Aderleth
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,294
- Reaction score
- 2,027
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
When it comes to the issue of rights, it is exactly a comparable situation. If society believes a parent has a duty to their child, then how could one have the complete opposite duty to them when they are unborn?
Because roughly half the country, and the current legal framework reject your notion of rights for the unborn. /Thread jacking.
Stay on topic, or you will be ignored by me .
It is a matter of rights, specific constitutional rights regarding the freedom of religion to be exact. I don't agree with the practice, but they certainly have the right to practice their faith. If their faith prevents them from seeking medical intervention for a third party, then that is their right IMHO.
No it bloody isn't. Their child is not an independent third party, their child is their legal responsibility. Failing to protect the interests of their child can very well be criminal, which is why some child abuse can stem from a failure to act rather than affirmative action (hence the analogy to starving a child). Furthermore, all constitutional rights, including those stemming from the free expression clause of the first amendment are contingent, not absolute. To the extent that your right to worship as you choose conflicts with a compelling state interest (in this case, preventing the needless death of a minor) your right is trumped by that state interest.