Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Freedom of religion? Or child abuse? Options · View
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:08:25 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 691,292
Dancing_Doll wrote:
sprite wrote:
but i think that it's going to be hard to force them to do differently - kind of like telling someone to feed their kid something they beleive to be poisonous to cure their illness. i really don't have any solution for this... education, yeah, but when a belief is SO ingrained, how do you educate someone? truly, it's a quandry.


They need to change the legal implications of it and educate conservative religious people on how much time they will be spending in prison if they don't seek medical care for their children who end up suffering or dying because of it. You may not be able to change their opinions when it comes to religion, but you can change how the rest of society deals with it. A zero tolerance policy with long prison terms seems like a good solution in the interim of changing people's commitment to their archaic belief systems. Let's see how well prayer works in a courtroom or a prison cell.

Freedom of religion is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.



The threat of throwing the parents into prison for life is not going to change them or their beliefs. They will gladly follow the laws and rules of their religions. That will just make them a martyr in the eyes of the followers of that religion. You can't threaten people out of their religion. Think Muslim or Christian. Think that would work for them?
Rembacher
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:08:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Dancing_Doll wrote:
sprite wrote:
but i think that it's going to be hard to force them to do differently - kind of like telling someone to feed their kid something they beleive to be poisonous to cure their illness. i really don't have any solution for this... education, yeah, but when a belief is SO ingrained, how do you educate someone? truly, it's a quandry.


They need to change the legal implications of it and educate conservative religious people on how much time they will be spending in prison if they don't seek medical care for their children who end up suffering or dying because of it. You may not be able to change their opinions when it comes to religion, but you can change how the rest of society deals with it. A zero tolerance policy with long prison terms seems like a good solution in the interim of changing people's commitment to their archaic belief systems. Let's see how well prayer works in a courtroom or a prison cell.

Freedom of religion is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.



Some parents believe so strongly they will willingly go to jail to protect their child from evil. No amount of education will change that. What if we shift this to Chef's example of circumcision? Is it child abuse to circumcise for religious beliefs? How about if you are still under the notion that circumcision prevents disease? That's a false belief, but many still have it, despite scientific proof that it is cleanliness, not a lack of skin that eliminates diseases.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:28:50 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,750
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Jebru wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
sprite wrote:
but i think that it's going to be hard to force them to do differently - kind of like telling someone to feed their kid something they beleive to be poisonous to cure their illness. i really don't have any solution for this... education, yeah, but when a belief is SO ingrained, how do you educate someone? truly, it's a quandry.


They need to change the legal implications of it and educate conservative religious people on how much time they will be spending in prison if they don't seek medical care for their children who end up suffering or dying because of it. You may not be able to change their opinions when it comes to religion, but you can change how the rest of society deals with it. A zero tolerance policy with long prison terms seems like a good solution in the interim of changing people's commitment to their archaic belief systems. Let's see how well prayer works in a courtroom or a prison cell.

Freedom of religion is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.



Some parents believe so strongly they will willingly go to jail to protect their child from evil. No amount of education will change that. What if we shift this to Chef's example of circumcision? Is it child abuse to circumcise for religious beliefs? How about if you are still under the notion that circumcision prevents disease? That's a false belief, but many still have it, despite scientific proof that it is cleanliness, not a lack of skin that eliminates diseases.


How about female circumcision in Africa where children often die or are mutilated for life. I see your whole "gray zone" opinion on this, but to me there is a clear defining line between causing the death of a child in the name of a religious belief or causing them harm to the extent that their quality of life is affected versus a minor procedure like circumcision. I also see a huge difference between north american circumcision and circumcision where a girl may bleed to death or never be able to comfortably have sex in her lifetime. If you take it down to fine details then you can start wondering if it's abuse to not fix a child's cleft palette if they are born like that, or whether it's inhumane to try to separate conjoined twins.

Based on the case cited in this thread, this is a child that would have benefited from modern medical intervention. I assume in this case, the child was never brought before a doctor for opinion, but in the cases where a doctor is made aware of the situation, the state should have a right to intervene and treat that child, even if the parents refuse it.

