B.C. government had 'obligation' to seize babies

[Messiah]

Premier Gordon Campbell defended his government's seizure of three of the surviving sextuplets born last month in Vancouver, and said Thursday the B.C. government will continue to look out for their well-being.

The province took custody of the three babies in the past week, allowing two to receive blood transfusions, despite the objections of their parents. Their lawyer is now seeking a judicial review of how the case was handled.

"We live in a country where we respect religious freedoms, where we respect religious beliefs," said Campbell. "But we have an obligation to protect children in British Columbia and to protect their lives. We act, I think, with the children's best interests in mind. We will continue to do that.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...sextuplets.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/02/01/bc-sextuplets.html)

For the record, the couple are Mormons (or some such religion, can't quite recall) and as such don't believe in blood transfusions, and the Liberlas in BC are neoliberals.

I thought I would raise this because it has interesting implications for us left libertarians, anarchists, communists, socialists etc etc . So what do you think? Was the government right to step in, for what appears to be a, sensible cause? Or is it dangerous to go down this road? Is there a happy medium?

I, for one, am very concerned. For the record, I am an atheist and pretty anti-religious, so I think these people are crackpots. However, they have a right to be. And I worry that if we say, okay, the government can step in to save these babies, supposedly, that the next step is that the government is stepping in to "save" someone like Terri Schiavo.

It's a sticky topic. But I'm very interested in hearing your views especially vis a vis our politics.

Discuss.

[Kia]

Hmm. I think in this case the government had the right to step in and perform an operation on the babies without the consent of the parents. With babies and young children they have no ability to defend for themselves or express help in a situation like this. If the parents are not willing to protect their children then the parents do not have the right to have these kids. Religion is not an excuse for letting 3 babies die...hell..id think if one was religious you would be trying to keep them alive, go figure. There is a big differance though between this case and the Terri Schiavo case. Terri Schiavo was not a child and did (up to a point) have the ability to express her opinions and create decisions about her health. If i remember corretly she asked her husband to not allow her to continue life if she ended up in vegitative state..so he did what he was told. This seems more then fair enough. The government in this case has no right to step in and decide the life of another because an agreement had been made already between two loved ones. This kind of thing happens all the time. My grandfather had liver failure, a stroke, and heart failure just before he died and went into a coma...there was little chance he'd ever come out and let alone be able to live without extreme support from the hopsital if he was miraculously lucky enough to survive; so my father chose to "pull the plug". This is not an uncommon thing with coma patients and many others situations like this...the Schiavo case just got blown WAYYY out of proportion by the right and relgious groups in an attempt to gain more control...frankly I'm sure they didnt give a crap about her..but just what they could benefit from keeping her alive.
Basically with children and babies it is up to the "government" to protect them and help them live. With adults it is a decision already predecided between the "victim" and a loved one, or the loved ones can come to a decision on it. The government had no right to step in and decide unless their is a VERY high chance that the patient could live and the family is just trying to benefit from the death.

[Messiah]

Good points, but to play devil's advocate, I don't think the parents want their children to die. They want them to stay alive, but in accordance with their religious views, they probably feel that giving them a transfusion would not be keeping with "God's will" and thus doing more harm, in the spiritual sense. They don't want their kids to die, but they probably think they're going to a better place if they do, and should do so spiritually pure.

But I think you raise an important distinction between child and adult. Though, in any case, I think a move like this on the part of the government needs to be subject to the utmost amount of transperancy and scrutiny.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It's an awkward situation. For the record they're Jehova's Witnesses, and think that taking transfusions is "comsumption of blood" or something they can't abide by. Kia raises some good points; as children they have no idea what's going on. The question is, what is valued more? Human life, or spiritual purity?

[Hate Is Art]

The question is, what is valued more? Human life, or spiritual purity?

Human life. Every. Single. Time. Especially when the children are too young to make up their own minds about whether or not they want to die with 'spiritual purity' just because their parents believe in crackpot nonsense.

Bakunin it seems was wrong, not all &#39;Religions are founded on blood&#39; har. <_<

[Fawkes]

Just pointing out that they&#39;re Jehova&#39;s Witnesses, not Mormons.

