listen, i will not be goaded into discussing this case, because it is not the point of my post. my point is that one side is attempting to shut down debate on this issue by saying WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE? concerns for ethics and morality are every bit as valid as defending the family's decision in this case. if we don't ever allow ethical concerns to be heard, will we then be put in the position of rubber stamping heinous decisions made by parents claiming to be doing the best for the child Because WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE? it is interesting to me that those who want to shut off the debate herein automatically assume that i am against what this family has done in this case. i can see both sides of this and it is my fervent belief that both sides should be HEARD on it, regardless if we have walked in their shoes or not.
Then your discussion is pretty much useless, isn't it? If you want to discuss ethics, but refuse to apply them to a specific example, why should we care what you have to say?