PDA

View Full Version : Abusing Children in the Name of God



S0Noma
01-11-2008, 11:06 PM
By Shawn F. Peters

A hemophilic boy in Pennsylvania bleeds to death over a period of two days from a small cut on his foot. An Indiana girl dies after a malignant tumor sprouts from her skull and grows so enormous that it’s nearly the size of her head. A boy in Massachusetts succumbs to a bowel obstruction. (His cries of pain are so loud that neighbors are forced to shut their windows to block out the sound.)

None of these children benefit from the readily-available medical treatments that might save their lives, or at least mitigate their suffering. Because the tenets of their parents’ religious faiths mandate it, their ailments are treated by prayer rather than medical science. The results are tragic.

It is difficult to determine precisely how many children in the United States lose their lives every year as the result of the phenomenon that has come to be known as religion-based medical neglect. A landmark study published in the journal Pediatrics uncovered more than 150 reported fatalities over a 10-year period – a tally that one of the study’s authors later said represented only “the tip of the iceberg” of a surprisingly pervasive problem. Assessing whether forms of religion-related child abuse pose a greater risk to children than more widely publicized threats, such as ritual satanic abuse, a wide-ranging study funded by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that “there are more children actually being abused in the name of God than in the name of Satan.”

Since the late nineteenth century, hundreds of such instances of abuse have resulted in tangled criminal litigation. The parents charged in these cases – many of them Christian Scientists or members of small Christian churches that ground their doctrines in narrowly literal interpretations of the Bible – often have argued that the First Amendment safeguards their decision to adhere to their faiths’ religious traditions and treat their ailing children solely by spiritual means. Prosecutors, meanwhile, have balked at the notion that constitutional protections for religious liberty provide an absolute bar to state regulation of religious conduct, particularly when that behavior puts the safety of children at risk. Their task often has been complicated, however, by murky state manslaughter and abuse statutes that appear to provide exemptions for religious healing practices.

Arguing that they were “Christians first, citizens afterward,” a prominent Christian spiritual healer once urged his followers to disregard secular laws that might compel them to forsake their religious beliefs regarding healing. Such is the dilemma that confronts parents who choose to treat their sick or injured children with prayer instead of medicine. Not only must they safeguard the health of their sons and daughters; they also must try to reconcile their devotion to God with their duties as citizens in a society that boasts a long and sometimes checkered history of regulating uncommon religious conduct.

Defining these obligations through the enforcement of secular laws – especially ones that are constitutionally fuzzy – can be a complicated business. Moreover, there is no guarantee that it will deter devout and stubborn parents from engaging in religious practices that endanger the health of their children. But the alternative – simply ignoring the suffering of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our nation’s churches – seems unconscionable.

web page (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/01/shawn.html)

sack316
01-12-2008, 01:42 AM
I remember an old Law And Order episode that dealt with this once. Was one of my favorites. Also is an issue that's one of those touchy things that's hard to say what's right or wrong.

For example: Such as how a Jehova's Witness cannot accept a blood transfusion. I feel it should be pretty clear if a grown and informed adult chooses faith over medicine, that is their right. But then you throw in the children and it gets a little messy then.

Always a tough call on things like this, but IMHO the parents rights to raise their children according to the statutes of their own recognized religion should be granted in a situation like this... no matter how abusive or neglectful it may seem to you or I, it should be the families choice. I personally feel it is of greater importance to appear righteous in the eyes of my God than in the eyes of my government or mainstream society.

Sack

Drop1
01-12-2008, 11:25 AM
In my opinion it proves,some people should be sterilized before exchanging vows.

eg8r
01-12-2008, 12:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Always a tough call on things like this, but IMHO the parents rights to raise their children according to the statutes of their own recognized religion should be granted in a situation like this... no matter how abusive or neglectful it may seem to you or I, it should be the families choice. I personally feel it is of greater importance to appear righteous in the eyes of my God than in the eyes of my government or mainstream society.
<hr /></blockquote> I personally think these parents are a bit crazy and are going to far.

What strikes me as hypocritical is that the same people on this board who will find this as an awful thing to do to their child will also be the same people that think it is OK to abort a baby.

eg8r

S0Noma
01-12-2008, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I personally think these parents are a bit crazy and are going to far.

<font color="blue">I can't think of anything sadder or more painful for a parent than to lose a child. If as a parent you could have done something to prevent it and didn't? That's a burden I would never want to have to carry.

'...a bit crazy' is an understatement. </font color>

What strikes me as hypocritical is that the same people on this board who will find this as an awful thing to do to their child will also be the same people that think it is OK to abort a baby.

<font color="blue">Without getting into a never ending argument about when a 'baby becomes a baby' (at the moment of conception? weeks or months later? etc) let me ask you this Eg8r:

What would be the outcome for our society if we ended the practice of abortion entirely?

Who would take care of all those unwanted kids? I'm not trying to be facetious here. You know as well as I do that many of those women who are seeking to terminate their pregnancies are ill prepared to raise a child. If there were no abortion what would we do as a society to see that those children were cared for properly? Would you suggest that they all be put up for adoption in the hopes that loving parents would scoop them up? If so, is that a realistic prospect? What's the solution? </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
01-12-2008, 12:49 PM
"I personally feel it is of greater importance to appear righteous in the eyes of my God than in the eyes of my government or mainstream society."
And therein lies the rub.....
Assuming that we are praying to the same God, He approves blood transfusions for many, but not for JW's?
Does that make any sense?
We liberals can even harvest the body parts of dead Republicans, as well as a little blood-letting.
I'm sure God will forgive us.....