I see the problem as more an issue of education and changing cultural perceptions in countries where modern medicine is not easily accessible or relied upon. I wouldn't suggest hauling off a Somalian family to prison for circumcising their daughter in Somalia, but in the western world there are precedents in health care that should supersede religion. If you want to keep wandering into the gray zone, then by your logic maybe we should be considering that "honour killings" in North America are also up for debate because of religious beliefs?

Please don't equate westernized circumcision with something that causes the death of a child, or affects their quality of life or health in a significant and permanent way.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:37:53 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,750
Location: Your dirty fantasy
chefkathleen wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
sprite wrote:
but i think that it's going to be hard to force them to do differently - kind of like telling someone to feed their kid something they beleive to be poisonous to cure their illness. i really don't have any solution for this... education, yeah, but when a belief is SO ingrained, how do you educate someone? truly, it's a quandry.


They need to change the legal implications of it and educate conservative religious people on how much time they will be spending in prison if they don't seek medical care for their children who end up suffering or dying because of it. You may not be able to change their opinions when it comes to religion, but you can change how the rest of society deals with it. A zero tolerance policy with long prison terms seems like a good solution in the interim of changing people's commitment to their archaic belief systems. Let's see how well prayer works in a courtroom or a prison cell.

Freedom of religion is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.



The threat of throwing the parents into prison for life is not going to change them or their beliefs. They will gladly follow the laws and rules of their religions. That will just make them a martyr in the eyes of the followers of that religion. You can't threaten people out of their religion. Think Muslim or Christian. Think that would work for them?


Other than general education and state intervention in those cases where medical personnel knows about the plight of the child ahead of time, what are your suggestions for a solution? Are you saying the parents should not be legally punished in these case because they are beyond obeying the law over their religion? This starts to sound like the insanity defence then. These are supposedly intelligently functioning human beings that are fully capable of understanding the law and knowing it takes precedence over everything else in society.

I suspect some of these families are well aware of the legal loopholes and make conscious decisions to use them in those states where punishment equates to a slap on the wrist.

standingbear
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:53:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/27/2010
Posts: 195
Location: the twilight zone
This seems to me to be a display of arrogance on the part of the parents. They wanted to demonstrate the depth of their faith in God, to prove to themselves and the members of their religious community that they were among the elect. There is already a miracle for diabetes. It's called insulin. They should have accepted that one.

"Happiness is doing it rotten your own way."Isaac Asimov (1994)
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:06:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 691,292
Dancing_Doll wrote:
chefkathleen wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
sprite wrote:
but i think that it's going to be hard to force them to do differently - kind of like telling someone to feed their kid something they beleive to be poisonous to cure their illness. i really don't have any solution for this... education, yeah, but when a belief is SO ingrained, how do you educate someone? truly, it's a quandry.


They need to change the legal implications of it and educate conservative religious people on how much time they will be spending in prison if they don't seek medical care for their children who end up suffering or dying because of it. You may not be able to change their opinions when it comes to religion, but you can change how the rest of society deals with it. A zero tolerance policy with long prison terms seems like a good solution in the interim of changing people's commitment to their archaic belief systems. Let's see how well prayer works in a courtroom or a prison cell.

Freedom of religion is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.



The threat of throwing the parents into prison for life is not going to change them or their beliefs. They will gladly follow the laws and rules of their religions. That will just make them a martyr in the eyes of the followers of that religion. You can't threaten people out of their religion. Think Muslim or Christian. Think that would work for them?


Other than general education and state intervention in those cases where medical personnel knows about the plight of the child ahead of time, what are your suggestions for a solution? Are you saying the parents should not be legally punished in these case because they are beyond obeying the law over their religion? This starts to sound like the insanity defence then. These are supposedly intelligently functioning human beings that are fully capable of understanding the law and knowing it takes precedence over everything else in society.

I suspect some of these families are well aware of the legal loopholes and make conscious decisions to use them in those states where punishment equates to a slap on the wrist.


