Replies

There are two separate acts here. One, the child is taken to a political demonstration. That could be bad if the child is used as a prop, or if the child is in danger. But in the main it is good, because the child learns about civic virtues, courage, etc. Besides, the child may simply have nowhere else to go, - no babysitter, no school. Remember, it was not like most political protests, there was a sense of urgency as Terri was dying.

Second is the child doing a work of mercy. That is outright commendable. Since the child was not in physical danger, the parents were right in allowing him to do it, for reasons I indicated in my previous post, 181. The underlying legal issue may have been knotty, but through the eye of a child, he knew the simple truth that a helpless woman was being starved to death. As Christians, we are commanded to acts of mercy regardless of all complexity. If Terri were a criminal receiving just punishment, giving to that starving criminal water would be a Christian duty as well. Even if the parents were not convinced in the right and wrong of the legal controversy (but they were), they still would have been correct in letting the child follow his heart.

Good parents and good child.