S0Noma
01-12-2008, 12:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr> I remember an old Law And Order episode that dealt with this once. Was one of my favorites. Also is an issue that's one of those touchy things that's hard to say what's right or wrong.

For example: Such as how a Jehova's Witness cannot accept a blood transfusion. I feel it should be pretty clear if a grown and informed adult chooses faith over medicine, that is their right. But then you throw in the children and it gets a little messy then.

<font color="blue">It gets a lot messy. Children by nature and by law are deemed incapable of making major decisions for themselves - is it fair to the child that the wishes of the adult(s) in charge of their well being are negatively influenced by their faith? Meaning, if medical intervention is denied because it somehow violates the tenets of the parents religious belief and the absence of that medical treatment leads to the death of the child? How is that fair to the child? </font color>

Always a tough call on things like this, but IMHO the parents rights to raise their children according to the statutes of their own recognized religion should be granted in a situation like this... no matter how abusive or neglectful it may seem to you or I, it should be the families choice. I personally feel it is of greater importance to appear righteous in the eyes of my God than in the eyes of my government or mainstream society.

<font color="blue">I agree with you insofar as a fully informed adult of legal age is concerned. But I disagree firmly when it comes to the treatment of minors. Furthermore, I can't imagine why anyone would find themselves in a position where they would allow their own child to die in order to please their idea of what God wants. IMHO: Any God who would want a parent to let their child die when that child's life could be saved is not worth worshiping. </font color>

Sack <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Sack, would you feel as strongly about '.. appearing righteous in the eyes of their God' if it wasn't the Christian God that was involved? I mean, would you extend the right to worship whatever version of God that you adhered to regardless of the consequences?

Here's an example of a situation, where non-Christian beliefs conflict with medical science with a potentially dire outcome: </font color>

Benin priests battle bird flu with Voodoo (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1088475320080110?feedTyp)

"COTONOU (Reuters) - Sacrificing chickens in a spray of blood, Benin's traditional priests celebrated Voodoo Day on Thursday and declared their ancient religion would protect them from risk of infection by the deadly H5N1 bird flu virus.

The small West African state, home of the Voodoo rituals carried by slaves to the Americas, last month announced at least two cases of bird flu in poultry which tests in Europe confirmed were of the deadly H5N1 strain that can be fatal to humans.

After Benin lifted a previous ban on the practice of Voodoo, it was declared an official religion in the former French colony in the mid-1990s and January 10 is celebrated as National Voodoo Day, a public holiday ranking with Christmas and the Muslim Eid.

Benin health experts have warned the country's Voodoo priests their practice of sacrificing chickens -- sometimes by tearing out the birds' throats with teeth or drinking their blood -- creates a major risk of contamination from sick birds.

"It's not a question of religion ... the unprotected manipulation of poultry is dangerous," Julien Toessi, director of health promotion at the Health Ministry, told Reuters.

Voodoo practitioners, spurning the protective suits, gloves and masks recommended for handling suspect birds, declared their faith would shield them from infection during ceremonies in which sacrificed chickens' blood is sprayed over the faithful and the ground to "purify" them and gain favor from the gods.

"If you buy a chicken to sacrifice it to your God, he will not let you buy an infected bird," said Dah Aligbonon, a Voodoo priest from Abomey, the former capital of the ancient African kingdom of Dahomey.

H5N1 bird flu has killed more than 200 people around the world, mainly in Asia, since 2003 and over the last two years a string of West African states, including Benin's immediate neighbors, have reported outbreaks of the disease. "

It's similar in the sense that the voodoo practitioners firmly believe that their magic (similar to prayer in a way) will protect them from a horrible disease.

wolfdancer
01-12-2008, 01:43 PM
"If you buy a chicken to sacrifice it to your God, he will not let you buy an infected bird," said Dah Aligbonon, a Voodoo priest from Abomey, the former capital of the ancient African kingdom of Dahomey.
Being a much more advanced society then the Benin's....we only put that kind of faith in Tyson foods, and the FSIS

Gayle in MD
01-12-2008, 03:53 PM
The parents of these children should be prosecuted for murder.

Gayle in Md.

llotter
01-13-2008, 02:47 PM
If only as much outrage could be expressed on behalf of the millions of abortion victims, including thousands of partial birth victims, that take place every year. Those babies are paying the terrible price of the same amoral socialistic ideology that has cost the lives of so many wherever it gets a foothold around the world. While venting against religious 'dogma', your own filthy hands betray your incredible hypocracy.

Gayle in MD
01-13-2008, 03:13 PM
How many orphans have you adopted? Are you willing to have your taxesdoubled so we can provide health care, education, shelter, food and clothing for millions of unwanted children?

I'm quite sure that you, Ed, and the other right wing Republicans on here will be first in line to offer up yourselves for a big tax hike to solve the problem of unloved, unwanted orphans. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif You don't even want to pay for S-chip, so that our kids in the middle class, whose parents can't feed them, AND pay for hospitalization, can get coverage for their health care.

You Republicans want your cake, and eat it too. You're full of ideals, but with no solutions, and no grasp of what is a practical, reasonable approach.

Abortion is legal in this country, and many other countries. It has always been, and will always be, it's not a matter of "IF" but how it will be performed. You'd sooner see women forced into following your opinion, than their own, and sooner see them bleeding to death from self performed coat hanger abortions? I'm almost afraid to ask someone like you such questions.