I think the government was right in stepping in and saving these babies because there was something that could be done to save them and the parents chose not to. This is different from the Schiavo case in that nothing could be done to save her and keeping her alive was, well, pointless. Religious beliefs should not be respected by the government if those beliefs infringe upon an already-born baby&#39;s right to be treated for something that is treatable.

[Hate Is Art]

This is different from the Schiavo case in that nothing could be done to save her and keeping her alive was, well, pointless.

Not only pointless but she had allready expressed a wish die, these babies made no such pact.

[Fawkes]

And never had the ability to.

[Hate Is Art]

Exactly. Shit, did we just agree :)

[Fawkes]

There&#39;s a first for everything :).

[Cheung Mo]

For the first time in my life, I&#39;ve been pleased by one of Gordon Campbell&#39;s decisions...But then again, this is so black and white that even someone with the religious lunacy of a Stockwell Day or a Vic Toews would have made the same decision, if only to try brainwashing Canadians into believing that the right is sane.

[Messiah]

It isn&#39;t black and white though. They don&#39;t want their kids to die, they simply have a different view of what is medically appropriate. Do they not have a right to live their life, to have their family live their life, as they see fit?

This sets a horrible precendet in my mind, and I as tragic as it is, I would rather let these kids die than go down this path, as it frightens me to live in a society where we grant our government this amount of moral authority.

[Fawkes]

Do they not have a right to live their life, to have their family live their life, as they see fit?

They do, but they do not have a right to make decisons for their children that could threaten their lives when the children are unable to raise any objections.

[Severian]

Freedom of religion means you can believe what you want. It doesn&#39;t mean you can do anything you want, commit any crime, as long as your religion sanctifies it.

The crime in this case: child neglect, pure and simple. Being a Jehovah&#39;s Witness does not grant you some special exemption from those laws.


They don&#39;t want their kids to die,

So? That woulda been the result of their actions.

[CrimsonTide]

Children should not be the chattel of their parents, to be used and butchered to their liking. In a Proletarian society the exact same thing should happen. The parents would have their kids taken away.

It&#39;s almost exactly the same as a blood cult trying to sacrifice babies born into the cult to their blood god, simply because the babies had the bad luck to be born into the cult in the first place. It is dangerous to let this kind of irrationality gain acceptance.

[Messiah]

They do, but they do not have a right to make decisons for their children that could threaten their lives when the children are unable to raise any objections.

But the government does? Isn&#39;t more logical to assume that the children of Jehova&#39;s Witnesses would be more upset with government intervention than what their parents are doing?


The crime in this case: child neglect, pure and simple. Being a Jehovah&#39;s Witness does not grant you some special exemption from those laws.

How is child neglect? Is it child neglect if someone decides to give thir kids herbal medicine over synthetic drugs too?


So? That woulda been the result of their actions.

That&#39;s not 100% sure. And as such, we can&#39;t really call it child neglect or abuse, as they do not have the intention of harming their children, and are providing for alternative methods of care. Are the Amish neglecting their children too?


Children should not be the chattel of their parents, to be used and butchered to their liking. In a Proletarian society the exact same thing should happen. The parents would have their kids taken away.

I&#39;m glad you&#39;ve figured it all out, dear Leader.


It&#39;s almost exactly the same as a blood cult trying to sacrifice babies born into the cult to their blood god, simply because the babies had the bad luck to be born into the cult in the first place. It is dangerous to let this kind of irrationality gain acceptance.

Except that one is you know murder and the other is difference of opinion when it comes to what is an appropriate medical approach.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:27 am
This sets a horrible precendet in my mind, and I as tragic as it is, I would rather let these kids die than go down this path, as it frightens me to live in a society where we grant our government this amount of moral authority.
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Its all too easy to fall into the trap of playing the political game as defined by capitalist society.

Lets say the &#39;child&#39; in quetion was 14 and had made an informed decision to abide by the rules of their religion (although as an aside it should be noted that jehovahs Witnesses vary considerable in their views on this issue).

The power of the state used by Campbell in this case could be used in that case to override the rights of that child.

