shouldn't consider that a bad thing. Obviously, you are free to live however you choose. I'm just saying that calling someone newbie doesn't just highlight how little time they spend online. It highlights how much you spend online, too. I'll wear the "newbie" patch and keep a low average daily post count with pride. Have a great day.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[ghuns]

Newbie. That's so cute. I mean, it is kind of like a 400lb person making fun of a 150lb person because they are in shape. A tad awkward. You have 11,800+ posts since March of 2010. Do a little math. Besides, usually people ignorantly use the word newbie as though just coming to a site somehow equates to being just out of diapers and without real world experience (I'm 37, prior service military, have 4 kids and 1 brand spankin' new grandkid, meet a lot of people as an outside sales pro, etc). Which is ironic considering that the greater real world experience surely comes from not sitting in front of a computer. Maybe you are disabled (or whatever the PC term is today for someone that can't get up from bed due to medical reasons). If so, I can't blame you for spending so much time in front of a computer on a forum. However, if that isn't the case, then it stands to reason that the one with real life experience is likely not the one averaging 260+ posts per month on a single forum and you shouldn't consider that a bad thing. Obviously, you are free to live however you choose. I'm just saying that calling someone newbie doesn't just highlight how little time they spend online. It highlights how much you spend online, too. I'll wear the "newbie" patch and keep a low average daily post count with pride. Have a great day.

I try hard to disagree without being disagreeable. I don't always manage, but I try.

A new member passing summary judgement on an established member's lifestyle and habits based on their postcount would be like me judging you for being a 37 year old grandfather, not cool.

I see ya snickering through that mouth full of popcorn. What's your daily postcount? And what does it say about you?

 

[steveh_131]

I didn't say you are personally to blame for behavior. I said people that support allowing abuse under the guise of religious freedom are.

Your parents are responsible for their own behavior. No one else. Saying 'screw you' because I didn't come and rescue you from your spankings is pretty silly.

We are a society whether you like it or not. In fact, your 5k+ posts are screaming evidence that you like it a lot.

What's the deal with your obsession about post count?

Being part of that society imparts certain responsibilities. Looking the other way to let religious fanatics abuse children via sparing rods or neglect is criminal.

Then you and I must disagree strongly on your usage of the word 'criminal'.

There are a lot of kids being abused right now. May I correctly assume that you spend your every waking moment finding them and saving them? If not, may I correctly assume that you consider yourself a 'criminal'?

I remember going to school officials. They called CPS (called something else at the time). Religious freedoms are the reason we weren't able to get out from under that fanatic. It is also why the stupid vice principal (Baptist) didn't want to call them in the first place. Probably a lot less likely to happen that way today, thank goodness. And I mean that.

Wait. Are you telling me that nanny state laws failed to protect you from abuse? Say it ain't so. If parents currently have too much freedom for your liking, what laws would you advocate that we add to the books? Should we make all physical discipline illegal? What about time-outs? May I put my child in a time-out? How can I possibly parent without your valuable opinion to guide me?

Thank goodness because it is when, as Burke says, good men do nothing that evil will triumph.

Are you really so unimaginative that you believe the only way to help people is by pointing the government gun?

As far as a source, the sources are very readily available. People that ask for sources regarding statistics of very well known diseases when it all comes up on the first page of a google search are purposely being daft. Don't be daft. Your 5k+ posts also indicate you have a clue concerning internet usage.

I'd like to see your source so that I can show you all the ways that it may easily be wrong as it applies to this particular case. Please reference the post where I asked you to supply her medical history so that you can impart your medical wisdom.

 

[steveh_131]

Newbie. That's so cute. I mean, it is kind of like a 400lb person making fun of a 150lb person because they are in shape. A tad awkward. You have 11,800+ posts since March of 2010. Do a little math. Besides, usually people ignorantly use the word newbie as though just coming to a site somehow equates to being just out of diapers and without real world experience (I'm 37, prior service military, have 4 kids and 1 brand spankin' new grandkid, meet a lot of people as an outside sales pro, etc). Which is ironic considering that the greater real world experience surely comes from not sitting in front of a computer. Maybe you are disabled (or whatever the PC term is today for someone that can't get up from bed due to medical reasons). If so, I can't blame you for spending so much time in front of a computer on a forum. However, if that isn't the case, then it stands to reason that the one with real life experience is likely not the one averaging 260+ posts per month on a single forum and you shouldn't consider that a bad thing. Obviously, you are free to live however you choose. I'm just saying that calling someone newbie doesn't just highlight how little time they spend online. It highlights how much you spend online, too. I'll wear the "newbie" patch and keep a low average daily post count with pride. Have a great day.

This is why she called you a n00b. You showed up here with grand assumptions, including this entire paragraph, and flaunted your ignorance of the people you were speaking to. You just described the exact opposite of 88GT.

Nobody here is unsympathetic to children. We just prefer different methods for helping them. I get it, you want the government to come in and save the day. And ranting to us about it makes you feel better about yourself; like you're a part of the solution. The government is almost never a solution. You're a part of the problem. There are charity groups that deal with child abuse. There are women's shelters. There are church programs. These are ways to actually help people. Ways that don't give the government more power to come and destroy our families.

 

[joliverjr]

A new member passing summary judgement on an established member's lifestyle and habits based on their postcount would be like me judging you for being a 37 year old grandfather, not cool.

Feel free to judge me for being a 37 year old grandpa. Full disclosure - my daughter is adopted and I didn't have kids that young. I took one on that was unwanted and make no distinction from my biological kids, so I didn't air a distinction until you ignorantly made mention of something you THINK you might be able to pass judgment on. So, please, judge away.

And I wasn't passing judgment of her lifestyle. Live all day online. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that a "newbie" somehow has LESS life experience because he DOESN'T spend tons of time posting on forums.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Feel free to judge me for being a 37 year old grandpa. Full disclosure - my daughter is adopted and I didn't have kids that young. I took one on that was unwanted and make no distinction from my biological kids, so I didn't air a distinction until you ignorantly made mention of something you THINK you might be able to pass judgment on. So, please, judge away.

I think you proved ghuns' point.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think you proved ghuns point.

 

[steveh_131]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You're mocking me because I forgot the apostrophe, aren't you?

 

[Bunnykid68]

You're mocking me because I forgot the apostrophe, aren't you?

Didnt even notice that

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I didn't even notice that.

I fixed it for you.

 

[ghuns]

I think you proved ghuns' point.

Reading comprehension fail.