Gayle in Md.

llotter
01-13-2008, 08:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> How many orphans have you adopted? Are you willing to have your taxesdoubled so we can provide health care, education, shelter, food and clothing for millions of unwanted children? <font color="blue"> I cannot believe you are justifying killing babies for economic reasons. I knew you lefties were without any sense of right and wrong so why not just kill all the poor people and be done with it. It is the case, however, that any society needs thier young to maintain viability and are sources of future wealth unless you make them wards of the state as the left is wont to do</font color>

I'm quite sure that you, Ed, and the other right wing Republicans on here will be first in line to offer up yourselves for a big tax hike to solve the problem of unloved, unwanted orphans. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif You don't even want to pay for S-chip, so that our kids in the middle class, whose parents can't feed them, AND pay for hospitalization, can get coverage for their health care. <font color="blue"> What conservatives would like is for people to take care of themselves and their families within the rule of law as opposed to the welfare/nanny state that is being built for us and its obscene consequences. </font color>

You Republicans want your cake, and eat it too. You're full of ideals, but with no solutions, and no grasp of what is a practical, reasonable approach. <font color="blue"> In the famous words of Ronald Reagan, 'Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem'. </font color>

Abortion is legal in this country, and many other countries. It has always been, and will always be, it's not a matter of "IF" but how it will be performed. You'd sooner see women forced into following your opinion, than their own, and sooner see them bleeding to death from self performed coat hanger abortions? I'm almost afraid to ask someone like you such questions. <font color="blue"> I cannot prevent people from being self-destructive but it would be better from everyone if society worked consistently to promote good behavior generally instead of pre-approving what everybody knows is leading in the wrong direction. </font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

sack316
01-13-2008, 10:52 PM
I think I have a lot to reply to here, so forgive me if this gets disorganized as well as my laziness as far as including quotes. But here goes:

First I want to clarify that NO, I do not personally like things like this, nor do I support it. And the same goes for abortion... I PERSONALLY do not agree with it, but at the same time understand that it is currently the right of the mother to choose. Not my place to say what is right or wrong for her reguardless of my personal feelings on the matter. it is, after all, her right.

So for the same token, while I feel that allowing a child to suffer and/or die is a horrendous thing... I cannot impose my personal religious or societal beliefs upon another in that situation. In a round about way I suppose we can say that different religions have various burial and funeral services for the deceased. While some of these would seem crazy and like a desecration of the dead body, others find it personally acceptable. Either way we all seem to accept this as freedom of their religious choice. The only difference being is that the particular religious choice in question in this thread is much more emotional and personal to us all. While it is on a much higher level, in theory it is still the same... freedom of a particular religious practice and or belief.

Sonoma said "I can't think of anything sadder or more painful for a parent than to lose a child. If as a parent you could have done something to prevent it and didn't? That's a burden I would never want to have to carry."

True enough and on a personal level I agree entirely. It would absolutely crush ME. But what I was getting at earlier is what about them . Certainly their child suffering and dying is not a pleasant thing. But they will find some form of peace eventually in knowing the child will go to heaven to be with the God of their understanding. Were they to be forced to give medical care that is not in accordance with their religion, what effect then would it have on the family unit as a whole knowing that their child may be banished from their church and doomed to eternal damnation? I don't know the specifics of the particular beliefs, but the previous statement is more of a hypothetical than factual possiblity. It is easy for you or I to sit on the outside and say "hey, that sh*t aint right, go fix your baby!" but we don't know what their true belief is all about in their heart of hearts. We've portrayed these people in this thread as some sort of heartless animals that laugh easily as their offspring dies... do you honestly think that this could possibly not be the hardest moments of their lives?

Wolfie replied to me saying "Assuming that we are praying to the same God, He approves blood transfusions for many, but not for JW's?
Does that make any sense?"

No, but my assumption was never that we all prayed to the same God, nor should it be anyones assumption that chimes in on this thread. While it sounds easy to say we all pray to that dude "God", the fact is that each religion treats worship and practices of serving that God differently. If we are to really have the right of freedom of religion, how then can we pick and choose what religion actually gets to use this right? As insane as all this junk sounds to all of us that these people are doing... every other religion in the world sounded just as crazy to somebody else at some point along the way (and still does). Hypothetical again: We re-establish prohibition... what then happens in the Catholic church? Would we deny that or would we allow it based on their freedom of religion? I know that's not the best example in the world... but I'm tired and y'all get the point.

Sonoma replied to me: "Children by nature and by law are deemed incapable of making major decisions for themselves - is it fair to the child that the wishes of the adult(s) in charge of their well being are negatively influenced by their faith? Meaning, if medical intervention is denied because it somehow violates the tenets of the parents religious belief and the absence of that medical treatment leads to the death of the child? How is that fair to the child?....I agree with you insofar as a fully informed adult of legal age is concerned. But I disagree firmly when it comes to the treatment of minors. Furthermore, I can't imagine why anyone would find themselves in a position where they would allow their own child to die in order to please their idea of what God wants. IMHO: Any God who would want a parent to let their child die when that child's life could be saved is not worth worshiping"

Indeed you are correct about the rights of the child, and as well as the legal standing as far as their decision making. And again, I do personally agree with you. BUT, what difference then does it make WHICH adult makes the decision for the child? Either A) the parent is allowed the right and the child suffers and/or dies or B) We (meaning you, me, government, Joe Blow, whoever) step in and take away the parents decision and give proper modern medicinal care, and the child either still dies or lives but may lose his place in his family, church, and eternal soul (based on whatever their religious belief may be). So while yes, the parents decision may not be fair to the child... but you also have to take the other half of the medicine and realize that it's possible that ANYBODY's decision may not be fair to the child. What you said in your response is your belief (and again, mine as well), but who are we to say out belief is absolute and right? Were somebody from one of these religions to be on this board right now, they would have redically different views and opinions on this matter. How then could we say ours is correct... how would we KNOW? Is it just because that's how we were raised up to believe what is right or wrong? Because that other person was raised on the other side of the ying yang and feels just as passionately in what he or she believes, and is just as certain that he or she is doing right.

