Mariah Walton was born with a birth defect that could have been fixed rather easily, if her parents had only allowed it (if there’s an ad in the video, it’s worth waiting through it):
I take parents’ rights very seriously, but how many examples of children being harmed by their parents’ belief in faith healing do we need before we step in? And is there any point at which faith healers will acknowledge that they were wrong? Or is it like prayer, where no response simply means the request wasn’t according to God’s will, or the person’s faith wasn’t strong enough? Do they never stop to wonder why life expectancy was so low back when virtually everyone had to rely on faith and superstition to heal the sick?
Finding Truth 
and let me clarify, please just disregard the comment with rape in it. It was sent accidentally and prematurely – it didn’t even make sense.
but, to clarify that specific point of rape, what i think is that if abortion was illegal, that exceptions should be made for life of the mother, rape, incest, etc. just to be clear on that. How awful. I could never throw any stones there.
LikeLike
What do you think our laws and constitution are based on? Where does our sense of morality come from? Do you believe there’s a higher power who has set some objective standard of morality?
LikeLike
I do not. I could be wrong, but I dont think there’s an intelligent force that set anything in order.
But i believe in goodness and morality – those things are as real as we make them, if nothing else.
I think it’s too complicated to sum in one comment – but I think a lot depends on a lot of stuff. I don’t think we’ll ever reach a clear consensus on it either, which is one reason I’m not militant or overbearing with my opinions toward others., or try not to be.
But i think many of the excuses for abortion across the board are weak and match those that the religious often to use to excuse their belief or what a good god would or wouldnt do.
LikeLike
Sure, that would be ideal. But I think it minimizes (maybe unintentionally) the massive burden that goes along with carrying a child to term. It’s no simple matter.
And that’s also why I keep coming back to the kidney example. I don’t want to kill people with kidney failure — I just don’t want to have one of my kidneys taken without my consent. In the same way, no woman wants to kill a fetus — she just doesn’t want to be pregnant. I don’t see how we can tell her she doesn’t have the right to make that decision, unless we also say I don’t have the right to hang on to both of my kidneys.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i think kidney’s and a fetus are different, especially when we’re talking about keeping a kidney and aborting a fetus.
Sure it;s complicated, so are a lot of things.
LikeLike
How are they different? Don’t both result in a death?
LikeLike
a kidney is in your body. your talking about being forced to remove in in order to aid in the life another person who isn’t naturally dependent on you and a life you had no part in creating. and to remove your kidney, would be intrusively. you have to take action to save the life.
A fetus is removed intrusively. It’s a life that the host body took part in creating and the fetus is dependent on that host body for care. You have to take action to terminate this life, not save it. saving it would take no action.
LikeLiked by 1 person
but, if kidney’s and a fetus are the same because both involve life or death, why wouldnt children (like the subject of this post) be rounded up in that too?
a parent shouldnt have to be forced to forfeit their right to religion and parental guidance just to save a life.
I dont know man, i wont go to war over this, I just cant quite get behind justifying it as if an unborn human is just like random tissue that can be cut away for any reason while we act as if all human life is extremely valuable and all means should be taken to care for those lives.
I just dont see abortions as being on the same level as being forced to give up a kidney to save a strangers life.
LikeLiked by 2 people
At what point do you think an action is abusive? Is anything done in “love” considered not to be abusive? Is neglect abusive? Is withholding medical assistance abusive? The question in the OP is to what extent should a parent’s religious belief affect a child’s well being.
According to the line of logic you’ve employed parents should have a right to raise a child the way they see fit. Don’t wanna feed em? It’s nobody’s business. Don’t wanna educate them? Nobody’s business.
I don’t think it’s an all or nothing proposition. Of course we all agree that parents should have some rights regarding their offspring. But I think we all also agree they shouldn’t be carte blanche either. Raising a child is a responsibility and, for most a privilege, not a right. Nobody guarantees you the right to have children, nor does having tiny humans guarantee that anybody will be a good parent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve always felt they should come with an operator’s manual.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is the right to religious belief and parental guidance more valuable than life, itself?
Is that where the line is? Strangers or family? Is a stranger’s life less valuable than that of an unborn fetus?