That is the problem here : the whole decision making process in a representative (capitalist) democracy determines the nature of the choice made. It is not the good outcome - continued life for children - which determines the political character of this act, but rather the political implications: increased power for the capitalist state.

As much as I hate the thought of children dying to facilitate the daft self-delusion of their parents, I cannot say that the Capitlist State was right to do what it did. I welcome the outcome, I reject the propriety of the act which facilitated it.

But all this is abstract. Neither you nor I are in any place to consider whether he was &#39;right&#39; or &#39;wrong&#39;; the nature of the capitalist state means we as citizens dont have that role - our political role has been ceded to &#39;representatives&#39; and what we get instead is a right to vote once every so many years.

So the question is not whether it is &#39;right&#39; or &#39;wrong&#39;, that is too abstract and actually make no reals sense for us to pose as disenfranchised political agents. The only questions that make sense are:

1. Should it influence whether we would vote for campbell or not : no (wouldnt vote for him anyway)
2. Should we protest against it: no
3. Should we organise to frustrate it : no

Why not ? Because there is little or nothing progressive in making the rights of Jehovah Witnesses to watch their kids die for purity&#39;s sake a focus of political struggle.

Now if the child was 14, the answer to questions 2 and 3 might well be &#39;yes&#39;.

[Fawkes]

They do, but they do not have a right to make decisons for their children that could threaten their lives when the children are unable to raise any objections.



But the government does? Isn&#39;t more logical to assume that the children of Jehova&#39;s Witnesses would be more upset with government intervention than what their parents are doing?
I don&#39;t believe that the government should exist, but as long as it does, it should look out for the well-being of it&#39;s citizens, and that includes giving them adequate medical attention when they would have none. If I were the kids, I&#39;d be far more upset with my parents for not seeking adequate medical care for me than I would be with the government stepping in and doing something.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:27 am
This sets a horrible precendet in my mind, and I as tragic as it is, I would rather let these kids die than go down this path, as it frightens me to live in a society where we grant our government this amount of moral authority.
The precedents are made for people, not the people for the precedents.

Those people should read the books they worship a little bit more in earnest.

And the difference between these children and Terri Schiavo isn&#39;t that Terri Schiavo was an adult, but that there were sound scientifical reasons to believe that she would never recover from what was, essentially, undeath. While there were enough scientifical reasons to believe that those children would live if they received a blood transfusion, but die if they didn&#39;t.

And as much we should fear giving moral authority to the State, much worse is giving such authority to that other insane bourgeois institution, (in)family.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:01 pm
How is child neglect? Is it child neglect if someone decides to give thir kids herbal medicine over synthetic drugs too?
No, I would rather call it "attempted murder".

Luís Henrique

[CrimsonTide]

Originally posted by Messiah+--> (Messiah)
I&#39;m glad you&#39;ve figured it all out, dear Leader.[/b]

Oh, please, enough with the cliches. Try actually arguing.

By the way, that&#39;s a funny quote, for someone calling themselves "Messiah"...I&#39;m sure you know everything too "Dear Leader".


Messiah

Except that one is you know murder and the other is difference of opinion when it comes to what is an appropriate medical approach.

No, there is not a difference of opinion. If someone needs a blood transfusion, they need a blood transfusion, not to be read over by some kooky book written by delusionals.

It&#39;s the same damned thing.

[Kia]

This sets a horrible precendet in my mind, and I as tragic as it is, I would rather let these kids die than go down this path, as it frightens me to live in a society where we grant our government this amount of moral authority.

It is not our choice to deny a child his/her right to live just because he may go down a path we do not like. Hell, for all we know the children may turn against their parents beliefs and become fellow comrades, it does happen.

Well this is not my government so i guess i cant say im scared, but i know the US government has basically the same laws. Frankly yes it may seem frightening that we grant the government the ability to do this but in actuality its not. Any political body whether a trynnical dictator or an anarchist group should protect their children from harm whether it be from parents or something else. This is something that goes beyond just politics but into ones ethical beliefs. Just because we find the government to be wrong doesnt mean that every law or political idea they pass/agree with is wrong; some things are universally justifiable...frankly i find this to be one.