Sonoma then asked: " Sack, would you feel as strongly about '.. appearing righteous in the eyes of their God' if it wasn't the Christian God that was involved? I mean, would you extend the right to worship whatever version of God that you adhered to regardless of the consequences?"

Yes, I actually would. Each person should be afforded to believe in whatever it is they believe in. Could any of us actually give a definition what what the "Christian God" actually is? You and I may both be Christians, but my God may be equated to Buddha in your eyes... even though we are both Christians... there are like a bajillion different Christian faiths is all I'm saying. At any rate, whatever church or faith you belong to and believe in... is it not supposed to be your fundamental right to practice your faith? Again, I believe completely differently than these people do... but I also realize it is way beyond my place to tell them what to do with their immortal souls.

There is a big difference in being abusive/neglectful/amoral/etc., and having a different faith. Again, is this stuff horrible and tragic? Of course it is. But we shouldn't be so closed minded in thinking that the way we percieve things should be the ONLY way to believe. We put our faith in people with white coats, little pills, and needles. They put their faith in their God and (I'm assuming) some kind of holistic healer. Just as we wonder how they can allow their people and children to suffer and die at the hands of their faith... they likely wonder how you and I can allow ourselves to risk our's and our children's lives on the operating table and a colored-pill-cocktail. We wonder why they don't just use modern medicine... they wonder why we don't just let go and let God.

I won't say there should be no repricussions at all, I'm just saying maybe we should try to understand.

And FINALLY:

Gayle said: "The parents of these children should be prosecuted for murder."

And the republican side eeks it's head out just a little bit /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sack

p.s. hope that all made some sort of sense lol

Gayle in MD
01-14-2008, 07:14 AM
I enjoyed you post, friend, but I'd like to add something here.

We do have laws about how parents treat their children. these kinds of religious situations have been ruled upon, a number of times, and deemed to fall into the category of child abuse, and parental negligence.

One thing about organized religion that really makes me furious, (One of many, I might add) is when people use their religious dogma to attack our laws. Our founders were brilliant, and hence, they formed a secular society, where church and state were to be separated. Regardless of how anyone might feel about these horrible actions, or failures to take action, in the best interests of their children's health, and good care, our legal system has the last word, and the main basis for a functioning, lawful and peaceful society, is the legal enforcment of our laws, hence, my statement, that those parents you highlight, should be prosecuted for murder.

One branch of my family practice Christian Science. I watched my cousin, a grown woman, die from skin cancer, a horrible death, over a condition that could have been so easily cured. Such personal experiences in my life cause me to question those who maintain that organized religion accomplishes more good than bad. I will never agree with that platform. It does not match my observations at all, and the examples where religious belief is used to justify anything, and everything, from child abuse, to murder, I believe gives us ample proof. Here we have posters right on this site who admire those religious fanatics who blow up abortion clinics,... fundamentalists radicals. I see no difference between that kind of authoritarian fundalmentalist philosophy, and the fundalmentalist terrorists who follow bin Laden.

No religious belief gives one the right to break the laws of our land. Those who have been brain washed with radical religious dogma, to think otherwise, are quite ill, IMO, and truly need psychological help.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
01-14-2008, 08:07 AM
good post gayle. And please do note that I did say that I didn't think there should be no repercussions... I simply wanted to put both sides of the thinking out there. That it sounds so evil and rediculous to you and I, but the intent behind these particular situations is far from being malicious abuse. Whether we call it ignorance, stupidity, being brainwashed, or simply a less popular way to believe... it is not abuse or neglect for the sake of abusing and neglecting.

And yes there have been rulings on such issues before, and some rulings have gone both in favor of the laws against child abuse while others have supported the rights of religious beliefs. If there indeed were a cut and dry precedent set in such a case, we wouldn't even be having this thread as it is. It would be about a thread on how the parents are on death row or serving life/whatever.

Not to take the thread in the direction... BUT if the best interests in the well being, health, and well being of our children is best decided ultimately by our government, how then may we have such complaints on the educational programs and system laid out now (for example). We really shouldn't decide the government is right when it does something we agree with, yet in the same instance wrong because we don't like a result. Just a thought.

And sorry about your friend. I , too, have known people who have suffered unnecessarily (IMO) due to their religious beliefs. As sad and as hard as it may be personally to see it, I at the same time had to understand that though they hurt physically for what appeared to be no reason TO ME, that spiritually THEY FELT cleansed and as if they were doing what their God intended.

Sack

Gayle in MD
01-14-2008, 09:06 AM
I wasn't aware that the courts had ever ruled in favor of parents denying their children medical care on the basis of religious beliefs.

I'd be interested in any other information you might have on this, if any.

I've always felt that most issues, regardless of which side one subscribes to, have extremes on both sides of current opinion, and that the logic usually resides somewhere in the middle, or grey area.

Some things, to me atleast, such as an individual's right to take their own life and end what will only be more un-necessary suffering before sure death, for example, or in the case of the lady in Florida, her name escapes me at the moment, senior moment, since there were opposing sides, hjer parents, and her husband, must be decided by the law.

Once you marry, your husband has the say in such matters, but when it comes to children, I always thought that child protection laws would prevail. Established laws, are usualy the key in settling these kinds of issues, which is why we had to send back the little Cuban boy in Florida, to his legal father, even though most Americans felt he would be better off here, than in Cuba.

