Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I am arguing that to a religious person, religious reasons *are* just as compelling and parents *do* have the right to decide what happens to their children.
|
Which you then follow up by a study which shows that there are limits to what parents can decide happens to their children. Parents do *not* have the right to withhold essential medical treatment from their children. I'm arguing that there is a case to be made for that reasoning to be extended to irreversible, outwardly visible extensions that serve no medical purpose.
Quote:
|
And in so doing, I am also pointing out that that, pretty much, is what amounts to the status quo in this country, because it has been found over many generations to work pretty well.
|
And I'm arguing that the status quo is not immutable, and the simple fact that it is the status quo is not (or may not) be sufficient for it to be acceptable. Abortion was illegal in the UK until 40 years ago. It still is in Ireland. The fact that a woman can die in child-birth in Ireland because religious beliefs dictate that a foetus that has little to no chance of survival cannot be aborted is the status quo in Ireland. It's also a travesty that the health of the mother is of no apparent concern.
The wider issue here is the tradeoff between freedom of religious expression, the health of individuals, and the right to bodily integrity. And when you (or I anyway) think about it, it really makes very little sense for parents to decide their children will have irreversible medical interventions that does not serve to improve the health of a person that cannot consent to said intervention.
It really comes down to the analogy I posted earlier. Do you give you child a Star of David on a chain, or do you tattoo it somewhere on their body. I'm saying the latter isn't on, no matter how compelling the religious reason.