Vatican sides with pro-death decision in UK courts :'(

[heavenlyboy34]

The Vatican’s Statement On UK Baby Condemned To Die Is Frightening

If this is where the Vatican now makes its stand, then the most vulnerable members of society—which is to say all of us, at some point—are in trouble.

By Daniel PayneJUNE 30, 2017

The ugliest political battle currently underway in Western society is not between Donald Trump and Mika Brzezinski or the United Kingdom and the European Union but between two parents with a dying baby and the British courts. The baby, Charlie Gard, has been terminally ill since his birth, unable to move his limbs or breathe on his own.
His parents wish to bring him to the United States for a long-shot experimental treatment. The courts object, believing Charlie should be allowed to die “with dignity.” The European Court of Human Rights declined to hear an appeal, effectively sealing the boy’s fate.


Against the backdrop of this barbaric abuse of judicial authority, the Catholic Church—the world’s greatest defender of the right to life, and long a moral bulwark against state intrusion into the rights of the family sphere—has decided that the courts in this case are basically right.
These are difficult times for orthodox Catholics, beset by a pope who often appears inclined to dismiss centuries of church teaching and a fair number of bishops who are apparently determined to follow him. Catechetical esoterica regarding Eucharistic doctrine, of course, can seem hopelessly complex for even the lay Catholic these days.
But the Catholic Church’s position on the sanctity of life is unmistakable to anyone, and has been for several thousand years. Its stance on the authority of the family has also long been clear. We should assume that the Vatican would be more than happy to condemn and rebuke in no uncertain terms an idiot juridical decision that condemns a little baby boy to die rather than allowing his parents to fight for his once chance to survive.
You would be wrong. The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life yesterday released a statement that waffles between limp-wristed equivocations and outright willful ignorance of church teaching. If this is where the Vatican now makes its stand, then the most vulnerable members of society—which is to say all of us, at some point—are in trouble.
This Reasoning Is Unjust and Immoral



The academy attempts to explain away the courts’ decision by citing “the complexity of the situation, the heartrending pain of the parents, and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie,” acknowledging that “we do, sometimes…have to recognize the limitations of what can be done” in modern medicine.
This is preposterous nonsense, what, growing up, my family called “mental babble.” The situation is not at all “complex”: Charlie’s parents want to attempt to save his life, and the courts have made it illegal for them to do so, in direct contravention of their parental authority. The “heartrending pain of the parents” is now primarily a feature not of their dying child (whom they are trying to save) but of the soft-tyrannical decision of the British courts (which are preventing them from doing so). As for “what is best for Charlie,” the obvious fact is clear: his parents have decided that for him.
It is not up to some guys in robes somewhere to determine whether two parents can take their child to another country in a last-ditch attempt to help him survive. It is also an essay in comical cowardice for the Catholic Church to tacitly defer to such expropriated authority.
The academy claims that “we must…accept the limits of medicine,” and as evidence they point to paragraph 65 of Pope Saint John Paul II’s “Evangelium Vitae.” But this is a smokescreen: in that particular passage, the Holy Father merely allows that “one can in conscience” refuse treatment which “no longer corresponds to the real situation of the patient” (emphasis added).


Allowing that one can choose something does not, in any sane world, in any language, in any context, allow that one must choose it, much less that one must be forced to choose it by a court system acting in loco parentis as a passive executioner. Either the academy has not read the passage in quotes in its entirety (in which case it should be ashamed of itself) or else it is deliberately misrepresenting it (in which case something beyond shame seems necessary).
If This Is Complex You Aren’t Thinking Clearly

