Religion... yeah, real effective.

[V1P3R]

 

[Danoff]

Nope, I don't think the parents should be required to provide care for diabetes.

Minimum food? Yes.
Minimum clothing? Yes.
Minimum shelter? Yes.
Minimum education? Yes.
Minimum healthcare? debatable

Any arbitrary level of food? No.
Any arbitrary level of clothing? No.
Any arbitrary level of shelter? No.
Any arbitrary level of education? No.
Any arbitrary level of healthcare? No.

Are we going to criminalize parents who can't pay for a 1 million dollar brain surgery and radioactive treatment for their child's rare disease?

 

[the Interceptor]

Are you serious?

 

[Danoff]

Yup.

 

[the Interceptor]

Then I am baffled.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Those people are stupid. That's not how it works. If anything, you would take your child for treatment, and then pray for her treatment to be successful.

 

[Pupik]

Nope, I don't think the parents should be required to provide care for diabetes.
...
Minimum healthcare? debatable

You don't have a child, do you?

Lesson 1: Taking care the basic health needs of your child comes before all other things. Make sure your child doesn't die or is put in a situation of grave danger, no matter what.

Everything else is secondary. That's the short playbook of parenting.

Are we going to criminalize parents who can't pay for a 1 million dollar brain surgery and radioactive treatment for their child's rare disease?

They should try their damnedest to help out in every way, even if it means going broke. If these parents did everything they can, then no, they aren't criminals.

It cost my wife and I thousands of dollars to help Bailey's GERD condition from getting worse. She's now better. Yeah, it meant living on a shoestring for a while, but there was no second thought about it 12 months ago.

 

[V1P3R]

Note to self: Don't ever go to Danoff's while in a sickened state because I WILL die there.

 

[the Interceptor]

You don't have a child do you?

Lesson 1: Taking care the basic health needs of your child comes before all other things. Make sure your child doesn't die or is put in a situation of grave danger, no matter what.

Everything else is secondary. That's the short playbook of parenting.

I apologize to all parents in advance ... I don't like kids. I don't want kids in my life, I don't even want to get married. Nevertheless, I thought that the above concept is vital and perfectly normal for everyone, at least since we all were kids in the past. That's why I'm baffled by what Danoff said.

 

[Pupik]

Diabetes is a tough thing for kids, Type I Diabetes has no real cure, other than daily insulin injections. My dad's had it for the past 25+ years, his father did too. I was lucky not to get it. Adults wise up and take their shots, but kids sometimes do not want to take their medication, or will lie about taking it; they will die or get very sick from their stubbornness. Admittedly, sticking myself with a needle as a child is tough to do. Parents probably don't like doing it.

Some parents don't believe in medication for religious reasons. Is that the topic?

I don't think we're getting the full story from this video news clip; I think we're getting the dumbed-down Cliffs' Notes with a few pages missing.

 

[V1P3R]

I apologize to all parents in advance ... I don't like kids. I don't want kids in my life, I don't even want to get married. Nevertheless, I thought that the above concept is vital and perfetcly normal for everyone, at least since we all were kids in the past. That's why I'm baffled by what Danoff said.

Don't get me wrong too... I agree with you but yeah, who cares about what the $#@^& law says, it's a ^$#@* human being for christ all mighty geez.

 

[Danoff]

It's simple, I don't think it's right to require people to spend all of their money keeping a child healthy. There are about a million things wrong with that:

- Removes all value judgment when it comes to child healthcare.
- Can get in the way of religious freedoms
- Places undue burden on parents
- Invites government intervention in child healthcare

I know you'd like to, but you can't pretend that any child has the right to an unlimited amount of resources to be spent on their behalf.

Note to self: Don't ever go to Danoff's while in a sickened state because I WILL die there.

Don't make this personal. I'm talking about what should be REQUIRED by law. Not what I would do personally.

 

[the Interceptor]

I agree that it shouldn't be required by law that you have to spend all your money on healthcare as a parent. However, in this case, it seems money was not the issue, was it?

 

[Danoff]

I agree that it shouldn't be required by law that you have to spend all your money on healthcare as a parent. However, in this case, it seems money was not the issue, was it?

There are other reasons than money, like religious beliefs. And it's not about whether the money is "an issue", it's about whether it should be required.

 

[V1P3R]

Yeah... umm. You have to have a pretty big hole in your head to even consider, well hay this kid is costing me money. ehh.. I'll just let "god" take care of it. It will be all good.

Danoff, you're thinking make sense if only the parent's having the kids was responsible enough to realize what comes with parenting. Most parents don't... especially these days.

If you can't handle @$&^# kids then don't have them. Simple as that.

 

[Danoff]

If you can't handle @$&^# kids then don't have them. Simple as that.

If kids can cost you everything you have and more, nobody can have them. Simple as that.

 

[the Interceptor]

So if you were to find a good friend of yours dying in the street, you'd just say "hi!", pass by and then tell the police that you didn't help him because law doesn't require you to do so?

 

[Danoff]

So if you were to find a good friend of yours dying in the street, you'd just say "hi!", pass by and then tell the police that you didn't help him because law doesn't require you to do so?