I think whatever the case, or the legal ruling, the fact that our laws are what assure us of a civilized society, must be respected.

I find it very hard to think that a court would not see the denial of medicine for an ill or potentially dying child, as child abuse, regardless of the religious dogma on the subject. Reality must be as compelling as dogma, one would think. I do look at such ideology which would support such a conclusion on the basis of religion, as ignorance. We know the child will die, that is a medical certainty, we do not know what happens after that, and hence, whether the pain, suffering and ultimate death, will be for any good purpose. Again, faith, is just that, a belief in the unknown and unprovable, and can only exist through a determination to suspend critical judgement. I didn't realize the our court system would subscribe to that kind of suspension. I learn something new everyday, but don't always like what I learn. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Anyway, I enjoyed the debate.

Gayle in Md.

S0Noma
01-14-2008, 10:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr>
First I want to clarify that NO, I do not personally like things like this, nor do I support it. And the same goes for abortion... I PERSONALLY do not agree with it, but at the same time understand that it is currently the right of the mother to choose. Not my place to say what is right or wrong for her reguardless of my personal feelings on the matter. it is, after all, her right.

So for the same token, while I feel that allowing a child to suffer and/or die is a horrendous thing... I cannot impose my personal religious or societal beliefs upon another in that situation. In a round about way I suppose we can say that different religions have various burial and funeral services for the deceased. While some of these would seem crazy and like a desecration of the dead body, others find it personally acceptable. Either way we all seem to accept this as freedom of their religious choice. The only difference being is that the particular religious choice in question in this thread is much more emotional and personal to us all. While it is on a much higher level, in theory it is still the same... freedom of a particular religious practice and or belief.

<font color="blue">No it's not. The freedom to practice one's preferred religious rituals regarding funerals is not the same as sacrificing the life of one's child due to rejecting medical aid. No way - no how. </font color>

Sonoma said "I can't think of anything sadder or more painful for a parent than to lose a child. If as a parent you could have done something to prevent it and didn't? That's a burden I would never want to have to carry."

True enough and on a personal level I agree entirely. It would absolutely crush ME. But what I was getting at earlier is what about them . Certainly their child suffering and dying is not a pleasant thing. But they will find some form of peace eventually in knowing the child will go to heaven to be with the God of their understanding.

<font color="blue">Sack, with all due respect, there is absolutely no proof of 'heaven' and hence no possible guarantee that a child who dies due to benign medical neglect is 'going there'. </font color>

Were they to be forced to give medical care that is not in accordance with their religion, what effect then would it have on the family unit as a whole knowing that their child may be banished from their church and doomed to eternal damnation?

<font color="blue">Once again, there is no proof of eternal damnation so fear of it does not justify letting a child die when medical aid could save them. As to your concerns that the child might be rejected by the practitioners of it's parents chosen faith because laws governing child abuse forced them to seek help? Just how wrong headed and petty is that? Children are not capable of informed consent. They are not capable of 'choosing a religion'. They are not capable of demanding medical attention over the objections of their parents. Hence they can not be held accountable if medical aid is provided -

Above everything else, they are NOT material possessions of their parents to do with as the parents wish. I have raised four children. Not once during their upbringing would I have considered starving them to death because of my devout belief in the benefits of fasting. Not once would I have let ANY of my philosophical leanings put them in harm's way. There is no excuse for parents who do allow their religious or superstitious beliefs to take precedence over the physical well-being of their children. </font color>

I don't know the specifics of the particular beliefs, but the previous statement is more of a hypothetical than factual possiblity. It is easy for you or I to sit on the outside and say "hey, that sh*t aint right, go fix your baby!" but we don't know what their true belief is all about in their heart of hearts. We've portrayed these people in this thread as some sort of heartless animals that laugh easily as their offspring dies... do you honestly think that this could possibly not be the hardest moments of their lives?

<font color="blue">Of course it's hard on them and there is no doubt that they aren't gloating or pleased with the outcome. This is still no excuse for giving them permission to cow-tow to their superstitious delusions at the expense of their children. </font color>


No, but my assumption was never that we all prayed to the same God, nor should it be anyones assumption that chimes in on this thread. While it sounds easy to say we all pray to that dude "God", the fact is that each religion treats worship and practices of serving that God differently. If we are to really have the right of freedom of religion, how then can we pick and choose what religion actually gets to use this right? As insane as all this junk sounds to all of us that these people are doing... every other religion in the world sounded just as crazy to somebody else at some point along the way (and still does). Hypothetical again: We re-establish prohibition... what then happens in the Catholic church? Would we deny that or would we allow it based on their freedom of religion? I know that's not the best example in the world... but I'm tired and y'all get the point.

<font color="blue">You need to step back from this for a moment and consider that what you are advocating is that regardless of how someone wishes to express their belief in a higher power that it should be permitted without limitation. I agree with you with one striking difference. I do not believe that anyone's practice of religion should carry with it the right to do harm to others and in this case 'others' includes minor children who cannot make decisions for themselves. </font color>


Indeed you are correct about the rights of the child, and as well as the legal standing as far as their decision making. And again, I do personally agree with you. BUT, what difference then does it make WHICH adult makes the decision for the child? Either A) the parent is allowed the right and the child suffers and/or dies or B) We (meaning you, me, government, Joe Blow, whoever) step in and take away the parents decision and give proper modern medicinal care, and the child either still dies or lives but may lose his place in his family, church, and eternal soul (based on whatever their religious belief may be). So while yes, the parents decision may not be fair to the child... but you also have to take the other half of the medicine and realize that it's possible that ANYBODY's decision may not be fair to the child.

