4 ms·

>For any government or doctor to dictate to the individual adult citizen what he/she can or cannot put into or onto their bodies, is tyranny. Interesting...I w

>For any government or doctor to dictate to the individual adult citizen what he/she can or cannot put into or onto their bodies, is tyranny. Interesting...I worked on a case once where a pregnant woman with HIV/AIDs refused medication which would ensure the baby was born without HIV. The Court ordered the treatments against the woman's wishes/will...is that really tyranny?

overcast 7y ago
Does the child count as their own body though? That sounds like it falls under government protection for child endangerment.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  By that reasoning, abortion would also be illegal excepting maybe self defense (aka the pregnancy endagers the mother's life). I'm not weighing in either way, just pointing out that getting a rational, logical consensus on why some things can and cannot be done is next to impossible. Another example- us states where murder of a pregnant woman can be charged as two murders, yet abortion remains legal. Trying to have it both ways often ends up meaning abandoning a pretense of logic.
  - overcast 7y ago
    Abortion is a giant debate, and there should be SOME type of regulation as to how far you can go along with a pregnancy before you decide to just kill it. But this is about a human, intentionally giving another human HIV. Intentionally giving anyone HIV should be against the law.
    - zdragnar 7y ago
      > Intentionally giving anyone HIV should be against the law. If you consider a pregnant mother transferring HIV to an in-utero fetus as a human giving another human HIV, then to be logically consistent you must consider abortion as one human killing another. The size of the debate is irrelevant. Whether you carve out exceptions is a different story (I.e. self defense from health complications) but that is simply a justification for the killing, not changing the act itself. Edit: To complicate matters more, if a parent passing on HIV were illegal, should people with Down syndrome be legally allowed to have children? After all, there is a very significant chance the parents would "give" the child the syndrome as well.
- throwaway_tech 7y ago
  >That sounds like it falls under government protection for child endangerment. On the other hand parents can legally refuse all kinds of life saving treatments for their children...for example refusal of blood transfusions on religious grounds occurs all the time.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    that's certainly not legal everywhere. it doesn't appear to be the case in canada where courts have overruled parents on this, and it definitely is not the case in germany, where, if a childs life is at risk, doctors have not only the right, but the duty to override the parents, and do whatever they need to save the child.
    - throwaway_tech 7y ago
      Its US based on Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion. However, your points about the law in Canada/Germany where a doctor can force treatment gets to the original comment I replied to...which called such forced treatment by a government or doctor...tyranny.
      - em-bee 7y ago
        the problem here is who gets to make the decision. people can make the decision for themselves. they just can't make that decision for others. it's a question of where to draw the line. people make different decisions when their own life is on the line vs others. if it's your own life and you still refuse help, fine. that's on you. but if it's your childs life then you don't get free reign. in new zealand it is illegal to hit your children, while some groups advocate such acts as appropriate punishment. more generally, in many countries it is illegal to allow your children to come to bodily harm. in germany, the view is that this trumps freedom of religion. that is, freedom of religion is limited to yourself, but does not allow you to make choices that can hurt others, even if they are your own children. there is no tyrrany in that.
Melting_Harps 7y ago
> Interesting...I worked on a case once where a pregnant woman with HIV/AIDs refused medication which would ensure the baby was born without HIV. The Court ordered the treatments against the woman's wishes/will...is that really tyranny? Yes, if only because it sets a horrible precedent; the State is not the paragon for determining Life and Death, despite what many think, it was never intended to be anything more than a system to ensure and maintain the Rights of the People--and it does such a horrid job of it I personally thought we'd have evolved past it already by now. Refusing treatment or medication and in turn having it forced upon you leads to this being fringe situation (2009) and having a court rule in favour of the State: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30763438/ns/health-childrens_health/t/judge-rules-family-cant-refuse-chemo-boy/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30763438/ns/health-childrens_healt... To this being the norm (2019): https://federalnewsnetwork.com/health-news/2019/10/police-nebraska-mom-ended-sons-cancer-treatment-and-fled/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/health-news/2019/10/police-ne... Some people and cultures view Life and Death differently than most of the World, and they may not see it as the worst thing that can happen to a person, and we as a Society must respect that choice even when we feel it conflicts with our morals and ethics; that's what a tolerant Civilization adheres to above all else. Otherwise, yes, what you have is tyranny by the few on the many who will impose its will via its court systems and its jackbooted thugs (LEO). In the former's case, the boy survived the treatment, but I cannot imagine the psychological trauma was worth it, his mother had her Life ruined in this process, they were also financially ruined; they fled the country and were hunted down for exercising what they felt was in their best interest for their family.
- hhas01 7y ago
  Ah, the familiar pseudo-libertarian argument: the Rights of the Individual Trump All…also, my child is not an Individual but parental chattel to do to as I will. Mate, that’s not Libertarian, that’s “Egomaniacal Authoritarian From Hell” with a footnote that the ONLY authority they recognize is their own. Does not look out of place on r/RaisedByNarcissists. So do you really want to go down that road? Because it always ends on parents who think it perfectly fine to have sex with their own kids. Always.
  - 7y ago

overcast 7y ago

Does the child count as their own body though? That sounds like it falls under government protection for child endangerment.

