You see, he draws a (clear?!) distinction between "direct and intentional killing"—which is bad bad BAD!!!—and "the inability to impede death," which is the "natural end of all life." So...why take your kid to a doctor, if your religion tells you that you shouldn't?
-
-
Show this thread
-
The answer, of course, is that risking your kid's life in that way, when you could protect them, is also bad bad bad. Those parents are not doing the right thing. But if you think "not impeding death" is different in kind, then you can't make that argument.
Show this thread -
It gets worse, though. The wiggle room comes with this line, which equivocates between actively taking life away and "refusing life-or-death assistance". The article's entire premise depends on the idea that deliberate taking of life—as opposed to *not acting*—is uniquely bad!pic.twitter.com/WBXPJBbPYu
Show this thread -
The Christian Scientist will be happy to tell you that many children with cancer spontaneously remit. So chemo certainly isn't "life-or-death" assistance. On top of that, refusing to go to chemo is just...going along with the natural end of life. Not actively taking a life.
Show this thread -
At any rate, I'm just exhausted by sloppy arguing. I actually agree with some of the article. This graf, for example, makes a good point that gets ignored. But it's lost in a haze of trying to protect a form of reasoning, that for all its depth and ancientness, is incoherent. /xpic.twitter.com/slLono9whp
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It is. But as soon as he concedes that the law shouldn't allow parents to withhold that kind of care, he opens up his stark binary to additional critiques. That's why he can't concede it—and doesn't, amazingly enough!
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.