John Paul II was well aware of the ways in which governments can steal the legitimate authority of parents and families: in “Familiaris Consortio” he affirmed that “the church openly and strongly defends the rights of the family against the intolerable usurpations of society and the state.” One would imagine that one such “intolerable usurpation” would be a government denying two parents the right to try to save their baby boy’s life. And one would imagine that an institution entitled “the Pontifical Academy for Life” would recognize that.
It is almost certain at this point that baby Charlie will die. Even if his parents were allowed to bring him to the United States, death would likely be the result. But such a decision, one way or the other, is not the prerogative of the British government, or anyone other than the man and woman who gave Charlie life and wish only to let him keep it. Once upon a time this would have been an uncontroversial proposition, easy for every moral person and institution—including the Catholic Church—to get behind. But the times have changed.
So we must watch as a little boy, not old enough yet to be a toddler, dies “with dignity,” at the hands of a court system with no business making such a decision, and with the meek and tacit approval of a church that, once upon a time, fully understood the stakes of precious human life but now speaks only of “complexity.”


This issue is not complex. Nor is the culture of death that underlines it. We should be afraid of what is to come next.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/30/...e-frightening/

[heavenlyboy34]

Y'all Roman Catholics really should be doing something about this IMHO. An orthodox bishop who behaved like Frankie would've been sacked long ago. :P

[Anti Federalist]

A communist, Jesuit pope fails to defend the life of a child being taken by the government/medical complex?

Color me surprised.

[Anti Federalist]

Y'all Roman Catholics really should be doing something about this IMHO. An orthodox bishop who behaved like Frankie would've been sacked long ago. :P

Honestly...if this was the church of old, they would have declared him an anti-pope, deposed and imprisoned him.

[pcosmar]

Just keep watching.

"Watch and pray"

We are witnesses to all that is coming.

[donnay]

Just keep watching.

"Watch and pray"

We are witnesses to all that is coming.

We are suppose to be watchmen.

Ezekiel 33:6
6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Judgment will begin at the pulpit.

1 Peter 4:17
17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

[pcosmar]

And many warnings went out when he arrived on the scene.

[donnay]

Jeremiah 4:22
For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish [stupid] children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

[GunnyFreedom]

Honestly...if this was the church of old, they would have declared him an anti-pope, deposed and imprisoned him.

I know several Catholics who already have.

[Suzanimal]

Commie, dirt bag, evil man.

[William Tell]

I know several Catholics who already have.

I'm wondering how many will becoming Orthodox or other, or if they will be going more the anti Vatican II route, or just biting their tongue and waiting for the next pope.

[Suzanimal]

I'm wondering how many will becoming Orthodox or other, or if they will be going more the anti Vatican II route, or just biting their tongue and waiting for the next pope.

A lot quit giving money. I haven't given a penny since the pedo scandal. I still drop my empty envelope in the plate, though. I want them to know I was there and didn't donate. I used to leave notes in the envelopes as to why it was empty and I think I'm going to start doing that again.

[Anti Federalist]

The laity's SWLODs must have made their way to the pope's desk.

Pope Francis Reverses Vatican Judgment on Charlie Gard Case, Siding with Parents

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...iding-parents/

In a rare display of ecclesiastical cross-purposes, Pope Francis has reversed the statement from his newly appointed head of the Academy for Life regarding care for a British baby suffering from a debilitating genetic condition.

On Sunday, Francis expressed his support for the parents of ten-month-old Charlie Gard, suggesting they be allowed to do everything possible to treat their son.

“The Holy Father follows with affection and commotion the situation of Charlie Gard, and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” reads a statement issued by Greg Burke, the papal spokesman.

“He prays for them, wishing that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end will be respected.”

The Pope’s words clashed with an earlier statement released by the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, the pope’s advisory panel on bioethical issues, which seemed to sympathize with the court ruling that barred the parents from pursuing an experimental treatment in the United States.

[heavenlyboy34]

A lot quit giving money. I haven't given a penny since the pedo scandal. I still drop my empty envelope in the plate, though. I want them to know I was there and didn't donate. I used to leave notes in the envelopes as to why it was empty and I think I'm going to start doing that again.

Can't you earmark toward specific local causes? My parish uses a CCB(church community builder) online that allows people to donate to specific things the church does-not just general collection.