Lets say the &#39;child&#39; in quetion was 14 and had made an informed decision to abide by the rules of their religion (although as an aside it should be noted that jehovahs Witnesses vary considerable in their views on this issue).

The power of the state used by Campbell in this case could be used in that case to override the rights of that child.


This is rather a question of what age a child has the right to make a decision like this about his/her own life. Frankly this is a huge debate and not easily solvable. This however doesnt make the action taken by the government wrong. These kids were young and frankly are extremely unlikely to make a religious decision about keeping to what they believe or possibly dieing. If the parents wont protect their children then someone else has too..and the only people with that power in most countries is the government.


How is child neglect? Is it child neglect if someone decides to give thir kids herbal medicine over synthetic drugs too?

This is a definate case of child neglect. Not protecting ones child and providing adequte medical care is counted to be child neglect. It can be child neglect to give herbal medicine over snythetic drugs..it also cannot. Basically you need to do whatever is more likely to help the child be it herbal or synthetic. In this case however religion vs medical care it is definate child neglect. The parents chose their beliefs over their children

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:13 am

Well this is not my government ......

Lets say the &#39;child&#39; in quetion was 14 and had made an informed decision to abide by the rules of their religion (although as an aside it should be noted that jehovahs Witnesses vary considerable in their views on this issue).

The power of the state used by Campbell in this case could be used in that case to override the rights of that child.


This is rather a question of what age a child has the right to make a decision like this about his/her own life. Frankly this is a huge debate and not easily solvable. This however doesnt make the action taken by the government wrong.

Yeah fine, but even playing this game of is the government &#39;right&#39; or &#39;wrong&#39; is playing the media game of the pseudo politics we are allowed to engage in in this society - its the wrong question: it doesnt make any sense: you cant parse events to ignore context, thats the game of Murdoch&#39;s media and its only purpose is to sell papers and ad space on TV shows.

Its not good politics to ask &#39;is the government right&#39; - what does it mean ? Morally right ? Legally right ? Politically right ? Right for the working class ? Constitutional ? Good for Campbell&#39;s career ?

Dont let capitalist political dialogue draw you in to its terms and its assumptions : I repeat the only questions are would you protest against and....and no I wouldnt....but that doesnt mean its &#39;right&#39;, cos that doesnt mean anything unless you assume there is such a thing as a non-class state or a non-class code of what all states should do....which is historical nonsense.

[Kia]

Dont let capitalist political dialogue draw you in to its terms and its assumptions : I repeat the only questions are would you protest against and....and no I wouldnt....but that doesnt mean its &#39;right&#39;, cos that doesnt mean anything unless you assume there is such a thing as a non-class state or a non-class code of what all states should do....which is historical nonsense.

Would you count universal truths or principles to be non-class codes?

[Messiah]

Oh, please, enough with the cliches. Try actually arguing.

By the way, that&#39;s a funny quote, for someone calling themselves "Messiah"...I&#39;m sure you know everything too "Dear Leader".

My name is tongue in cheek, first off.

Secondly, I do not bother debating with people who make statements like "in the proletariat society..." It&#39;s a BS mysticism. It means nothing to anyone who actually bothers to think logically. You can&#39;t POSSIBLY know what a society that has never existed will look like, and you have no way of knowing that this very same society could not be social conservative.


No, there is not a difference of opinion. If someone needs a blood transfusion, they need a blood transfusion, not to be read over by some kooky book written by delusionals.

So, in your mind, sick people should be forced to go to hospital? We do not have the freedom to disagree with modern medicine? How very liberated of you.


It is not our choice to deny a child his/her right to live just because he may go down a path we do not like. Hell, for all we know the children may turn against their parents beliefs and become fellow comrades, it does happen.

Absolutley, but until such time they are still in the care of their parents. And their parents do no want them to die, they want them to live, they merely disagree on what is an appropriate form of treatment.


Just because we find the government to be wrong doesnt mean that every law or political idea they pass/agree with is wrong; some things are universally justifiable...frankly i find this to be one.

I agree with you completely regarding this statement, except on your conclusion. I do not think this is one of those.


These kids were young and frankly are extremely unlikely to make a religious decision about keeping to what they believe or possibly dieing. If the parents wont protect their children then someone else has too..and the only people with that power in most countries is the government.