Don't make this personal. I'm talking about what should be REQUIRED by law. Not what I would do personally.

.

 

[Pupik]

I'll quote myself:

They should try their damnedest to help out in every way, even if it means going broke. If these parents did everything they can, then no, they aren't criminals.

When I was taking the tour of the hospital with my wife and about 5 or 6 other couples, the nurse ended the tour with a little statement I'll never forget:

"If you do not cure cancer, or solve issues like world hunger or create world peace, then raising a child is the most important thing you will ever do in your life."​

...the conversation and light chatter then ended abruptly, and we stood in silence for about a minute.

 

[Danoff]

"If you do not cure cancer, or solve issues like world hunger or create world peace, then raising a child is the most important thing you will ever do in your life."...

So, for just about everyone, someone else's life is more important than theirs?

That doesn't even make any sense. By that rationale, unless your child cures cancer or solves world hunger then the fact that your child procreates is the most important thing about your life.... and that can be extended. It's silly. I completely reject that little bit of misguided "wisdom".

 

[Pupik]

So, for just about everyone, someone else's life is more important than theirs?

That doesn't even make any sense. By that rationale, unless your child cures cancer or solves world hunger then the fact that your child procreates is the most important thing about your life.... and that can be extended. It's silly. I completely reject that little bit of misguided "wisdom".

Geez, I didn't say it was law; it was more about if you do not have a kid, then they would be more important things. But I think that's not the topic at hand.

 

[the Interceptor]

@ Danoff: okay, let me rephrase. Let's assume the law states that you have to take reasonable measures to save the life of your children, you would not agree to that? And before you ask, I think that the term "reasonable measures" is very soft and debatable in each specific case. In the given case, I think there would have been measures to be taken who were not unreasonable in any way.

In German law, there is a thing called duty of supervision. You as a parent have that duty over your kids. If you fail to perform that duty, you can be punished. Don't you have something like that in US laws?

 

[Danoff]

Geez, I didn't say it was law; it was more about if you do not have a kid, then they would be more important things. But I think that's not the topic at hand.

I do not think that one's child is more important than they are, and I think it is on-topic.

We're talking about whether or not the law should require people to effectively sacrifice their livelihood and productivity - their lives, essentially, for their children. That requires a value judgment stating that children are more important than their parents (objectively).

@ Danoff: okay, let me rephrase. Let's assume the law states that you have to take reasonable measures to save the life of your children, you would not agree to that?

Yes. That's actually what I'm getting at.

 

[V1P3R]

Hate to break it to everyone... We'll ALWAYS have some thing that kills off humans, it's part of the balance of nature. As in the Matrix, Agent Smith talks about how we are parasites. We spread and consume all the resources in our area till there's no more. With that said, there will ALWAYS be expenses... either don't have kids or get used to it. I don't give a damn about some out of date "law" and a resonable person wouldn't either or at least TRY. If not... get a gun and put the kid out of their misery. : shrugs:

 

[Danoff]

Hate to break it to everyone... We'll ALWAYS have some thing that kills off humans, it's part of the balance of nature. As in the Matrix, Agent Smith talks about how we are parasites. We spread and consume all the resources in our area till there's no more.

The irony of that quote is that parasites don't do that. Mammals do. Parasites usually put at least a little effort into trying to keep the host alive (even if only for a while). Mammals, on the otherhand, chew up all available resources they can.

With that said, there will ALWAYS be expenses... either don't have kids or get used to it.

It is unreasonable and dangerous to assume that the expense of having a child is potentially infinite - whether measured in money or rights.

 

[the Interceptor]

Isn't there a difference between being required by law to make expenses for your children and being required by law to help a person when he/she is in danger of life?

 

[Danoff]

Isn't there a difference between being required by law to make expenses for your children and being required by law to help a person when he/she is in danger of life?

Well, in the US, you're not required to help someone who is in danger of losing their life (and I agree with that). But you are required to safeguard your children to an extent. My point is that that extent is not infinite, nor can it be.

Whether we're talking about requiring parents to sell everything they own and borrow everything they can to keep a child alive, or compromise their religious integrity, or raise their child without their religious values, you're talking about a price that's entirely too high.

 

[V1P3R]

you are required to safeguard your children to an extent. My point is that that extent is not infinite, nor can it be.

💡 Convenient...

 

[the Interceptor]

I see where you're getting at, but I personally think that any religion that teaches its members that god is the only medicine you'll ever need actively endangers human life and therefore should be outlawed.

 

[Danoff]

💡 Convenient...

Are you claiming that I'm modifying my position to get out of argument? I hope not. I'd point you back to my very first post in this thread to see how it supports what you quoted me as saying.

I see where you're getting at, but I personally think that any religion that teaches its members that god is the only medicine you'll ever need actively endangers human life and therefore should be outlawed.

I could say that about any religion. Anything that teaches you that you'll live forever heads in the direction of endangering human life. And since when did "endangers human life" = "outlaw"? Cars endanger human life. So does beer. So can love.