[Suzanimal]

Can't you earmark toward specific local causes? My parish uses a CCB(church community builder) online that allows people to donate to specific things the church does-not just general collection.

Of course and we do support specific ministries. I was speaking generally. I also send back the annual appeal envelope with no money and a nasty note, btw.

[William Tell]

The laity's SWLODs must have made their way to the pope's desk.

Pope Francis Reverses Vatican Judgment on Charlie Gard Case, Siding with Parents

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...iding-parents/

In a rare display of ecclesiastical cross-purposes, Pope Francis has reversed the statement from his newly appointed head of the Academy for Life regarding care for a British baby suffering from a debilitating genetic condition.

On Sunday, Francis expressed his support for the parents of ten-month-old Charlie Gard, suggesting they be allowed to do everything possible to treat their son.

“The Holy Father follows with affection and commotion the situation of Charlie Gard, and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” reads a statement issued by Greg Burke, the papal spokesman.

“He prays for them, wishing that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end will be respected.”

The Pope’s words clashed with an earlier statement released by the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, the pope’s advisory panel on bioethical issues, which seemed to sympathize with the court ruling that barred the parents from pursuing an experimental treatment in the United States.

But did he fire the Paglia SOB?

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not familiar with the details of the UK case, but there are circumstances in which the court's decision could be justifiable, so I'll explain them to make a general point. Suppose the medical treatment which the parents wanted to obtain had a 0.01% chance of working, and a 100% chance of causing the child enormous pain. You might reasonably argue that subjecting the child to that amounts to child abuse and can be justifiably prohibited by law. Again, I'm speaking in general terms, not of this particular case: and certainly not defending the communist Pope, who's an abomination for entirely other reasons.

[William Tell]

I'm not familiar with the details of the UK case, but there are circumstances in which the court's decision could be justifiable, so I'll explain them to make a general point. Suppose the medical treatment which the parents wanted to obtain had a 0.01% chance of working, and a 100% chance of causing the child enormous pain. You might reasonably argue that subjecting the child to that amounts to child abuse and can be justifiably prohibited by law.

You might argue many things, but terms like enormous pain are relative. I can't think of any treatments that everyone would agree is worse than death, I know things like chemo are terrible according to those who have gone through them. Also you are making the assumption there is only one treatment for something, would you be ok with a treatment that doesn't cause pain but has a 0.05% chance of working? If the kid's probably just going to die anyway, why not let him die with his parents? They brought him into this world and love him more than you, the government, or the statisticians will. Besides, sometimes recoveries happen that are hard to explain with science.

Mandating letting a kid die is pretty brutal, and it's pretty easy to see how the slippery slope will lead to the next step of putting people "out of their misery" like at the dog pound.

Can you name one actual medical treatment that you think is so bad and painful, that the government should stop people at gunpoint from administering to the sick? If you can't, you are probably just playing devils advocate on an issue that doesn't actually exist, like if a martian threw up on you would your it turned your skin green, would you be justified in using deadly force to keep it away from you.

Or maybe you think some treatments should only be used on consenting adults, and when in doubt let the kid die because he's too young to decide whether to undergo pain?

[r3volution 3.0]

@William Tell

Any mentally competent person should of course be allowed to undertake whatever treatment (however futile and painful) he pleases. But when it comes to children (or mentally incompetent adults), someone else necessarily is making that decision for them. I think those decisions should be reviewable by courts, in the same way that the decisions of parents/guardians in general are subject to court review for child abuse. Do you think that parents should be subject to prosecution for child abuse in general, under any circumstances, or should they be permitted to do anything at all to their children? If you accept that parents can be prosecuted for child abuse, then you've already accepted the underlying principle of my argument. I'm simply applying that principle, to show that some medical treatments could be child abuse.

