I can see your point, but mine was really just that if society has been OK with the gov't banning the things they do for "medical purposes", then this ought not to be viewed as anything worse. If anything, the fact that they're saving a life that would otherwise be lost for ridiculous reasons makes this a lot better, in my opinion.

But then in my opinion religion can go fuck itself.

I'm theist and I agree with you. I'd imagine a lot of pro-lifers would have to agree too.

On the list of government actions that bother me, a judge telling a family to take their superstitions and fuck themselves (when it comes to taking care of their kid's treatable illness) falls pretty low on the list.

How far up the list will you let them go, before you get indignant about government involvement in your life?

I'm already pretty indignant about government's involvement in my life.   

They already do tons of the things that are higher on the list, though.  If you want to talk about the war on drugs, the Fed, or a hundred other things you would get a different response. 

If anything, the fact that they're saving a life that would otherwise be lost for ridiculous reasons makes this a lot better, in my opinion.

Scientific:  They've not actually saved a life, but presented an opportunity to have a life saved.
Political:  The government as a whole has done nothing per se, only the individual actor represented by the judge.
Judicial:  Can't this decision be appealled by the parents?
Emotional:  I can't get excited about one life potentially "saved" when so many other lives are lost each day due to equally ridiculous reasons...  without government involvement.
Gunial:  Fuck that, let's make his time of death a national lottery, and televise his decline opposite American Idol!

They already do tons of the things that are higher on the list, though.  If you want to talk about the war on drugs, the Fed, or a hundred other things you would get a different response. 

Give an inch, take a mile.

Oh, and time to start force-feeding the vegans some red meat and giving alcoholics some wine (or beer!) with their meals.  It's good for them!

They already do tons of the things that are higher on the list, though.  If you want to talk about the war on drugs, the Fed, or a hundred other things you would get a different response. 

Give an inch, take a mile.

Oh, and time to start force-feeding the vegans some red meat and giving alcoholics some wine (or beer!) with their meals.  It's good for them!

Alternatively, they've already taken the mile, so who gives a shit about the last inch?

Editted to add:

There is a pretty big difference in how the law treats a minor versus an adult.  The court case has more in common with a parent not providing proper nutrition for a child than it does forcing alcohol on an alcoholic or meat on a vegan.

How about if the kid is vegan, and refuses to drink milk or eat meat in public school?

edit:  I dated a girl that was vegan since she was 10; it was her decision because of how she felt about the exploitation of animals.  It caused a regular fuss, she told me.  But this was before the internet, so it didn't become a national talking point.

I haven't read all this right through, but I don't see any difference between this and JW's refusing a blood transfusion

How about if the kid is vegan, and refuses to drink milk or eat meat in public school?

edit:  I dated a girl that was vegan since she was 10; it was her decision because of how she felt about the exploitation of animals.  It caused a regular fuss, she told me.  But this was before the internet, so it didn't become a national talking point.

I think that if the court case was over a school administrator telling someone that they had to drink their milk or eat a certain thing, the schools would lose.

If the kid wasn't eating a proper vegan diet and it was more of an eating disorder/nutrition issue, they might be able to make a case in court.  I don't think they'd be able to make a case on scientific issues to force the consumption of meat/dairy, though, like they were in this case.  Any victory on the part of the state would be due to the judge's prejudices about dietary choices and therefore wrong.

I also don't think it's an issue that the jduicial system would be keen to take on, because litigating nutrition would get really ugly really fast in the US considering the garbage that US companies sell. 

Any victory on the part of the state would be due to the judge's prejudices about dietary choices and therefore wrong.

So, you don't think the judge's prejudices about religious choices are coming into play here?

Oh, and time to start force-feeding the vegans some red meat and giving alcoholics some wine (or beer!) with their meals.  It's good for them!

Many people would argue that giving alcoholics wine/beer is not good for them...

Is his prejudice playing a role?  Potentially.

Is there a very powerful argument based on the efficacy of treatment options that can be made?  Yes.

You guys aren't being nasty to each other. I was hoping for a full on flame war from that article.

FTK !

Oh, and time to start force-feeding the vegans some red meat and giving alcoholics some wine (or beer!) with their meals.  It's good for them!

Many people would argue that giving alcoholics wine/beer is not good for them...

Not this alcoholic!

The purpose of my post was to intentionally provoke you. 

Oh, that was joyous to read, coming back from a long weekend away!

edit:  well, not YOU specifically, but someone that would hop on the "government knows better than me!" bandwagon!  of course, zoomie, i didn't expect it to be you.

Don't fuck with my constitution. Not even in jest. Regardless of how it's been perverted it was written with the best of intentions.

Ok, back to work. See ya.

Don't fuck with my constitution.

C may fall in love with you from that statement alone.

UPDATEZ

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

UPDATEZ

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

That's a pretty dumb move on her part.  What's she going to do, go into hiding until the kid dies?  The father, even though he's a religious nut, at least had the right idea about appealing through the courts.

I bet the state will charge her with a boatload of felonies if she hides out and the kid dies.

Spiderbait - Run