There is no solution without opening a can of worms that no one will agree upon. You can't force your beliefs on people anymore than anyone else can you. Why should they be punished for believing in their religion and following it's traditions? You can stretch this out in a lot of ways besides just medical reasons. If you stop Jehovah's Witnesses and the other "extreme" religions from following their faith, then where does it stop for the other religions that believe in their own rules?
As much as other nations and some of their people abhor the female circumcision in African countries, do you see it stopping? Same with children being married off at 6 to 20 year old men. It's still going on no matter how much you cry foul. People willingly drank cool aide with Jim Jones and they always will, metaphorically.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:43:49 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,750
Location: Your dirty fantasy
chefkathleen wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
chefkathleen wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
sprite wrote:
but i think that it's going to be hard to force them to do differently - kind of like telling someone to feed their kid something they beleive to be poisonous to cure their illness. i really don't have any solution for this... education, yeah, but when a belief is SO ingrained, how do you educate someone? truly, it's a quandry.


They need to change the legal implications of it and educate conservative religious people on how much time they will be spending in prison if they don't seek medical care for their children who end up suffering or dying because of it. You may not be able to change their opinions when it comes to religion, but you can change how the rest of society deals with it. A zero tolerance policy with long prison terms seems like a good solution in the interim of changing people's commitment to their archaic belief systems. Let's see how well prayer works in a courtroom or a prison cell.

Freedom of religion is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.



The threat of throwing the parents into prison for life is not going to change them or their beliefs. They will gladly follow the laws and rules of their religions. That will just make them a martyr in the eyes of the followers of that religion. You can't threaten people out of their religion. Think Muslim or Christian. Think that would work for them?


Other than general education and state intervention in those cases where medical personnel knows about the plight of the child ahead of time, what are your suggestions for a solution? Are you saying the parents should not be legally punished in these case because they are beyond obeying the law over their religion? This starts to sound like the insanity defence then. These are supposedly intelligently functioning human beings that are fully capable of understanding the law and knowing it takes precedence over everything else in society.

I suspect some of these families are well aware of the legal loopholes and make conscious decisions to use them in those states where punishment equates to a slap on the wrist.


There is no solution without opening a can of worms that no one will agree upon. You can't force your beliefs on people anymore than anyone else can you. Why should they be punished for believing in their religion and following it's traditions? You can stretch this out in a lot of ways besides just medical reasons. If you stop Jehovah's Witnesses and the other "extreme" religions from following their faith, then where does it stop for the other religions that believe in their own rules?
As much as other nations and some of their people abhor the female circumcision in African countries, do you see it stopping? Same with children being married off at 6 to 20 year old men. It's still going on no matter how much you cry foul. People willingly drank cool aide with Jim Jones and they always will, metaphorically.


I may not agree with religion or their various traditions, and I'm not arguing for a way to stop people from following their faith altogether (I'd like to, but it's just not realistic at this point in human history). But I do see life and death as a black and white issue. Any belief which threatens the right of a child to be safe from physical harm or could willfully cause their death is something that can be regulated and enforced. That's not to say that it solves the problem in all cases, but certainly the "freedom of religion" concept needs to be taken out of laws involving medical homicide, murder, or assault. That's a change that can be implemented now, and will make a difference to at least some degree. I've read of cases like this where the parents made their choices, knowing that the law was on their side due to the freedom of religion loophole.

As for the other cases you mention, the issues are deeper seated as they are both religious and cultural, and occur in smaller rural villages where access to modern medicine or even modern values/knowledge are not available. The laws in these countries also support these practices, so yes, it's definitely a lot harder to exact change. Western society may not agree with it, but it's impossible for us to change the laws and enforce them in a village in Somalia or India, although education and change is a focus among some groups in those countries.

The focus here is on what can/should be done with cases like this when they occur in the modern westernized world, where we abide by our own set of rules and legalities. If someone wants to pray to a goat, or decorate themselves in tribal ashes, or read a SciFi novel and believe that's how the world began, then fine... play the Freedom of Religion card. But when that faith is the logic behind causing human suffering, injury or death, then intervention is necessary and the law needs to take precedence above everything else. To me, it's just very simple... and very much a black and white issue.

But I do agree that your solution of throwing your hands up and saying oh well, can't change em, better luck with the next kid is definitely easier to roll with on a technical level. In reality, I do get the feeling that we both agree on this subject, but this is a good discussion generator, regardless. Undoubtedly there are people out there that would legitimately argue the side you are presenting. happy8

WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:18:20 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,508
Location: Cakeland, United States
gypsymoth wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
If this similar situation were to occur in the deep jungles of the Amazon River basin...is it child abuse too?