Naturally, not everyone will agree on which treatments those are which constitute child abuse, just as people disagree on what constitutes child abuse in other contexts (e.g. how thick does the stick have to be and how many strikes must there be before a spanking becomes a brutal assault), but that's not an argument against the underlying principle - no more than the problem of defining the precise circumstances under which self-defensive force is justified undermines the basic principle of self-defense. It it impossible to write an objective law code. There will always be grey areas where terms like "reasonable" leave room for the judge/jury to apply their common sense.

[William Tell]

@William Tell

Any mentally competent person should of course be allowed to undertake whatever treatment (however futile and painful) he pleases. But when it comes to children (or mentally incompetent adults), someone else necessarily is making that decision for them.

Hm, but imagine a situation where the parents tell 11 year old Johnny he needs a certain treatment or he will die, he says he wants it, and your government tells Johnny to go to hell because it's better for him to die than endure the treatment because r3v says so. I remember being that age, you're proposal would have about killed me just emotionally having jackboot thugs take over the remainder of my life, not a good recipe for recovery or a peaceful way to die. That's messed up.

That's the kind of situation that will become a reality under what you are talking about. I'm not convinced that parents who had their kids leg with gangrene amputated before anesthesia became widespread should have been forced to let their kids die. These kinds of decisions might make us sick to even think about, but if anyone has to make them it should be the parents.

I think those decisions should be reviewable by courts, in the same way that the decisions of parents/guardians in general are subject to court review for child abuse. Do you think that parents should be subject to prosecution for child abuse in general, under any circumstances, or should they be permitted to do anything at all to their children?

Of course parents can't kill their kids or badly hurt them. But that's because they are human beings, it does not follow that because smacking a kid in the head with a baseball bat is illegal that all parents should be babysat by government. But that doesn't mean I'm against parental rights, if someone chops a kid's arm off he should be arrested for chopping the arm off regardless of it's his kid or not.

But the interesting thing is, I see cases where parents refusetheir kids certain treatments (chemo for example) and the government throws a hissy fit and takes the kid and forces him to undergo treatment at great physical and emotional cost. Their argument is for the parent to refuse chemo is neglect, you ironically are suggesting reversing that kind of thing to the other extreme, where the parent may be forced to neglect their kids unto death. But both what you are advocating and what the government has done before has the same flaw, putting a bunch of ignorant bureaucrats who don't know a kid from Adam in a place to choose life or death for a kid they don't know much about the health of let alone care about.

If you accept that parents can be prosecuted for child abuse, then you've already accepted the underlying principle of my argument. I'm simply applying that principle, to show that some medical treatments could be child abuse.

No more than I accepted that eating cheerios while watching Barney could be child abuse. Man hits kid with a baseball bat, assault. Mom tries to save kid's life, not assault in any scenario I can see, and you have have not given one that is concrete, you're devils advocate argument is a pie in the sky hypothetical until you can mention a specific case or treatment which can be debated then.

Naturally, not everyone will agree on which treatments those are which constitute child abuse, just as people disagree on what constitutes child abuse in other contexts (e.g. how thick does the stick have to be and how many strikes must there be before a spanking becomes a brutal assault), but that's not an argument against the underlying principle - no more than the problem of defining the precise circumstances under which self-defensive force is justified undermines the basic principle of self-defense. It it impossible to write an objective law code.

So basically you are making the point that the law is a hopelessly flawed and inconsistent thing, and therefor we should drag government as a third or fourth party in a child's healthcare? Show me 1: a case or cases where a parent made a healthcare choice that was child abuse, and 2: show me why on earth I should believe there would be less tragedy in the world if government bureaucrats took the place of mom and dad.

There will always be grey areas where terms like "reasonable" leave room for the judge/jury to apply their common sense.

Why are you trying to drag a judge and jury into a situation where the incredibly vast majority of parents have both the best intentions, and information to make a decision regarding the child's welfare?

[r3volution 3.0]

Hm, but imagine a situation where the parents tell 11 year old Johnny he needs a certain treatment or he will die, he says he wants it, and your government tells Johnny to go to hell because it's better for him to die than endure the treatment because r3v says so. I remember being that age, you're proposal would have about killed me just emotionally having jackboot thugs take over the remainder of my life, not a good recipe for recovery or a peaceful way to die. That's messed up.

