Vindicarre wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
Much like the argument about the Gov't protecting and encouraging all that is "good and right" that those in favor of the DOMA put forth, I don't want a Gov't deciding what is "good and right" or "corrective", and making mandates to support those decisions. As has been brought up previously, would it be ok if parents "turned off" the "gay gene", that may be considered enhancing or corrective, right? What about the Gov't deciding that they have a need for able-bodied men to fight a "just war"? Would "correcting" the sex of the fetus be a good way to achieve those ends? How are we to be sure that we, the people, would be willing or able to restrain the Gov't once they are allowed into that portion of our lives? Precedent doesn't favor the idea.
Do you think it's ok for the government to mandate that parents provide their kids with modern medical treatment, or should parents be allowed to let their kid go deaf from an ear infection because they don't believe in antibiotics or die from treatable cancer because they don't believe in surgery?
Not fair, you first.
RangerDave wrote:
Ah, sorry. Took those to be rhetorical questions. I think it should be legally permissible for parents to turn off the gay gene or to select the sex of their kid. I would find the former morally wrong and the latter wouldn't be my personal choice, but I don't think either would harm the kid, so the parents can do whatever they like. I don't think government mandates for either of those things should be allowed, however, as I think the bar for such mandates should be set very high such that only clear, unambiguous harms are mandated for correction. And yes, that is trusting to the wisdom of people to manage where that bar is set, but we do that in lots of other areas (as indicated in my own question to you), and this is, in my view, just another area where politics/law/culture have to incorporate something science has made possible.
The questions you presented me with are false dilemmas. Every child with an ear infection doesn't go deaf, and every child that doesn't receive surgery for cancer doesn't die. Just as deafness from an ear infection isn't certain, prevention through antibiotics isn't certain either. There are cases where the parents refuse "traditional" (chemo etc.) treatment of cancer for their children in favor of "holistic" treatments and the court has ruled in the parent's favor. I'd say that the area of "settled law" you are presenting is much more gray and unsettled than most would like people to believe.
TBH, I have a difficult time with parental decisions regarding children, as I'm not completely decided on the issue. As of right now, I lean toward the parents having the final say.
_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