LikeLike
http://www.openbible.info/topics/rejoice_at_passing_and_weep_at_birth
well, if one is to cry at birth and rejoice at death, I don’t really see the problem. ?????
from a christian perspective, wouldn’t the fetus go straight into the arms of jesus?
also, I often hear, god determines when a person dies, so maybe it’s just the fetus appointed time????
some children are just unwanted, and are brought up that way, knowing they are unwanted.
trust me, it’s a real drag.
honestly, if I had known beforehand in the womb what i would be dealing with in my christian family, I would have self aborted.
LikeLike
I was thinking about this a little more. Isn’t this whole issue a prime example of the PofE in process? I mean, wouldn’t what’s truly just be preventing suffering when and where we can? If we see suffering and turn our heads isn’t that evil?
LikeLike
I am not really advocating for parents to be able to do anything they like, nor am I advocating for a religious parent to withhold needed medical care from their children, but instead I’m playing devil’s advocate by trying to apply one standard across a board of parents and their born children along with parents and their unborn children.
I am really confused how we can just say the religious parents are wrong in this case because it harms their kid, but then say it’s wrong to take that position against a mother who aborts (kills/harms) her unborn kid. I just don’t get it.
With one, we’ll defend the pregnant mother by saying her emotional well being must be considered, or something along the lines of ‘sparing the child a difficult life,’ or that the mother has a right to choose, or whatever – but then say that the Born child’s life trumps all of those things when it comes to the religious parents.
Again, personally, I think the religious parents are crazy and would have no problem telling them that for the safety, health and well being of your kid, they will receive medical treatment.
But, if i were to suggest that for the pregnant mother, I’d be accused of wanting to control a woman’s body (which is a stupid argument) or criticized for being man and wanting to violate the mother’s personal rights – never mind the small human who evidently has not even the most basic right to survive.
I just don’t understand the difference. and yet again, that being said, despite my inability to see a clear enough distinction, I still am not dogmatic enough to picket, protest or fight over it and have not been, nor will be rude to people who have abortions.
I think most the arguments in support of abortions are emotional and more closely resemble arguments given my religious people in support of their religion.
LikeLike
“Is that where the line is? Strangers or family? Is a stranger’s life less valuable than that of an unborn fetus?” – Ruth
I think my above comment actually addressed this, but I did want to run through this specifically.
I think we’re being honest, then yes, to me my children’s lives are worth more than any stranger’s life, of course.
In our current society, we pretty have everything we need; no lack of drinking water or food, or snacks or shelter, with very few exceptions. So we can all get along and see the value in every life, with few exceptions. But if we were to lose any or all of those things, then we’d kill others in order to protect those precious resources for ourselves and those that are ours.
I think this is absolutely true.
It also why I struggle to understand abortion in the majority of cases. It’s also why I struggle to understand it when people suggest that the life of an unborn fetus is less valuable than… whatever.
Where do you think the line is? Between birth and unborn only, or elsewhere? If there is no line (which I could get behind) then unborn and born alike are equally valuable, and excuses for harm or neglect are all pretty weak.
LikeLike
I guess the question is whether or not we’re placing value on being human or placing value on life.
No one will dispute that when a an embryo is formed that unique human DNA is formed. It is no longer exactly the mother and it is no longer exactly the father. It is a unique human cell.
I think the difference is when you think, scientifically, life begins. Is it when that unique human DNA can survive without a host, or is it when a unique human DNA is formed? A dead person is still a person, though they are dead. They are still cells that make a unique, distinct, human. Are they living? No.
So, no I don’t think it is between birth and unborn only. I think it is between when those unique human cells can survive without a host in which to do it. Simply put, I don’t think you can apply the same ethical standard to a zygote or an embryo as you do a fetus which has developed to the stage where it is viable outside the womb. A zygote or embryo is not alive in the same way that a fully formed human being is. Notice, I did not say fully developed.
What gives value to a zygote or an embryo? Is it the fact that it has potential to be a fully formed human? Is it the fact that it has the potential for life?
LikeLiked by 1 person
we can look up the definition of “life” and I think see that a fetus or embryo would apply.
being on life support, I dont think, disqualifies that life; astronauts, scuba divers, and sick people all rely on life support – their “life” isn’t diminished. The rare cases where this is different, is when someone is on life support and not expected to get better, or where it merely keeps blood and oxygen flowing, but there;s no brain activity, etc.