<font color="blue">First and foremost you're concerns about a child dying or losing it's 'family, church and eternal soul' are easily answered. Once again, I say children cannot make informed decisions. Once they are of adult age they can chose to practice any religion they wish. It's a false assumption to imagine that simply because a child is born into a family that practices a particular flavor of religion that they will be married to that religion for the remainder of their lives. Many people change religions once they are give an opportunity to learn the alternatives and some even quit believing altogether. Concerns about family harmony are legitimate but, once again, if medical aid is sought due to legal restraints? How can the family hold the child accountable for having chosen? That would be ridiculous. </font color>

Sonoma then asked: " Sack, would you feel as strongly about '.. appearing righteous in the eyes of their God' if it wasn't the Christian God that was involved? I mean, would you extend the right to worship whatever version of God that you adhered to regardless of the consequences?"

Yes, I actually would. Each person should be afforded to believe in whatever it is they believe in. Could any of us actually give a definition what what the "Christian God" actually is? You and I may both be Christians, but my God may be equated to Buddha in your eyes... even though we are both Christians... there are like a bajillion different Christian faiths is all I'm saying. At any rate, whatever church or faith you belong to and believe in... is it not supposed to be your fundamental right to practice your faith? Again, I believe completely differently than these people do... but I also realize it is way beyond my place to tell them what to do with their immortal souls.

<font color="blue">You keep coming at this thing as if somethings are givens. Like the concept of 'immortal souls' for example. In spite of the fact that you and many others in this country may believe firmly that such a thing is real - there remains no concrete proof that it does. Hence, using such a concept to justify why it's okay to allow a sick child to die is false on it's face. Truth is that there is nothing that excuses a responsible parent from letting their superstitions over rule the right of their children to be given life saving medical treatment.

Nothing. </font color>


I won't say there should be no repricussions at all, I'm just saying maybe we should try to understand.


Sack

p.s. hope that all made some sort of sense lol

<hr /></blockquote>

Deeman3
01-14-2008, 10:52 AM
My father was a Christian Scientist for about 10 years when I was between about 7 and 17. He choose not to have medical care during that time but never, ever tried to keep us from getting all the medical attention we needed or requested. As far as I knew, this was the norm in the church aside from the well-publicised accounts of the extreamists in the religeon.

I do agree with Gayle (figure that) that the welfare of the children is the business of us all and that government has a responsibility to step in when the abused have no advocates. The sad thing is that many caes go unreported and many times much damage is done while these kids are neglected. Again, it is a very, very small percentage of them that are effected.

A crack whore's children probably get little health care for different reasons but, again, the state must step in in these cases.

I think we have to put the boundary at freedom of religeon where harm is not done to people who have no empowerment to help themselves or that harm others, i.e. cutting off opponent's heads, teaching your kids to strap on bombs.

wolfdancer
01-14-2008, 01:43 PM
If one's religion does not allow for medical treatment, because of God's dictates....how then do they reconcile the fact that the same God allows for others to be helped?
My own religion calls for the beheading of chickens, and drinking the blood, while performing the sacred 7 virgins ceremony, but only after ingesting copious amounts of peyote, mescaline, or if they are out of season...crack cocaine. We allow for medical intervention, but only after everyone has had a chance to leave before the cops get there, God willing!!!!

S0Noma
01-14-2008, 01:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> How many orphans have you adopted? Are you willing to have your taxesdoubled so we can provide health care, education, shelter, food and clothing for millions of unwanted children? <font color="blue"> I cannot believe you are justifying killing babies for economic reasons. I knew you lefties were without any sense of right and wrong so why not just kill all the poor people and be done with it. It is the case, however, that any society needs thier young to maintain viability and are sources of future wealth unless you make them wards of the state as the left is wont to do

<font color="green">Your opinions about wards of the state are understood. You still didn't address Gayle's point. What do we do with these millions of unwanted babies? Expect the mothers who do not want them to raise them and provide them with a loving two parent home regardless of their capacity to do so?

Get real - let's cut to the chase - what do we do with those kids if we do away with abortion? Whose going to raise them and how are they going to do it? Please don't respond with some idealized version of 'how it should be' - let's talk instead of how it is. Those babies are unwanted and unplanned for. Whose going to raise them and give them the care they need to grow into productive adults? You? The rest of the anti-abortionists out there? Who? Furthermore, how? </font color> </font color>

I'm quite sure that you, Ed, and the other right wing <font color="blue"> What conservatives would like is for people to take care of themselves and their families within the rule of law as opposed to the welfare/nanny state that is being built for us and its obscene consequences. </font color>

<font color="green">I appreciate the fact that conservatives might 'like' to see this happen. But we're talking about the reality of what is - and the reality of what is for these carrying babies that they don't want is that their only alternative is to bear the child into a world that doesn't want them. Why would you think this was a better solution? Bringing humans into our society without the prospect of being fed and sheltered and loved and educated is the worst kind of insanity.

I think there's two parts to this anti-abortion thing - the first part involves putting an end to something that you all agree is horrible and the second part is providing a means to raise these unwanted babies so that they grow up healthy and loved.

What is your solution? Certainly it's not so simple as forcing women to have babies they don't want and then leaving them on their own to take care of the unwanted child? No way, right? </font color>

<font color="blue"> I cannot prevent people from being self-destructive but it would be better from everyone if society worked consistently to promote good behavior generally instead of pre-approving what everybody knows is leading in the wrong direction. </font color>

<font color="green">Sorry to have to break this to you, but people have been practicing unsafe sex since the beginning of mankind. You cannot make it stop simply because you find it morally wrong. Recent examples of such failed efforts are the government supported abstinence programs.

