Log in

No account? Create an account
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2009-05-16 10:20
Subject: [links] Link salad has a slow morning
Security: Public
Tags:contests, culture, links, movies, personal, polls, religion, videos, weird
Don't forget to vote for new caption contest — Some funny stuff there.

Lord of the Rings alternate ending — (Thanks to willyumtx.)

The memory palace — Weird history. (Snurched from Freakonomics.)

Post-blogging the 1909 scareships — (Snurched from The Edge of the American West.)

Minn. judge rules teen must see cancer doctor — This is a tough one. My belief in freedom of religion is very powerful. But I can't really see my way to supporting a parent's religious right to allow their child to die untreated. I really, really can't.

?otD: Fred or Barney?

Body movement: 30 minutes on stationary bike
This morning's weigh-in: 214.8
Currently reading: The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade by Herman Melville

Originally published at jlake.com.

Post A Comment | 4 Comments | | Flag | Link

Twilight: RachelBase
User: twilight2000
Date: 2009-05-16 18:31 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Minn. judge rules teen must see cancer doctor - I have the same issues - but I also know that "religious preference" is the reason given for NOT vaccinating kids - and a host of other "don't touch my kid medically" responses. It really cuts to the bone of my belief in religious freedom.

I think the answer is - you have the right to refuse it for *you* (as a legal adult in this society) - but not to "medically neglect" your kids (or all the other kids in the case of the vaccination issue).

From a broader perspective, our laws don't allow a parent to argue "religious freedom" for locking the kid in the closet and refusing them food, for thowing scalding water on them to "teach them a lesson" or for parental rape to "teach them how to be proper wives" when they grow up - those are extreme yes, but the real question is where the line is drawn. Medical neglect is a thorny subject for just that reason. The 3 examples I list above are crazy, but I've seen them all in my newsfeeds at one time or another - I know no one (personally) who would defend any of those 3 - but there *are* people out there who argue that as Parents they should have the Right to Do Anything They Deem Proper to Their Kids - which is why we have laws pertaining to Child Abuse - and, reasonably, I think, to Medical Neglect.

Part of living in society is agreeing (if only tacitly) to the idea that my right to swing my fist/arm stops where your nose begins. I think this is part of that.
Reply | Thread | Link

Karen, aka Ana Lake, ska Aine inghean Cathal
User: summers_place
Date: 2009-05-16 20:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Another thing from that story that bothers me is that at age 13, the kid also cannot read. Why is that? Does he have a learning disability that prevents him from reading? Is he simply falling through the cracks at school? Or are his parents not sending him to school, and not bothering to teach him at home? If that third possibility is indeed the case, then what I want to know is why he is being left in the custody of his parents? Parents have a duty not only to care for their children's physical, mental and spiritual health, but also to provide them with an education that is at least adequate to allow that child to navigate the world upon approaching and reaching adulthood.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Rhonda Parrish
User: rhondaparrish
Date: 2009-05-16 21:56 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Reply | Thread | Link

Eric T. Reynolds: brd
User: ericreynolds
Date: 2009-05-16 23:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Your ?otDs crack me up, btw.
Reply | Thread | Link

my journal
January 2014
2012 appearances