Village elders and tribal doctors chanting around their hazy, smoldering fireplace while everyone is painted up in ocher pigment and charcoal ash and consuming some sort of jungle herb...to either save the life of or send the spirit of the child off to their version of the afterlife - that's gotta be illegal and inhumane, right?


This is not about some tribal village, so please, don't get off on trying to disseminate confusion here.


There is no confusion attempted to being sown here. This is the same dog in a different forest, Gypsy. I'm not trying to confuse the issue, I'm asking all of us to see all the sides of the coin here.

It's child abuse when it is done inside of a country where there are written laws to address the legality or morality of this type of situation.

For the record, I don't agree with the parent's decision in the stated example. But I don't have kids and I'm definitely not even mildly religious.

I do tend to respect a culture's ways, even if those ways are way different than my own. In the stated case which Damon used as his example, I think it's child abuse (especially because of where this occurred). But if those parents were residing in another country where the parent's religious views and decisions are accepted as normal, where is it any of my business or concern what the hell happens?

In the Amazonian jungles, it's the same deal.



Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
LadyX
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:41:06 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
If it were simply a matter of ruling on the example Damon gave at the start of this thread, this would be a fairly dull thread. I don't think anyone believes the parents aren't criminally responsible for their actions , or that 6 months (especially the way they're serving it) is entirely too lenient a penalty.

So, finding 'the line' has made for a more interesting discussion. I think Chef is right that there will be no moving religious folks off of their beliefs, no matter how crazy they may sound, and harmful to childrens' health they may be in a worst-case scenario. If the strategy is to ratchet up the penalties for things that are regarded as religious lifestyle actions, then it's only going to 'strengthen and energize the base', as they say in politics. Believe me, from riding in a car with a conservative talk-radio addict, I can tell you- nothing is a more effective call to arms than others making political/legal moves that infringe on their beliefs. So, she's right, we're not going to eliminate these extreme things completely, all we can do is make the penalty fit the crime the best we can, and leave it to the criminals (religious or not) to determine whether they want to go ahead and commit the crime. Six months comes nowhere close to fitting the crime, and if that was done as a concession to people's faiths, I think that's a mistake on the part of the government.

To just accept the inevitability of crazy-ass behavior is unacceptable, too. Remove concessions for religion in these matters, prosecute secularly, and let the religous people serve their faith within the laws of whatever nation they reside in. 99% of their faith is legal, and that's not a bad percentage.

I think it's the government's job to look after all it's people, especially in the cases where the parents might not be mentally equipped or inclined to do so, and that includes religious beliefs that may very well kill the child before he or she can decide for themselves whether that particular faith suits them. Yes, that presents a conflict, but I believe the government has jurisdiction in that case. There are of course a thousand different cases that would definitely exist in 'grey areas', but if religious customs are keeping a child from the best medical treatments, then the government needs to step in and make sure it happens. That will probably drive some people crazy to imagine, but what can I say? I'm kind of a socialist.
myself
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:19:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Freedom of religion is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.


Do you feel the same if it read -

Freedom of speech is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.

Just wondering why (in some people's opinion -not necessarily you Dolldontknow ) it's alright in the name of free speech and in the name of many other things to cause death but not OK in the name of religion?

It seems what one man might believe in, example- the U.S. constitution and what another might believe in, example- there must be secrets in government to compete and while at war it's dirty business and what these people may believe in, example- they must live and die naturally -is still just that, personal BELIEF.

One is wrong and one is right?

myself wrote:
PEOPLE ARE FU**ING CRAZY!crybaby


It's not OK to let your child die for the good of the mass/religion and it's not OK to let innocents die for someone else's freedom of speech and it's not OK to fight war to achieve power!

If beliefs are harbored by people who are safe at home and alive while their actions cause death, I don't believe as they do. And if by chance, they're not safe at home but are in jail or maybe dead, I give credit if they except that they caused harm and must pay for it despite their belief. I can believe in this!