How much evidence do you need to prove to you that people aren't going to quit having unsafe sex just because they've been told not to? Unwanted pregnancy is not going to go away. You want to stop abortion? Come up with a plan to take care of all the babies - and I mean take care of them - from the moment they're born until they are of legal age. Whose going to do that? </font color>

<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
01-14-2008, 02:24 PM
Sonoma, I think you should pause and try to visualize the perfect world through the eyes of the right.
The basic concepts are from Plato:
"The Analogy of the Ideal Republic. After Thrasymachus leaves in a royal huff, Socrates starts the question all over again. If one could decide what a just state is like, one could use that as an analogy for a just person. Plato then embarks on a long exposition about how a state might embody the four great virtues: courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice. The remainder of the dialogue is a long exposition of what justice in a state is; this section is considered one of the first major, systematic expositions of abstract political theory . This type of thinking, that is, speculating about an ideal state or republic, is called "utopian" thinking (utopia is a Greek word which means "no-place").

Plato (speaking through Socrates) divides human beings up based on their innate intelligence, strength, and courage. Those who are not overly bright, or strong, or brave, are suited to various productive professions: farming, smithing, building, etc. Those who are somewhat bright, strong, and especially courageous are suited to defensive and policing professions. Those who are extraordinarily intelligent, virtuous, and brave, are suited to run the state itself; that is, Plato's ideal state is an aristocracy, a Greek word which means "rule by the best." The lower end of human society, which, as far as Plato is concerned, consists of an overwhelming majority of people in a state, he calls the "producers," since they are most suited for productive work. The middle section of society, a smaller but still large number of people, make up the army and the police and are called "Auxiliaries." The best and the brightest, a very small and rarefied group, are those who are in complete control of the state permanently; Plato calls these people "Guardians." In the ideal state, "courage" characterizes the Auxiliaries; "wisdom" displays itself in the lives and government of the Guardians. A state may be said to have "temperance" if the Auxiliaries obey the Guardians in all things and the Producers obey the Auxiliaries and Guardians in all things. A state may be said to be intemperate if any of the lower groups do not obey one of the higher groups. A state may be said to be just if the Auxiliaries do not simply obey the Guardians, but enjoy doing so, that is, they don't grumble about the authority being exercised over them; a just state would require that the Producers not only obey the Auxiliaries and Guardians, but that they do so willingly."
Yes, in this perfect world, the producers, unshackled from unionism, would labor both freely and willingly for their Auxiliaries "Hi, how may I help you?"
They would not want, nor dare to want, instead pray for a little "tinkle down", and do so gladly.

bsmutz
01-14-2008, 02:54 PM
Food for further thought and discussion: Is it better to die being sucked from the womb or freezing to death in a dumpster behind Piggly Wiggly? How about starving to death? How about being eaten by rats?
I watched a show last night about Hillbillys. The last part of the show was about a religious sect that handles poisonous snakes as a big part of their religious ceremonies. One of the head dudes that they talked to had been bitten over 160 times and it seemed like his hands didn't work so good. The founder of this sect ended up dying from a snake bite (coroner called it suicide). Dying from a snake bite was just as significant to them as not dying from a snake bite (for some unfathomable to me reason). Anyway, they went on to point out that this religious practice was banned in every state except West Virginia. The number of practitioners that had died didn't seem to be all that significant (100 or so).
What if God told you that He was pissed off at the human race and that He was appointing you to gather up a group of true believers to wipe humanity from the face of the earth in any manner deemed necessary to carry out His work? Would that religion be acceptable to practice?

Deeman3
01-14-2008, 03:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>What if God told you that He was pissed off at the human race and that He was appointing you to gather up a group of true believers to wipe humanity from the face of the earth in any manner deemed necessary to carry out His work? Would that religion be acceptable to practice? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Is that not what Islam is about doing right now with the possible exception of their particular sect at any given moment? </font color>

eg8r
01-14-2008, 03:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What would be the outcome for our society if we ended the practice of abortion entirely?

Who would take care of all those unwanted kids? <hr /></blockquote> I don't know the outcome, no one does, only speculation but I think life would carry on just as it always has. I thought the issue was the care given to the kids. These parents are doing what they "think" is everything they can and I disagree with what they are doing, but I find it hypocritical of one to be pro-choice to have a problem with how these parents care for their children.

eg8r

llotter
01-14-2008, 07:37 PM
First, let say that I appreciate the honesty of your questions and that you resist the cheap shots.

Quote:
Get real - let's cut to the chase - what do we do with those kids if we do away with abortion? Whose going to raise them and how are they going to do it? Please don't respond with some idealized version of 'how it should be' - let's talk instead of how it is. Those babies are unwanted and unplanned for. Whose going to raise them and give them the care they need to grow into productive adults? You? The rest of the anti-abortionists out there? Who? Furthermore, how?


