Of course it is ... but its hard to have a dialog under these
circumstances. Given that the person is infected with a virulent enough
belief system they will try to convert you as you try to convert them.
Of course it is easiest to take a live-and-let-live attitude. If
someone
is stupid or deluded enough to let themselves be victimized then
they
deserve whatever they get, right?
Deserve may be too strong a term for my tastes ... "Fated" works for
me. It's the classic "most victims meet their nemesis half way" problem.
Do I care if Jehova's Witnesses take whole blood ... no. Do I care if their
children take whole blood ... a little, but I accept laissez faire here as
the price I pay for not having Jehova's Witnesses telling me how to raise my
child. Would I care if my wife became a Jehova's Witness ... well, I would
have to constantly weigh the risk of losing her to an accident vs. giving
her up on my own. If my wife became a Jehova's witness would I get some
kind of legal rights for medical care for my boy ... absolutely. Once my
son becomes an adult ... he can believe what he wants since I no longer have
legal authority to compel him to take blood or chemo or get rehab or
whatever.
That is why I don't think the legal argument is a straw-man. As
long as the other person is willing to listen then I think the amount of
energy you spend trying to move from their beliefs to yours is a function of
how strongly you maintain your beliefs.
You brought up the stalking laws. I'm certainly not a lawyer ...
but I believe what they say is that a stalker is not allowed within a
certain perimeter of their victim.
Let's say that my wife did become a Jehova's Witness and that she
was anemic so that it was in her best interest to inject some blood product.
<I'm not sure if Jehova's Witnesses are allowed to take anemia medication or
not ... for the sake of argument lets assume not.> Then I don't think I
could let a day go by without telling my wife that she should be taking
medication X. If she couldn't stand listening to my nagging and so legally
separated from me I would still continue to nag her. But once she got a
restraining order I would have to "ethically" let it go. On the other hand,
if my wife became a Jehova's Witness, moved to an island that only allowed
Jehova's Witnesses on it, and took my <minor> son with her to the island:
then I would not respect the laws of the island ... I'd be reading Soldier
of Fortune Magazine so that I could play a game of Raid on Entebbe.
I suppose that you can argue that the "legal age of consent" is
arbitrary ... but I can't think of a better "objective" way of dealing with
the issue. Are you arguing that you would feel morally bound to follow
someone you cared about to the ends of the earth to talk them out of a
detrimental belief? It seems to me that realistically when the conundrum
comes up the couple either agree to disagree or sever relations. If the
person holds a belief more strongly then they care for you then what ethical
right do you have to inflict yourself on them? Ethically the only thing you
can do is say choose: The belief or me, and then let the person choose.
Am I missing your point?