Mns wrote:
Does this mean you're distinguishing honor killings and allowing children to die because the latter is a religious practice?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing, but...
Mns wrote:
Sorta unravels your whole argument if God is literally telling parents that they can't save their kids, because the same God could be telling you to drown your kids or burn down the house of the witch down the street.
...even if I weren't, there is a difference between making a moral choice that leads to an undesirable consequence and making an immoral choice, such as murdering someone, and attempting to legitimize that immoral choice as being moral. It is a justification you can only make in most religions by ignoring the primacy of edicts such as "thou shalt not kill." While I do recognize that there are exceptions to those edicts, those are exceptions are arguably open to personal discretion, and I see nothing wrong with a law that has the expectation that such discretion be exercised in favor of the edict and not the exception.
Mns wrote:
No, there's a difference, and I understand that. Withholding medical treatment that you know will save a life (and, more importantly, will kill someone if they don't get it) is purposefully causing someone to die.
You obviously don't understand the difference if you're going to continue to insist there isn't one.
Mns wrote:
If you were seizing in front of me due to a massive dose of poison and I just watch you die while holding the antidote, I'm pretty sure that's going to earn me some years in prison. If I think its a bad idea due to my religion, do I automatically get a free pass?
I don't know...are you a Jehovah's Witness, and if so, is the antidote made from the flesh/blood of another human being?
Your Pal,
Jubber