Most unborn babies are expected to be born.
So again, the problem may be me, but i just see these as excuses that dont hold up under closer review.
LikeLike
“What gives value to a zygote or an embryo? Is it the fact that it has potential to be a fully formed human? Is it the fact that it has the potential for life?” ruth
is a child fully formed? The male brain isnt fully formed until somewhere around 21 on average.
or is there stages of human development and formation and are they pretty much arbitrary, and if so, could we keep drawing arbitrary lines as they help us?
LikeLike
“A zygote or embryo is not alive in the same way that a fully formed human being is. Notice, I did not say fully developed.”
Sounds a little like word-crafting, Ruth, relying heavily on semantics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, a child isn’t fully developed. It is a fully formed human being. There is a difference. There are stages of human development AND human formation. No, they are not arbitrary.
You are assigning “more” or “less” value to any life as it relates to your own personal emotional situation. Strangers have “less” value to you. You are basing “value” on your own emotions. How is that just or right if that’s what you’re interested in? Your emotional attachment or concern to specific humans doesn’t diminish the value of the life of other people who you have already admitted that you think you could kill and have a clean conscience for your own arbitrary “specific reasons”. I guess I’m having trouble seeing how your standard of which lives are and are not valuable isn’t arbitrary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My third daughter was two months premature – her lungs were not fully formed/developed – and she was kept alive on life support for a month. She seems to have benefited from that:
OK, so she’s a little nuts, jumping out of a perfectly good plane, but nobody’s perfect —
LikeLiked by 4 people
If you are of the opinion that unique human cells are valuable then I guess so.
Again, I’m not pro-abortion. I’m pro-choice. I’m not out championing that abortion is the best thing since sliced bread or encouraging anyone to have one. I am pointing out that there are other ways to look at this thing.
We want everything to be black and white even while we decry how gray it all is. It just isn’t so cut and dried.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A zygote and an embryo are human zygotes and human embryos that are living.
They’re human, just in different developmental stages than babies, toddlers, teens and adults.
There are two difference senses in which i am referring to the value of human life and I dont think it’s a contradiction or difficult to understand.
1) is on a personal level, where I love and give preference to some people over another, and an example is by me giving preference to my children over a stranger. And if there was only enough food or water for either my children or the stranger, but not both, I’d pick my children every time and would do what ever it took to better their chances at survival. This isn’t wild or crazy.
2) is the recognition that while I dont know the stranger, someone else does, and they are someone’s children and loved and of tremendous value. It’s not hard to see why we place value on human life and why we’d be incensed at abuse or neglect like what is discussed in the above video, because it’s a life that is being put in jeopardy for no good reason, because very few reasons trump or outweigh the value of life.
Yet, my difficulty is when I see zygotes and embryos that are undeniably human, and undeniably living, being treated as if they are not either, where any ole excuse will do to justify their termination.
If we value life so much, and if you value the life of stranger just as much as much as you value the lives of your loved ones, then I do not understand why that value stops inside the womb at a human life that is defenseless and more innocent than any other. I dont understand why excuses are used to defend that termination that wouldnt be satisfactory in the termination of any other life.
we dont have to agree and we clearly do not, I just dont understand why we dont, and dont understand how my position is hard to understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and she is breathtaking.
I never said I thought that abortion was acceptable at any time during pregnancy, though. I think the difference, which I’ve not articulated well, is personhood. By the time your daughter was born, she was a fully formed human even if parts of her little body weren’t fully developed. “Life support” isn’t the line that determines whether human cells are a person or not. It’s the thing I’ve been trying to describe inadequately. She was also viable outside the womb. No amount of artificial life support will keep alive a zygote or an embryo.
Let’s be clear, here, I don’t even think the issue with abortion is about killing. We kill all the time without a second thought. War, self-defense, accidents, etc. So if it isn’t killing then what is it? Are we equating abortion with murder? If so, where is the murdered person?
No, it isn’t a semantics issue. It is a biological, brain formation issue.
LikeLike
“Yes, and she is breathtaking.”
Takes after her Dad.
LikeLike