You are still fundamentally mis misinterpreting this question, you are farming the debate in an unfait manner. These people DON&#39;T want their children to die. They are not murderers. They simply have a profound disagreement with the role of modern medicine in their community. They are using alternative means of helping their children. Why is this so wrong?

If we were talking about anything else, you&#39;d all be fine with it. But because we&#39;re talking about children everyone is up in arms about it. So who is being the social conservative here really? I&#39;m asking for a standard. You&#39;re asking for exceptionalism.


This is a definate case of child neglect. Not protecting ones child and providing adequte medical care is counted to be child neglect.

Adequate medical care by whose standard? Are poor people abusing their children by virtue of being poor? Should we implement a system of eugenics maybe, on class dinstinctions? Because this is where this logic goes down.


It can be child neglect to give herbal medicine over snythetic drugs..it also cannot. Basically you need to do whatever is more likely to help the child be it herbal or synthetic. In this case however religion vs medical care it is definate child neglect. The parents chose their beliefs over their children

No, they have not. To them, what the state is doing is the worst possible thing in the world. They are condeming them spiritually, which in their eyes is a fate far worse than physical death. These people are not saying "Well, I guess we&#39;ll let them die." They are wanting their kids to stay alive, they are simply going about it in a different way.

Let me give another example, what if you were convinced that the blood transfusions were unsafe (say there had been a recent contamination scare as has happened in the past) and the state still forced you to give up your kids and give them this potentially unsafe blood? Would you still talking about this the same way?

Defending what the government has done here is allowing such things to happen in the future. These are very plausible scenarios. Someone talked about a 14 year old girl, there was a case like that all ready and again the government and the media raised a huge shit storm about this girl CHOOSING not to have blood transfusions, and she too was a JW.

Precedent is incredibly important in our government, and this is a terrible one to set.

[Kia]

You are still fundamentally mis misinterpreting this question, you are farming the debate in an unfait manner. These people DON&#39;T want their children to die. They are not murderers. They simply have a profound disagreement with the role of modern medicine in their community. They are using alternative means of helping their children. Why is this so wrong?

If we were talking about anything else, you&#39;d all be fine with it. But because we&#39;re talking about children everyone is up in arms about it. So who is being the social conservative here really? I&#39;m asking for a standard. You&#39;re asking for exceptionalism.


Sorry if i have been framing this argument unfairly. I completely agree that these parents dont want their children to die...but what alternatives are they offering? A miracle? Interestingly there is a whole wikipedia articles and tons more on JW and blood transfusions.
Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses and blood transfusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah&#39;s_Witnesses_and_blood)
This is from the entry:

In cases of certain medical emergencies when bloodless medicine is not available, blood transfusions may seem to be the only available way to save a life. Such situations are obviously very serious. In such instances, Jehovah’s Witnesses may ask their doctors to provide the best alternative care possible under the circumstances, with respect for their personal conviction. If asked, “Would you deliberately allow your child to die if blood would save it?” the Watchtower organization instructs Jehovah’s Witness parents to answer, “I would demand that medical science do everything possible to save my child’s life short of giving it blood.”

Sadly we are not provided with the information on whether or not all "bloodless options" were provided. However, from this article we can assume that death vs blood transfusion is more important to JW:


This has led to the death of members, as stated in the May 22, 1994 issue of Awake, p. 2: "In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."

Is this justifiable..no. It is my personal opinion that choosing religious beliefs over a childs life is undeniably wrong. As any political body (other then a theology i guess) should not allow this kind of decision to be made in relation with a child. Im fine with them trying out all possible other options beforehand but if this is the only option left then it must be done..the government has a right at this point to step in a take control.



Adequate medical care by whose standard? Are poor people abusing their children by virtue of being poor? Should we implement a system of eugenics maybe, on class dinstinctions? Because this is where this logic goes down.

Oddly enough to opposite answers come from the same predicament. Yes it could be argued that eugenics be implemented because parents cant look after their children..however it also could be argued that the better alternative would be for the government to provide Universal Health Care so that in a medical situation help can be offered. Its a problem with two solutions.


