Child Unwell But Parents Did Not Seek Medical Attention

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa

Do they? Why does that follow?

why should it not follow? you have reasons?

In the absence of reasons, which you are free to provide, Occam's razor should be used. They have right over their sperm and egg, they also have right over the product of union/fusion of that sperm and egg.

Salam alaykum

Sorry but it sounds quite harsh to call your own children as "product" (but anyways you have right to that of course - then they might call you as manufacturer, not a father). So, you agree that parents in the first post (if we could stay on topic) had full right not to take they child to medical care when child was sick but decided that praying was enough? I wonder how many would do the same if they child for example be in a bad accident and bleeding a lot; then do nothing else than pray that God will stop bleeding and safe they child. I don´t see diffrence between being sick or in accident.

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa

You have reasons for why it should follow? If you can't give any, I don't have to provide any reasons to the contrary. Proving that one statement does not follow from another is technically impossible, unless the statement is a contradiction.



Ockham's Razor is an epistemological doctrine, not a law of logic. It categorically cannot be used to prove anything.

It can be used to narrow down the alternative explanations.

I think the product of fusion of sperm and egg is governed by same laws by which the individual egg and sperm are governed. hence, it does follow. Occam's razor says that is the most simple explanation.

I think a lot of muslims are aware of this hadith..

Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth."

These Christians made the mistake of living in a Zionist secularist collectivist totalitarian country. A country that murders children and then persecutes religious people for raising their children their way.

Wow. People can just take anything and make it about Zionism!

Psygo: If man or woman has the right to do whatever they wish with their sperm or egg, they also then have the right to do whatever they wish with the product that forms from the union of their sperm and egg. Only if you were more logical and rational and kept emotion at bay.

You’re probably trying to set him up for something (I can’t see Pygoscelis’s posts anymore) but since people here are interpreting it as a serious argument I may as well do the same:

Have you considered the seed you spill? Do you yourselves create it, or are We the Creators? (Qur’an 56:58-59, Arberry)

As for what these parents did I can’t help but think of James Wood’s speech to the weird couple who want to ride their homemade ark in the town that’s about to be flooded to make the reservoir in Northfork:

Now I'm not saying that this boat you have built isn’t worthy. From the look of it, you’ve done a mighty fine job. But for the sake of my job, let’s just say…your boat doesn’t float. Imagine this, if you will. One day, a town on the plains, let’s say Northfork, was hit by a catastrophic flood, similar to the days of Noah, and you husband and yourselves are standing out there on the roof waiting to be rescued. A friendly neighbor comes paddling by in his little wooden boat, and he yells, ‘Hey, there, Mr. and Mrs. Stalling, and... uh, Mrs. Stalling, jump on in and I’ll take you to dry land.’ What do you say? The water’s rising. You shout back, ‘No, thank you, thy friendly neighbor. I’m waiting for a sign from God.’ And your friendly neighbor paddles away.

A few days later a state rescue team comes by in a larger boat. And let’s just say me and Willis are on board. And we offer you the same deal. ‘Jump on in, and you, Mrs. Stalling and...Mrs. Stalling, will be saved.’ And you say...No, thank you. We’re waiting for a sign from God.’

A few more days pass, and the water level has risen. It has risen above the roof. And unfortunately, you and Mr. Stalling have drowned and now are in heaven in front of God. Oh, yes, you three have died because you waited for a sign from God and it never came…But why? That's the exact question you would ask God. You would say, ‘We waited for the sign and it never came.’…Now what do you suppose God is going to say to you both? I’ll tell you what God will say. ‘l sent you two boats...Two boats to save your lives. What more of a sign did you three want?’

Just in case I've been misinterpreted let me clarify: nobody has the right to do whatever they wish with anything, because nothing is ours to do anything with. That's not the right attitude to begin with. There is only one entity who is The Originator, The Provider and The Owner of the Kingdom. Hence the Koranic passage, which was saying the same thing. It doesn't really matter whether it's an egg or an embryo or a baby or an old man: it's all under Him all the same, and He's the one who gave us what we have. That's what I was trying to say--but now after reading CosmicPathos's oddly worded statement again I'm beginning to think it was actually supposed to be some sort of off topic swipe regarding abortion. Best to stick to the news story we're supposed to be talking about.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

That is not an argument. You have presented no reason why A follows B. And you have created an absurdity, as I pointed out, where grand parents and great grand parents would be entitled to whipe out entire villages of descendents. If that is your position then you are simply a danger to society and should be locked up. Simple as that.

the reason is that C is governed by same laws as A + B is. Hence C is no different from A + B.

sure if your grand parents and great grand parents did that, you wont be here to object it and there wont be any objection to their practice.

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa

And that, sir, is known as the fallacy of composition.

Wrong. Totally wrong. I have no where argued that sperm and egg are part of the whole. You are interpreting it that way. sperm and egg are NOT part of zygote. Sperm and egg are one form of it, and then zygote is another form of sperm and egg. Ink + water = diluted ink/dirty water.

If you can simply destroy a sperm and egg, you can and should also be able to destroy a zygote, a product of those very sperm and eggs.

if you cannot provide any reason for why zygote should not be destroyed, it comes to down to individual's discretion what they should do with their zygotes.

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa

I thought we were talking about children, not zygotes.

children were once zygotes. zygote is a name we have given to one form of children. They all are the same, just different phases of existence. be it a zygote or a child.

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa

Saying that it is so doesn't make it so. You're asserting that having a right to X categorically implies a right to everything X develops into. You have yet to make a case for why it is so. All you have done is to have invoked Ockham's Razor in a way that reveals your utter cluelessness both about what it prescribes and about what its field of applicability is.

one asserts an argument. I have given the reason that if one can destroy their sperm and egg, they can also destroy their zygote as it is a product of their own sperm. it is as simple as that. if one can burn one's paper money, one can also buy a car from that money and then destroy that car instead.

if it does not get through your thick skull, blame your parents dude.

Personally I've always suspected Ockham's Razor to be overrated to begin with. Experience has led me to understand that "simpler solution" is, at least nine times out of ten, a euphemism for "solution that fits with my preexisting biases or beliefs". Or even "whatever solution happens to be most convenient for me". If you look carefully at what the person appealing to the rule is saying then you will find that the subject of complexity almost invariably has nothing to do with anything.