Maybe 11 year old Johnny's competent to decide for himself, but obviously some people are not: e.g. a baby.

These kinds of decisions might make us sick to even think about, but if anyone has to make them it should be the parents.

...

Of course parents can't kill their kids or badly hurt them.

You can't have it both ways.

Either the "ignorant bureaucrats" get to judge parental actions or not.

Once you grant them the power to determine which parental decisions "badly hurt them" you're already on my side of the argument.

Man hits kid with a baseball bat, assault. Mom tries to save kid's life, not assault in any scenario I can see

So is motive the determining factor? Any actions is permitted so long as the parents intentions are good?

[William Tell]

Maybe 11 year old Johnny's competent to decide for himself, but obviously some people are not: e.g. a baby.

But you and I know that any laws relating to kids mean under 18. Does this mean you are on the record saying it is immoral for government to make medical decisions for kids 11 and older?

You can't have it both ways.

Either the "ignorant bureaucrats" get to judge parental actions or not.

Once you grant them the power to determine which parental decisions "badly hurt them" you're already on my side of the argument.

Lol, so because I say murder should be illegal that means I'm admitting government owns the kids? It's all hypothetical nonsense until you give a real example that we all can debate. I mentioned the government side has mandated chemo, now tell me what they should ban.

So is motive the determining factor? Any actions is permitted so long as the parents intentions are good?

Not exactly my point, motive is none of your business at all. Parents should be presumed to have complete control. If you want to usurp their control, you better have a darn good specific reason if you want me to back you in this discussion. If you are going to be hover-big-brother you better have a good reason. My goodness, you sound like the kid's grandmothers do. If you want to boss a mom and dad around just show why.

And lets not forget you are hypothetically taking the side of the government that is mandating kids be left to die rather than recieve treatment. That's a hard pill you're trying to force feed us so you need to build a pretty good specific case, which so far you have not shown interest in making.

[r3volution 3.0]

But you and I know that any laws relating to kids mean under 18. Does this mean you are on the record saying it is immoral for government to make medical decisions for kids 11 and older?

You can put me on record saying it's immoral for the state to make medical decisions for any competent person.

I'm not in favor of a fixed age; it should be decided on a case by case basis.

Not exactly my point, motive is none of your business at all.

Then what is the distinction between a parent submitting a kid to a futile surgery and a parent hitting him with a bat?

Both hurt them, neither help them.

And lets not forget you are hypothetically taking the side of the government that is mandating kids be left to die rather than recieve treatment.

Indeed I am. It's the same logic.

In a situation where an adult in extreme pain would want to die, a kid can't consent to do so, so the same kind of question arises.

[William Tell]

You can put me on record saying it's immoral for the state to make medical decisions for any competent person.

I'm not in favor of a fixed age; it should be decided on a case by case basis.

OK. but that's not how laws in this country work.

Then what is the distinction between a parent submitting a kid to a futile surgery and a parent hitting him with a bat?

A lot. Surgeries don't always work but sometimes they do. Hitting a kid with a bat is a violent action that may take his life, so it's actually more comparable to the state mandating him die than his parents getting him a surgery.

Both hurt them, neither help them.

A surgery with zero chance of helping? I guess that would be true, but you haven't given an example where that's the case. I kind of wish you'd respond to my gangrene point, I mean is it better to let a kid die of gangrene than subject him to surgery? I certainly wouldn't want anyone to have to make that decision besides the parent or kid.

Indeed I am. It's the same logic.

In a situation where an adult in extreme pain would want to die, a kid can't consent to do so, so the same kind of question arises.

And who better to make choices for a kid than his parents? If your answer is no one, we're on the same page. If your answer is the government, we might as well do away with families and become a total nanny state, if the government knows best. I concede parents make mistakes, but history shows government makes far more.

