Or what? What happens if I don't? So scary to even contemplate..... But, since you're in Portugal, I think, and I'm not, saying it to your face is literally going to be a tad difficult.
Expressions. Look it up.
In the broadest definition of the terms? Yes.
Good for you. I don't.
You like to play "dictionary" with theists as much as the next guy, so don't start making up your own definitions just because you're angry. It doesn't become you.
My standards arose from several events such as this, but they persisted long after the anger had (mostly) subsided. I just figured we should have some
standards as to what is considered a "person". I simply took the first step toward that. You're free to call them whatever you wish, as long as you make your thoughts clear.
If you de-personify people, for whatever reason, you simply open the door to someone else de-personifying you. Standards or no standards, when you act in such a way towards other people, you lose the right to complain when someone else does the same thing to you, or to someone you care about, because you were willing to act in such a callous manner in the first place.
That is why I call it idiotic. Because it simply perpetuates a cycle that has long since needed to die, of people finding excuses to treat other people as if they are not people so they don't have to justify how they treat them.
You think that my "de-personification" is what allows me to be angry at them or have a strong desire to cause them pain. It is not. My anger is due to what they did. The "de-personification" has the same root, but it is more logical than pure emotion.
To answer the question you directed at Dante, yes, I think that people who kidnap their children to 'rescue' them from having their lives spared deserve to be called people. They may be the lowest of the low, but they are still people. Trying to pretend that they are not people simply puts up the pretense that "real people" would not do that, yet it's clear that people can and do such things. And that exposes the pretense as false (aka, the "no true person" fallacy).
Wrong. All beings of the species Homo sapiens sapiens
are born with the titles "person" and "human". It's when they do shit like this that the right to said titles vanishes into thin air. To me, they used to be people. They were people up until the moment when they did this. The instant they did it, however, they lost the right to call themselves "people". They were still people when they did it. People can
do and have
done this and worse
. However, when they did so, they rescinded their "personhood". At least, as far as I care.
Being non-persons doesn't mean they should be treated differently than persons. They're still sentient beings, and they knowingly did something horrible. If someone with Alzheimer's, for example, did something during an "episode" that resulted in someone's death, I highly doubt anyone with even the slightest ounce of morality would advocate their death or any sort of punishment. This was a different situation. Unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were in a delusional state (maybe intoxicated, or just out of their minds with adrenaline) when they did this, I wouldn't lose a single Planck time of sleep over their life sentences. Being non-persons just means, to put it bluntly, that they're inferior (morally speaking).
I am not saying you don't have a right to hate and detest these people.
Small note: to me, "hate" means "dislike strongly enough to wish death upon someone/something". Therefore, I do not hate. I don't want them executed or otherwise killed, and I would gladly see anyone who did so go to prison.
What was the child's prognosis? I think that's important. Legal guardians are well within their right to refuse treatment if the prognosis is poor. Now if they just left the hospital without officially AMA discharging their son and his prognosis was positive, then I can understand the ethical issue and police involvement.
The latter is exactly what they did, which is why the police are looking for them.