In relation to the 14 yr old girl case...I said earlier that this is an argument of what age a child has reached maturity and is able to make a decision like this for his/her self. I have no answer for that but I can say personally I would not let a 12yr old or younger make that kind of decision...


Let me give another example, what if you were convinced that the blood transfusions were unsafe (say there had been a recent contamination scare as has happened in the past) and the state still forced you to give up your kids and give them this potentially unsafe blood? Would you still talking about this the same way?

Its a pretty simple solution to TEST THE BLOOD beforehand. Im assuming that this wouldnt be much of a big deal for a doctor to do and thus could satisfy my worry. Yes some people worry about AIDS being in the blood they are using or other deadly or harmful viruses/disease but this can be tested for. As I said earlier one has a right to use all other options (as long as the situation isnt extremely critical) before the government has the right to step in and make the decision.



The protection of children from harm or death should be a universal principle. It is possible that a government law could twist this principle and use it in cases in which it is not justified..I do agree that that could happen and probably has...but to deny the whole thing because of one such case..is too risky.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:27 am

Dont let capitalist political dialogue draw you in to its terms and its assumptions : I repeat the only questions are would you protest against and....and no I wouldnt....but that doesnt mean its &#39;right&#39;, cos that doesnt mean anything unless you assume there is such a thing as a non-class state or a non-class code of what all states should do....which is historical nonsense.

Would you count universal truths or principles to be non-class codes?
Most universal truths are tautologies or banalities.

When you seem to say you would support the State in enforcing treatment on a 12 year old, but arguably not (maybe) on a 14 year old, you are entering into the methodlology of the capitalist state. In a direct democratic, socialist state each such case would not need to be decided by abstract rules. Rather there would be sufficient popular involvement in politics for such questions to be decided on a case by case basis. The rule of law would be replaced by the the application of considered democratic justice.

Meanwhile, by willingly entering into the debate on how capitalist law should be applied you tie yourself to the capitalist state - how could ever betray and destroy a state that - in your terms - does so much good....unless guaranteed that there would be an immediate replacement that would do more good - the very calculation that turned Kautsky from a revolutionary into an ally of capitalism.

That may or may not worry you - Im just drawing the lines

[Question everything]

This is one of those arguements where it is hard to chose sides, but it should be up to the child, if he wants to, then his parents have no right to stop him, and should he decide to refuse treatment then the gouvernement has no right to seize him... he is young but neither side really has the right to choose for him...

[Councilman Doug]

You can&#39;t POSSIBLY know what a society that has never existed will look like, and you have no way of knowing that this very same society could not be social conservative.

Social conservatism, as we understand it, can be relevant only in a class society. To believe otherwise is idealist bullshit.

The ideology does not serve the intrests of the working class, so how could it be dominant in a society controlled by the working class?



So, in your mind, sick people should be forced to go to hospital? We do not have the freedom to disagree with modern medicine? How very liberated of you.

Completly different situation.

These children were never aloud to develope their own opinion and instead were foreced to become JW.

They were basically mentally abused by their parents.



Absolutley, but until such time they are still in the care of their parents. And their parents do no want them to die, they want them to live, they merely disagree on what is an appropriate form of treatment.

They may be in the care of their parents, but they certainly do not belong to the parents.

If a parent beleif it is benefical to beat their child, because they fell it will help them build charector or some bullshit, would you opposed governemnt intervention?


They are using alternative means of helping their children. Why is this so wrong?

Because it could end up killing their children. How can you not see this?

Do you understand what could have happend if you&#39;re liberal notions of "tolerence" were implemented? The kids would most likly die.

The implications for governemnt power are a small price to pay for saving these children from an insane faith.



If we were talking about anything else, you&#39;d all be fine with it. But because we&#39;re talking about children everyone is up in arms about it.

No one is deniying that this is a different issue because they are children. Thats what makes it so important.

No one would care if someone consented to go down this path, but these kids were forced.



They are condeming them spiritually, which in their eyes is a fate far worse than physical death.

Who cares, they are wrong. This would not matter if it was them who refused the transfusion, but when they try and force their children to do the same, something has to be done.

[Kia]

Question everything

This is one of those arguements where it is hard to chose sides...

