Now that you've clicked on this thread to see what merits asking such an outrageous question I can begin.

Yesterday I was watching Family Guy when I saw an episode where a child suffering from a highly treatable form of cancer was prayed for by his Christian "scientist" parents instead of being given treatment. At this point I was thinking of just kidnapping the child and taking it to the hospital myself (Which the Griffins later planned). That got me thinking. Would anyone else do the same? Why? Why not?

EDIT: For those of you who didn't watch, the Griffins kidnapped the child because the police did nothing about it. Add that to the mix if you please.

That's that the police are for.

And the police will get crackin' on you if you try to break the system.

Ergo, no. Call the cops, yes. Make sure they take care of it, yes. Do something if they'll let me. But kidnap the child? Hell no.

Luckily I don't live in a country where I have to worry about this.

But no, I probably wouldn't resort to kidnapping.

nyttyn:
That's that the police are for.

And the police will get crackin' on you if you try to break the system.

Ergo, no. Call the cops, yes. Make sure they take care of it, yes. Do something if they'll let me. But kidnap the child? Hell no.

To my knowledge that hardly ever works. The cops are involved, parents go to court, then get away with it because of "The right to practice their religion" all while the child is suffering.

AtheistGuy:
Now that you've clicked on this thread to see what merits asking such an outrageous question I can begin.

Yesterday I was watching Family Guy when I saw an episode where a child suffering from a highly treatable form of cancer was prayed for by his Christian "scientist" parents instead of being given treatment. At this point I was thinking of just kidnapping the child and taking it to the hospital myself (Which the Griffins later planned). That got me thinking. Would anyone else do the same? Why? Why not?

You know, I watched that episode a few nights ago. And as much as I hope I would be a rational person and not do that. I probably would. And, seeing as how the police in that episode didn't deal with it. Definitely! Awful, yes, but just being honest.

AtheistGuy:

nyttyn:
That's that the police are for.

And the police will get crackin' on you if you try to break the system.

Ergo, no. Call the cops, yes. Make sure they take care of it, yes. Do something if they'll let me. But kidnap the child? Hell no.

To my knowledge that hardly ever works. The cops are involved, parents go to court, then get away with it because of "The right to practice their religion" all while the child is suffering.

This would not fall under "right to practice religion." This would fall under "gross parental incompetence," beacause they can pray all they effing want, but if they know and have the means to obtain a cure for said cancer, failing to obtain it would fall under incompetence.

Unless of course that stupid as all fuck supreme court decision that religious law > federal law holds true.

No, because in Europe we have our brains implanted inside our rectums.

No because it will lead to nothing, the police will come and get faster than fast and you will go to jail before you can do anything, they will be alerted at the hospital so you would just get caught there, the parents might get away with this, you wont.

Yes if the police and the state would do nothing about it. If a child is being definitely abused and the situation is being ignored then I believe I would try to protect the life of that child. However, only as a last resort.

In this case, I think 'kidnap' would be replaced by 'rescue' :P

In that situation I'd call CPS and let them do the kidnapping. As for why I actually would, the only situation I could condone it is when the parents split up, one gets custody, and then gets hooked on drugs. I could easily justify the other parent kidnapping the kids and taking them to a safe home in that situation.

No, I'd probably call the cops or the social... services. Whatever they're called in English.

If the police would fail to act because of religious privilege, taking someone along without the parents who are trying to kill him knowing, is preferable to knowingly letting someone die.

this was family guy?

If I couldnt go through proper channels, then mabye

Ammutseba:
No, because in Europe we have our brains implanted inside our rectums.

Can't figure out if you're being sincere or sarcastically referring to the US in those regards with that statement.

No I would not. It's got nothing to do with having a heart or being a good person. It's about risk vs. reward, in reality my kidnapping a child would most likely result in a hospital seeing through my ruse, him going back home and myself being brought up on criminal charges. After all, I'm hardly in a position to treat the cancer, so it's too much red tape to attempt evading that the outcome is pretty much guaranteed.

In the end you're more likely to have wasted the only time the kid had left to play and enjoy their life, who's the supposed bad guy in that scenario? That and the parents most likely convinced them that dying and being with God is the ultimate goal, so they may very well be comforted by the situation. You don't combat faith with reason, faith wins because people want purpose in their lives.

PunkyMcGee:
Kidnapping is unethical. It's not unreasonable to pray even in such extreme and laughable circumstances.

It's not about prayer, it's about people knowingly killing a child through their ignorance, and the chance if you'd prevent the death, or let it happen.

Nope. It will get me sent to jail and the kid straight back to the family. Nobody's going to believe a rambling person coming to a hospital with a small kid claiming he/she has cancer.

ManThatYouFear:
i have... twice this week in fact

Don't worry Madeleine McCann aint dead yet..

i like it when she scratches..

(i better put a disclaimer because some people are fucking tools "this is a joke, done in dark humor")

That's not dark humor, and any kind of humor. It's shock, and it's cheap.

If a child without majority is being prevented lifesaving treatment that doesn't have clear massive drawbacks by his/her parents should have the right of consent transferred to a Doctor or social worker. Even a treatment with drawbacks should clearly have been seriously considered or again consent should be given to a social worker.

Ignorance is not a good reason to let people die.

PunkyMcGee:
Imagine if will the role was flipped. when a religious sect kidnaps a child "for their own good".

Except 'their own good' is very measurable in this instance, and you are actually comparing death, to adhering to a particular set of myths.

Wait, wouldn't the child be taken off of them anyway for neglect or abuse? Or does it not work like that in the US?People have had their children taken away from them for less drastic reasons. I'm fairly sure refusing to treat your child for cancer comes under child abuse laws.

PunkyMcGee:
Whether or not I agree with their ideals is irrelevant. The variable would be, what if the child sides with his parents?

Suicide isn't a problem. At most you'd really have to talk to him because he's never been given a chance to form an own opinion because of religious indoctrination.

Ussually however with anti-choicers, homophobes, anti-vaccination and other religion-related forms of harmfull stupidity, the only proponents are the ones who don't have to suffer the consequences. When it's about oneself, for obvious reasons people either never supported it, or change their opinion.

Ammutseba:
No, because in Europe we have our brains implanted inside our rectums.

Europe is a pretty big place, are you sure about that statement?

No,
I'd call child services. They'd take the child to hospital and the parents to court. Kid would probably be taken from their care.

PunkyMcGee:
If you want to say that your whole argument goes out the window.

Why? For being too true? Not going in ridiculous apologetic language used solely by a bunch of horrid religious extremists?
The anti-choicers are the ones who want to ruin lives and harm people. Any claim that they care in the slighest about any life outside of their own selfish gain is ludicrous.

So, the same point remains: Aan you kill someone for your own selfish gain? yes/no Would you stop someone killing another person solely for selfish gain? yes/no

I don't found answering them any difficulty.

That's not kidnapping. That's called saving.

You are saving the child from some people who are directly trying to kill the child.

Seems unnecessary. I really don't like kids. I also don't think that I know better how to raise a kid than people who actually have to, even in cases of gross negligence. The kid successfully made it through life to that point in time and I had nothing to do with it, so how should I "know what's best" for the child? Too many people around anyways and I don't particularly care for the crazy variety, which if the kid survived, he/she would most likely become.

No. Whats the point? What would i do? Where would i go with that kid? I would get arrested soon and it's not like hospitals are like mcdonalds, 'one cancer treatment for the kid, thanks!'