I believe in freedom. but new borns cant make that choice, Acase in point sextuplits in cANADA taken from thier parents then returned.
2007-02-21 03:15:49 · 9 answers · asked by Grand pa 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Personally I believe this is a form of neglect. The Government will step in every time. These children did not ask to be born, the parent decided that. They{the parents} had no problem using fertility drugs to get the job done, knowing full well the possibility of multiple births, they can't now turn around and refuse life saving treatments for said children. 2 of the babies have already died, one would think they would do anything to save the ones that are left.
This is religious crap. Children should not be forced to follow anything until they are old enough to make up their own mind has to what they want to do.
2007-02-21 04:50:14 · answer #1 · answered by Bella 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in giving or taking blood. I'm sorry, but I cannot remember the exact reason why. If the children are born to Jehovah Witness's parents, then they have the right to make that decision based on their faith. Until the children are 18, they are the custodians of their children and can make that decision on their behalf.
2007-02-21 11:25:20 · answer #2 · answered by Sarah 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
One uninformed person (to be more polite than he deserves) said the "parents have the right to deny medical treatment and face the responsibility". So parents have a right to kill their kids through neglect?
What idiocy.
Denying medical treatment to children is equal to denying them food. If some godbot refused to give one child food to "get the devils out of him", we would take any other kids away and protect them. Why should religion get a free pass at infanticide because the child has a preventable or treatable disease? This isn't "concern for the soul", it's an excuse to commit murder.
If an adult wants to kill himself or herself, then go ahead, but a child isn't capable of making that decision. Until that child is an adult, the parents have a legal obligation to protect that child, even if it contradicts their religion.
If they don't like, deal. Life and the temporal world trump all fairy tales.
.
2007-02-21 11:38:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes they do. In their religion accepting blood (for transfussions or otherwise) is considered a sin. And a parent has a right to choose what kind of medical treatment they want for their children. However wrong you may feel it is wrong. It's in the constitution that people have a right to religion.
2007-02-21 11:29:37 · answer #4 · answered by *Melissa* 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, IMO. Children are not property of the state. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, as long as the children are not being abused.
This intrusion of the state into the privacy of the family is a greater assault on the Constitutional guarantee of freedom, liberty and privacy than any of the alleged violations that liberals imagined Bush has done.
2007-02-21 11:24:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I see your point, but where do you draw the line? It isn't any of the state's business how a family is medicating/hospitalizing/vaccinating their children.
2007-02-21 11:54:38 · answer #6 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In my opinion, they should have the right, but they also face the responsibility, i.e. the child's death.
2007-02-21 11:20:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Just another facet of religion that goes against common sense.
2007-02-21 11:32:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
They shouldnt be able to.
2007-02-21 11:34:13 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