Life is tough and I don't see how belief can be black and white because everyone's belief is personal!

Believe what you believe, but take responsibility for the results of your beliefs. It's as simple as that for me.

You all might do better to just not listen to me because I see the universe as a whole entity and probably couldn't explain that if I wanted to. It suffices to say that I believe in belief.

note- Dear Dancing_Doll, gonna post this in the Wikileaks thread









Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:37:27 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,750
Location: Your dirty fantasy
myself wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Freedom of religion is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.


Do you feel the same if it read -

Freedom of speech is one thing, but when it affects the life and breath of another living human being, then it becomes a crime. To me there is no "gray zone" on this.

Just wondering why (in some people's opinion -not necessarily you Dolldontknow ) it's alright in the name of free speech and in the name of many other things to cause death but not OK in the name of religion?

It seems what one man might believe in, example- the U.S. constitution and what another might believe in, example- there must be secrets in government to compete and while at war it's dirty business and what these people may believe in, example- they must live and die naturally -is still just that, personal BELIEF.

One is wrong and one is right?



Nope, they are both wrong. I don't believe freedom of speech is justified when it causes death either. To me, the US Constitution is a lot like the bible. It's trotted out to make illogical arguments as though the contents of it are indisputable.

mercianknight
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:47:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,027
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
LittleMissBitch wrote:
abuse of course and these are the same people that call abortion murder. hmmm...just love religious hypocrisy.



Thanks LMB - well put.

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:21:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
I missed all the fun again? Damn it. I guess all the fun happens during the weekdays.

Quote:
Let's see how well prayer works in a courtroom or a prison cell.


Great quote! I wish I thought of that one.

All religious bullshit aside, I think I would fight tooth and nail for the life of any child regardless of their parents' cuture or superstition. I don't give a fuck about changing the parents' minds. I realize that they've already been too deeply infected to realize what is right and wrong. But I will do everything in my power to prevent their ignorance from being transmitted to a kid that hasn't had a chance to think for themself.

Children are not possessions to be used by adults to live out their religious egocentric daydreams. And I don't give a fuck what the bible, constitution, or bill of rights says. Nor do I care what nation or culture you live in. There will always be stupid people...but it is up to the rest of us to limit the damage they do on the rest of the world.

Letting a child die a preventable, painful death in the most economically powerful country in history is not the equivalent to male circumcision or some right of passage in some less-than-third world country.

Take my foreskin. (It looks better anyway). But comparing that to faith induced suffering and death of a child is worse hyperbole than I've ever been guilty of.

And we all know how much I like my hyperbole.....
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, December 10, 2010 8:24:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,460
Location: Alabama, United States
I'm new to this thread and I haven't read all the responses so forgive me if I repeat anything already said. It's child abuse. We do have freedom of religion in this country.. and that is a good thing. But idiots like this give religion a bad name. Most "religious" people of just about every other faith would agree that this is not what religion is all about. Watching your child die when his death could be easily prevented is not something to be used to prove your faith. The Bible does say... "Do not test the Lord thy God". So, in my mind the parents and others watching and praying for her recovery were going against God anyway. And if you really want to test whether or not there are limits to freedom of religion.. next time you get on an airplane shout "All praise to Allah" and see what happens.

This debate shouldn't even be about religion. It's about the stupidity of a select few. No doubt religion has it's place and many people go to church and lead normal lives. It's the really extremist that make ALL religion look bad. Isn't that the case with most things, the extremist get all the headlines and the rest suffer the consequences? If this happened in my community I would hope the city/state/federal gov. would step in and save the child. As a taxpayer I'd rather pay the lawsuit from infringing on their "religious freedom" than have that child's blood on my hand.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Prodigal_Knight
Posted: Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:41:58 AM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 12/3/2010
Posts: 7
Location: In Your Hand
Pretty heady stuff for a newb to tackle on a Saturday morning. Lemme see here.....

It's clearly child abuse and will not be tolerated in the country I live in.

I should just end it here but I'm sooo much a forum whore...

Freedom of Religion in the Constitution covers the ability to choose which religion you follow. The founding fathers do not clearly state that you will not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for your stupidity and action/inaction based upon your belief system. That was never their intent. In fact, society's stupidity provides for my continued job security, and provides me with much material for various pursuits.