[r3volution 3.0]

OK. but that's not how laws in this country work.

We're talking about how the laws should work, aren't we?

A lot. Surgeries don't always work but sometimes they do.

And sometimes it's known with certainty they won't.

Hitting a kid with a bat is a violent action that may take his life

Cutting open a kid's torso is a violent act.

A surgery with zero chance of helping? I guess that would be true, but you haven't given an example where that's the case.

It's not hard to imagine an example.

Terminal cancer, doctors say the kid has a 0% chance of survival, will be dead in a few months.

Parents say do a surgery to get what of the tumor they can.

Doctors say it's pointless, will help as much as hitting him with a baseball bat.

Parent's say do it anyway.

What now?

I kind of wish you'd respond to my gangrene point, I mean is it better to let a kid die of gangrene than subject him to surgery?

Generally speaking, that's a viable surgery with a good chance of success: not at all abusive IMO.

And who better to make choices for a kid than his parents? If your answer is no one, we're on the same page. If your answer is the government, we might as well do away with families and become a total nanny state, if the government knows best. I concede parents make mistakes, but history shows government makes far more.

I think we agree that virtually decisions should be left to the parents, but sometimes those decisions can be reviewed and vetoed by the state.

We agree, for instance, that the decision to beam Johnny in the head with a bat is to be vetoed by the state, yes?

All we're debating is whether (IMO) comparably harmful medical decisions may also be vetoed.

[William Tell]

We're talking about how the laws should work, aren't we?

OK, but you tend to play devils advocate on issues like this, while also being a pragmatist. So my guess would be you would accept a law that enforces your view on this for everyone under 18 as an improvement over what you see as the danger of parental control. I may be wrong, as to what you would accept, perhaps you would fight an imperfect law that was geared towards you tooth and nail. But that's the problem most of us have with government, it's the endless expansion of power beyond what anyone in their right minds see as reasonable.

And sometimes it's known with certainty they won't.

Alright, I always thought doctors generally refused to do surgeries where they thought there was zero chance of it helping. But you may well be right. Either way that's between them and the patient/family.

Cutting open a kid's torso is a violent act.

There oughta be a law?

It's not hard to imagine an example.

Terminal cancer, doctors say the kid has a 0% chance of survival, will be dead in a few months.

Parents say do a surgery to get what of the tumor they can.

Doctors say it's pointless, will help as much as hitting him with a baseball bat.

Parent's say do it anyway.

What now?

So parents think it will help, doctors say it won't. Then do it I say. But I guess this is what you consider abuse and want banned?

Generally speaking, that's a viable surgery with a good chance of success: not at all abusive IMO.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to have to make that decision besides the parent or kid.

But it wasn't always as successful. But I guess it begs the question, what are you worried about, 50% chance of success or 0.1%, or 0%.

I think we agree that virtually decisions should be left to the parents, but sometimes those decisions can be reviewed and vetoed by the state.

No, we don't.

We agree, for instance, that the decision to beam Johnny in the head with a bat is to be vetoed by the state, yes?

No, you've got it all wrong. Hitting Johnny in a head with a bat is not a decision made by a parent, it's an illegal act towards an individual.

It would be like if you asked if I think the government should control religion, and I said no, and you said well then priests can rape people. Nonsense, that has nothing to do with religion and hitting Johnny with the bat has nothing to do with being a parent.

All we're debating is whether (IMO) comparably harmful medical decisions may also be vetoed.

No, we're debating whether we should have an intrusive nanny state or not. I'm not letting the camel's nose under the tent, I've seen this game too many times before. You want the government to review and make all sorts of decisions that are none of their business. I'm convinced that letting them do so will mess up thousands of lives in the process of trying to solve what seems to be either a non issue or close to it.