(sorry didn&#39;t post the whole quote) I have to agree, from reading other peoples posts I find alternatives I didn&#39;t consider and find that one side or the other is not necessarily 100% correct. Its one of the things I like about this forums at time...a good debate does wonders (thanks Messiah and gilhyle).

gilhyle

Most universal truths are tautologies or banalities.

Had to look up tautologies but I think I can see what you mean by this. Yes universal truths are truths inside themselves and can be redundant...but thats the point...they&#39;re ideas/morals designed to be absolute truths that sum up a person or group of peoples view points.


Meanwhile, by willingly entering into the debate on how capitalist law should be applied you tie yourself to the capitalist state - how could ever betray and destroy a state that - in your terms - does so much good....unless guaranteed that there would be an immediate replacement that would do more good - the very calculation that turned Kautsky from a revolutionary into an ally of capitalism.

I debate capitalist law and any other law whether it be from a communist government or any other government because it APPLIES to people. Just because its capitalist I don&#39;t ignore it or say its bad....if a law is going to be forced on the people or decided by the people I personally want to know what it is and have an opinion about it. To me this law does/can do a lot of good. Since I find that the principle behind it is a universal truth and both communism and anarchy have strong foundations in universal truths, I don&#39;t worry about it vanishing when a political system is changed.




I think ill try sum up what i mean....Thanks to the people I already thanks earlier I realized that there can be injustice done through this law and have come to realize that it is not the law I like but rather the principle behind it..maybe you agree on that or not.

[Question everything]

They were basically mentally abused by their parents.


???mentally abused??? for believing in something? mental abused is when they don&#39;t know right from wrong, when they got a severe and irrational fear that was induced by their parents... but my friend, mentally abused, by the same standards anyone who wants to introduce me to Socialism is "mentally abusing" me, raising your children as socialists or capitalists is mental abuse, the difference between your definition of "mental abuse" and "enlightenment" is which one you prefer...

[Janus]

I don&#39;t believe in bourgeois state action but I definitely think that society should step in in such instances. Obviously, if the parents seem unwilling to take care of their child or neglect it then it&#39;s part of the community&#39;s job to take them under their wing. The parents can certainly refuse blood transfusions for themselves but I don&#39;t see why they have a right to deny it for their child.

[CrimsonTide]

Originally posted by Messiah+--> (Messiah)My name is tongue in cheek, first off.

Secondly, I do not bother debating with people who make statements like "in the proletariat society..." It&#39;s a BS mysticism. It means nothing to anyone who actually bothers to think logically. You can&#39;t POSSIBLY know what a society that has never existed will look like, and you have no way of knowing that this very same society could not be social conservative. [/b]
Because once the Class War is over, the Bourgeois and their various apparatti (including The Church) are eliminated/diluted, and the people radicalized, there will be no love of conservatism, because by then it will be realized that the churchies were mouthpieces of the former bourgeois society.

Originally posted by [email protected]

So, in your mind, sick people should be forced to go to hospital?
No, only those not educated/mentally sound enough to make their own decisions in life. These were kids, they have no idea what&#39;s going on, and no control of their lives but what their parents give them.

Messiah

We do not have the freedom to disagree with modern medicine? How very liberated of you.
No, but apparently you believe that children should be slaves to their parents&#39; belief systems if they&#39;re not old enough to make up their own minds.

How pro-slavery of you.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:14 am
it is not the law I like but rather the principle behind it..maybe you agree on that or not.
Yes I agree, that is what is attractive.

Now we need to ask is there such a principle behind the action in this case. We know from the nature of the capitalist state that it is not capable of the consistent application of the protection of the child that the priniple would articulate. Consequently we cannot support the action because it indicates a conversion by the Capitalist State to that principle. Rather we must expect that the Capitalist State will as easily engage in an action which is quite inconsistent with the principle.

No action is right or wrong in itself from the perspective of third parties, except that it exemplify a desirable more general practice. But there is no desirable more general practice implied for this society in this particular act that can be approved of - because of the nature of the State which carried out this act.

Consequently we are left only with the alternatives of acting against this act (as I outlined earlier), or letting it be.