During the investigation, "The parents, who have three older children, told police that Madeline last saw a doctor when she was three to get some injections." This clearly illustrates the parents desire to protect their child against disease and illness for her future welfare. They chose to protect the health and welfare of their child then they quit doing so citing "that healing came from God." But the father was a Policeman, and knew the consequences of the law. And irregardless of the fact that they may have "changed their minds/beliefs", they already clearly chose a path of protection for disease and illness for their child.

They ACKNOWLEDGED the medical system as a benefit for their family's health and welfare, then they willingly and knowingly denied it's continued benefit in an easily identifiable, treatable, and non-life threatening situation. In an article from The Telegraph on 28 Mar 2008, "Dan Vergin, the local police chief, said she had been ill for a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness."

"She just got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.

I read a little bit one time about Diabetic Ketoacidosis.....

Yup. Children deserve to be protected, they can't do it themselves. And there are people in all walks of life that are NOT capable of raising children and should not be allowed to do so - based on their actions/beliefs and so much more.

My first writer's block...
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 11, 2010 4:47:30 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 691,292
Quote:
This clearly illustrates the parents desire to protect their child against disease and illness for her future welfare.


Not necessarily. Most states, if not all, require children to be immunized before starting school. Without proof of the immunization, they can't go to school.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:08:08 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 691,292
Criminal behaviour no doubt about it. Deluded fools who deserve no sympathy.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:26:49 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 691,292
Lisa wrote:
Definitely a case of neglect. They could've sought medical help and prayed for her recovery while she received treatment.


Agreed ......
Not much i can really say that hasnt already been already said
God gives us wisdom ... Sad how some people completely forget how to use it
Guest
Posted: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:25:17 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 691,292
child abuse, is an on going thing that happens almost everyday. and that sickens me. what person wants to beat up an innocent child. they dont deserve anything that they are getting. children are supposed to be happy and healthy and have no worries and just be kids. have fun, but abuser's take that right away from kids and the children have to worry about what they are saying, and how they act. children will live there life in fear of the next attack. and those child hood memories are often surpressed. and those memories will haunt them in the later years. like is it going to happen again, are they going to do that to my child? am i going to be like them? child abuse should be more frowned upon and a more legal action should be inforced.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 18, 2010 4:58:42 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 691,292
This is a bit like the Childhood Immunization debate that rages whenever Whooping Cough or something similar (and totally avoidable) is rampant in the community.

My biggest problem with this is that freedom of religion trumps everything else.
I have no religious beliefs and if my child needed a blood transfusion and I refused on any other grounds, I would be charged and sentenced appropriatly if my child died. Its negligence by any other name.

Freedom of Religion shouldnt be more important than the right to live. We all have the right to live and our beliefs ought not affect who lives and dies.
Its my job to care for my children, I had them, they are my choice and as such are my responsibility. Religion has no bearing on their basic right to treatment and medical care, and should be the case for every child that is yet to decide their own faith in life.

I've read of parents who have been charged with manslaughter for not providing appropriate medical care for a sick child because they chose natural therapies as opposed to conventional medicine.
How can choosing to pray be considered appropriate treatment for a child in a diabetic coma?

Get your kids the medical care they need, when they need it, and get them immunized :)
myself
Posted: Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:42:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Nope, they are both wrong. I don't believe freedom of speech is justified when it causes death either. To me, the US Constitution is a lot like the bible. It's trotted out to make illogical arguments as though the contents of it are indisputable.


Point taken.

Interesting enough, while I read most of the Bible and some of the Constitution, I understood both completely.

The Bible began and ended just as I always understood man's evolution and the Constitution is a wonderful story of America : )

Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
MadameLadyJane
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 7:45:14 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 10/15/2010
Posts: 1
Location: Richmond, VA
The parents should only be allowed, by law, to determine their OWN wellness outcomes, not those of a child who is underage and unable to make a decision for themselves. IE, the child could not drive her own self to a hospital for medical attention.

For this to be seen as an offense only worthy of a six month jail term is heinous! Tie their tubes and take the rest of their children away.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.