zdragnar 7y ago
By that reasoning, abortion would also be illegal excepting maybe self defense (aka the pregnancy endagers the mother's life). I'm not weighing in either way, just pointing out that getting a rational, logical consensus on why some things can and cannot be done is next to impossible. Another example- us states where murder of a pregnant woman can be charged as two murders, yet abortion remains legal. Trying to have it both ways often ends up meaning abandoning a pretense of logic.
- overcast 7y ago
  Abortion is a giant debate, and there should be SOME type of regulation as to how far you can go along with a pregnancy before you decide to just kill it. But this is about a human, intentionally giving another human HIV. Intentionally giving anyone HIV should be against the law.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    > Intentionally giving anyone HIV should be against the law. If you consider a pregnant mother transferring HIV to an in-utero fetus as a human giving another human HIV, then to be logically consistent you must consider abortion as one human killing another. The size of the debate is irrelevant. Whether you carve out exceptions is a different story (I.e. self defense from health complications) but that is simply a justification for the killing, not changing the act itself. Edit: To complicate matters more, if a parent passing on HIV were illegal, should people with Down syndrome be legally allowed to have children? After all, there is a very significant chance the parents would "give" the child the syndrome as well.
throwaway_tech 7y ago
>That sounds like it falls under government protection for child endangerment. On the other hand parents can legally refuse all kinds of life saving treatments for their children...for example refusal of blood transfusions on religious grounds occurs all the time.
- em-bee 7y ago
  that's certainly not legal everywhere. it doesn't appear to be the case in canada where courts have overruled parents on this, and it definitely is not the case in germany, where, if a childs life is at risk, doctors have not only the right, but the duty to override the parents, and do whatever they need to save the child.
  - throwaway_tech 7y ago
    Its US based on Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion. However, your points about the law in Canada/Germany where a doctor can force treatment gets to the original comment I replied to...which called such forced treatment by a government or doctor...tyranny.
    - em-bee 7y ago
      the problem here is who gets to make the decision. people can make the decision for themselves. they just can't make that decision for others. it's a question of where to draw the line. people make different decisions when their own life is on the line vs others. if it's your own life and you still refuse help, fine. that's on you. but if it's your childs life then you don't get free reign. in new zealand it is illegal to hit your children, while some groups advocate such acts as appropriate punishment. more generally, in many countries it is illegal to allow your children to come to bodily harm. in germany, the view is that this trumps freedom of religion. that is, freedom of religion is limited to yourself, but does not allow you to make choices that can hurt others, even if they are your own children. there is no tyrrany in that.

Melting_Harps 7y ago

> Interesting...I worked on a case once where a pregnant woman with HIV/AIDs refused medication which would ensure the baby was born without HIV. The Court ordered the treatments against the woman's wishes/will...is that really tyranny? Yes, if only because it sets a horrible precedent; the State is not the paragon for determining Life and Death, despite what many think, it was never intended to be anything more than a system to ensure and maintain the Rights of the People--and it does such a horrid job of it I personally thought we'd have evolved past it already by now. Refusing treatment or medication and in turn having it forced upon you leads to this being fringe situation (2009) and having a court rule in favour of the State: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30763438/ns/health-childrens_health/t/judge-rules-family-cant-refuse-chemo-boy/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30763438/ns/health-childrens_healt... To this being the norm (2019): https://federalnewsnetwork.com/health-news/2019/10/police-nebraska-mom-ended-sons-cancer-treatment-and-fled/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/health-news/2019/10/police-ne... Some people and cultures view Life and Death differently than most of the World, and they may not see it as the worst thing that can happen to a person, and we as a Society must respect that choice even when we feel it conflicts with our morals and ethics; that's what a tolerant Civilization adheres to above all else. Otherwise, yes, what you have is tyranny by the few on the many who will impose its will via its court systems and its jackbooted thugs (LEO). In the former's case, the boy survived the treatment, but I cannot imagine the psychological trauma was worth it, his mother had her Life ruined in this process, they were also financially ruined; they fled the country and were hunted down for exercising what they felt was in their best interest for their family.

hhas01 7y ago
Ah, the familiar pseudo-libertarian argument: the Rights of the Individual Trump All…also, my child is not an Individual but parental chattel to do to as I will. Mate, that’s not Libertarian, that’s “Egomaniacal Authoritarian From Hell” with a footnote that the ONLY authority they recognize is their own. Does not look out of place on r/RaisedByNarcissists. So do you really want to go down that road? Because it always ends on parents who think it perfectly fine to have sex with their own kids. Always.
- 7y ago