[r3volution 3.0]

OK, but you tend to play devils advocate on issues like this, while also being a pragmatist. So my guess would be you would accept a law that enforces your view on this for everyone under 18 as an improvement over what you see as the danger of parental control. I may be wrong, as to what you would accept, perhaps you would fight an imperfect law that was geared towards you tooth and nail. But that's the problem most of us have with government, it's the endless expansion of power beyond what anyone in their right minds see as reasonable.

Not sure, not something I've considered...

Anyway, keep in mind, a fixed 18 years rule doesn't deprive the parents of choice, it deprives the kids (i.e. those <18 who are competent).

So parents think it will help, doctors say it won't. Then do it I say. But I guess this is what you consider abuse and want banned?

Yep

But it wasn't always as successful. But I guess it begs the question, what are you worried about, 50% chance of success or 0.1%, or 0%.

0% definitely

Beyond that, it's impossible to draw a bright line: have to look at each case individually.

But that's not a problem unique to the child abuse issue, it's pervasive in ethics/law, as I was explaining earlier. I'm sure we could both agree with the following proposition: "A person facing an imminent threat may use violence in self-defense." Then the question arises, what does "imminent" mean? We could probably both agree that a guy walking towards you with a gun yelling "Ima kill you!" is an imminent threat, and that a guy at the shooting range taking his gun out of its case isn't, but between those two extremes there's an awful lot of grey area: which cannot be incorporated into any universal rule. You have to look at each case individually.

No, you've got it all wrong. Hitting Johnny in a head with a bat is not a decision made by a parent, it's an illegal act towards an individual.

How's that? Is the parent a robot bereft of free will?

No, it is a decision made by a parent, one which we both want the state to outlaw.

It would be like if you asked if I think the government should control religion, and I said no, and you said well then priests can rape people. Nonsense, that has nothing to do with religion and hitting Johnny with the bat has nothing to do with being a parent.

The factual reality is that you, and I, want the state to prosecute parents who do certain things to their children.

Saying that, in doing those things, the parents are no longer acting as parents doesn't change anything. It's be like saying "Oh, no, I don't want the state to execute people for murder; yes I want the state to execute murderers, but insofar as they committed murder, they cease to be people." Semantic games.

[William Tell]

Not sure, not something I've considered...

And........ this is why we have a screwed up legal system. Lots of bright ideas that are not thought through properly and are executed poorly.

0% definitely

Beyond that, it's impossible to draw a bright line: have to look at each case individually.

But that's not a problem unique to the child abuse issue, it's pervasive in ethics/law, as I was explaining earlier. I'm sure we could both agree with the following proposition: "A person facing an imminent threat may use violence in self-defense." Then the question arises, what does "imminent" mean? We could probably both agree that a guy walking towards you with a gun yelling "Ima kill you!" is an imminent threat, and that a guy at the shooting range taking his gun out of its case isn't, but between those two extremes there's an awful lot of grey area: which cannot be incorporated into any universal rule. You have to look at each case individually.

But it sounds like you are focusing on making a law about what even you consider a gray area, and using it to promote government.

How's that? Is the parent a robot bereft of free will?

No, it's that the fact that the attacker is a parent is not the issue.

No, it is a decision made by a parent, one which we both want the state to outlaw.

No, it's an attack by an individual that is already illegal when committed by any individual except as self defense.

The factual reality is that you, and I, want the state to prosecute parents who do certain things to their children.

No, that's like saying I want to prosecute redheads who do certain things, and therefor we should put cameras in their homes. I do not care if someone is a redheads or a parent. It's not the issue. I'm not for putting cameras in their homes.

Saying that, in doing those things, the parents are no longer acting as parents doesn't change anything. It's be like saying "Oh, no, I don't want the state to execute people for murder; yes I want the state to execute murderers, but insofar as they committed murder, they cease to be people." Semantic games.

No, you are the one playing games here. I could use your same game to try to show you support restricting immigration. I never said they ceased to be parents. My point is you go "PARENT hurts kid" when that's not a story at all.

[r3volution 3.0]

@William Tell

Agree or Disagree

You want the state to prosecute people who abuse children, including people who are the parents of those children.