No, as a
matter of fact, it isn't working any better than it did in Rome.
Governments still grow to unmanageable
size and consume resources better left to the economy and the people and are still rife with corruption. Remember
that Rome, Greece and all the others eventually fell. We can analyse it to death but the singluar fact of failure,
just like the Soviet Union, is the important fact.
Are you saying that they, in their best belief did not
attempt to save that child's life? Just because you and I agree that modern medicine was the right and best choice
does not mean that we are either right or that we have the right to force others to believe as we do. You are
encouraging government intervention and I keep asking where you draw the line on it. I know where I draw the line
and have tried to make it plain.
Although you continue to evade my question about drawing the line I will answer
yours. I did not say government serves the people. I said it
should serve the people. What other
function
should a government have? I draw the line in several places.
It would be easier to
list the things that should not be illegal but for clarity I will mix things. There is no such thing as a victimless
crime! If you choose to die euthanasia should be cheap and painless. If you choose to inject drugs into your veins
it should be no problem. If you choose to have sex with somebody of your sex it should not be restricted so long as
both partners are willing. If a person voluntarily choose to sell their body for sex it is not the government's
business so long as the person is not passing diseases. I believe that so long as a person is not harming another,
it should be illegal to interfere with them. I believe that failure to provide proper education to every person
should be illegal. The list goes on but I see our form of government on a failed path and a crash coming. In that
crash, millions will suffer and untold numbers will die of it.
The real key here is (informed) consent and
intent. To assault a person, to forcibly take their money or possessions, to harm a person against their will, to
force your beliefs on another all should be illegal. I keep saying the same thing to you but you seem to be missing
the point. You are trying to force your beliefs on another and justifying it as in the best interests of the child.
I
personally agree that what we call modern medical science was their best choice. They did not
believe the same thing and they did their best under their belief system. So, now, we are going to take these
stricken parents who, after doing their level best in accordance with their beliefs, and we are going to prosecute
them for not believing as we believe? Just take a guess how many religious people are going to be alienated by the
punishment of people who were doing what they believed was right? How many more are going to become more secretive?
And it will not be confined to religious groups. A lot of others are going to react to the vindictive treatment of a
pair of grieving parents. So, tell me, exactly what are you going to accomplish by putting those people on trial and
throwing them in prison? I believe that you are going to do far more harm than good. To me, it is an utterly
irrational, emotionally motivated act of revenge.
con·tract
–noun 1.an
agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable
by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement.
By defintion, there must be agreement for there to be a
contract. In this case, there is no contract. When one forces you to do something it is not a contract. It is called
many things from outright robbery to extortion but you cannot call it a contract.
Will you answer my question
now? Where do you draw the line? You have generalized about death but that is very general and really doesn't
answer it.
Yes, I am looking at a very broad picture and concept then applying it to an individual case. You
cannot have an over-arching concept full of exceptions without creating chaos.
Bookmarks