<font color="blue"> Conservatives believe that people should take care of themselves means that how people, beyond my family and friends, solve their problem is not for me to determine. Planning everyone's life for them is not what it means to live in a free society so, you question about what I would do, is inappropriate. Central planning is the essence of the socialist model and the attempts are ALWAYS doomed in addition to being antithetical to freedom. In the 50s, there was no welfare support systems and there was not the problems you suggest. You have too little faith in the ability of your fellow citizens to take care of themselves within the rule of law...a very elitist position. It might just be that if people had the responsibility on their own shoulders, they would act in responsible ways. In fact, that has been our history.
</font color>

Quote:
I appreciate the fact that conservatives might 'like' to see this happen. But we're talking about the reality of what is <font color="blue">This is a reality that the left has created with their ongoing revolt against our traditions since the 60s. Undermining religion as hokum, undermining personal responsibility with welfarism, undermining values with non-judgemental multi-culturalism, 'free love' and 'if it feels good, do it' ethos.</font color> - and the reality of what is for these carrying babies that they don't want is that their only alternative is to bear the child into a world that doesn't want them. Why would you think this was a better solution? Bringing humans into our society without the prospect of being fed and sheltered and loved and educated is the worst kind of insanity. <font color="blue"> There is no question that what you describe is a deplorable situation but the solution is not more of the same. The solution is the reversing of the policies that created the situation in the first place. If everyone admits that what is really needed is strong, responsible, two parent families, why do we continue doing everything to undermine it, especially when the negative consequences are so evident. </font color>

Quote:
I think there's two parts to this anti-abortion thing - the first part involves putting an end to something that you all agree is horrible and the second part is providing a means to raise these unwanted babies so that they grow up healthy and loved.
<font color="blue"> Again, I cannot emphasize strongly enough, this undermining of personal responsibility is what CAUSES people to act irresponsibly. The ideal is for families to raise their own kids and if, as a society, we stopped condoning bad behavior, we may not get it down to zero but we can get it down to where charity can handle it as it did until recently. </font color>

Quote:
Sorry to have to break this to you, but people have been practicing unsafe sex since the beginning of mankind. You cannot make it stop simply because you find it morally wrong. Recent examples of such failed efforts are the government supported abstinence programs. <font color="blue"> There is no doubt it can't be reduced to zero, but if the large majority could agree that we are now teaching the wrong lessons and start teaching the right ones, I have no doubt very significant progress could be made toward undoing much of the damage that has been done. Frankly, I simply can't comprehend why those on the left refuse to recognize the connection between all those liberal policies from the 60s on, and this terrible situation when it seems so obvious. It won't be easy, but we must start undoing most of the policies that undermine personal responsibility if there is any hope of rebuilding the family and the behavior necessary to support a free society.</font color>

How much evidence do you need to prove to you that people aren't going to quit having unsafe sex just because they've been told not to? <font color="blue">Right, people aren't going to quit having immature sex...as long as society condons it, teaches it, pays for it and ganerally laughs at those who warn of the terrible cost of such activity and policies. </font color> Unwanted pregnancy is not going to go away. You want to stop abortion? Come up with a plan to take care of all the babies - and I mean take care of them - from the moment they're born until they are of legal age. Whose going to do that? <font color="blue"> Stop planning everyone's life and you'll find out just how freedom will win the in a very competitive world. As I've mentioned elsewhere, abortion is only 'legal' under the 'color of law' but goes against the 'laws of Nature and Nature's God' and therefore is against the 'rule of law'. Insuring the 'rule of law' prevails is the duty of citizenship in a free and civil society. The only planning I would like to be a part of is how to reverse the policies and undo the damage the Left has caused as fast as possilbe...even though 'fast' may take a long time, we need to get on the right track.</font color>

Gayle in MD
01-14-2008, 08:42 PM
Your beliefs are contradictory to the point of bordering on insanity. Where do you get this idea that "The Left" is at the epicenter of unwanted pregnancies, and unsafe sex. Not every unwanted pregnancy is the result of teenaged participants. Wasn't it one of your Republican Senators who was caught paying for his wife's abortion with his personal check. I dare say, he was far from his teen years, as was his wife.

Medical science has provided us with the means to abort a fetus before it can be seen with the human eye. The morning after pill, for example, would prevent many unwanted pregnancies, if not for the interference of George Bush, and the religious right in this country.

Education would provide teen with the information to protect and prevent not only teen pregnancies, but many STD's, if not for the religious right, insisting that knowledge which does not lead all others to their own sorry condition of unrealistic, faulty thinking, is against their special ability to know what is right and wrong for everyone else that lives and breaths.

I am surely tired of this mantra of the right, that everyone should take care of themselves, as though saying it, will magically produce a society in which self love and protection will automatically result.

We live in a country where psychological help is not available to people on most medical insurance programs. I suppose you think that all those who suffer from various forms of self hate, people whose parents were not well adjusted, and hence were absent the parenting tools to teach their children how to love and protect themselves, should also take care of themselves, except they do not have that ability.

I hear this philosophy of taking care of oneself all the time from the right, even when they see people on building tops after disasters, without water or food, begging for help, the right is right there, poni=tificating about how stupid they were, how if they had plann everything out correctly, they wouldn't be in the situation in which they found themselves.

Well I'm here to tell you, life isn't like that. Things happen, which are not planned for, and which all the planning in the world, cannot prevent. One of those instances, is sex between a man and a woman. No, we're not animals, but we're not angels, either. We're human, and being such does not automatically provide each of us with perfect judgement, at every moment of our lives.

[ QUOTE ]
As I've mentioned elsewhere, abortion is only 'legal' under the 'color of law' <font color="red">There are no colors in the law, the law is what it is, and we are all bound to abide by it, even George Bush, is bound to abide by it. </font color> but goes against the 'laws of Nature and Nature's God' <font color="red">Nature has no God, God is one thing, and nature is quite another. </font color> and therefore is against the 'rule of law'. <font color="red">This statement is illogical, to say the least. You are shaking issues up in a bag, and changing their meanings, and at the end of it all, your statements are false. </font color> Insuring the 'rule of law' prevails is the duty of citizenship in a free and civil society. The only planning I would like to be a part of is how to reverse the policies and undo the damage the Left has caused as fast as possilbe... <font color="red">Again, you should stop using false statements. The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America, is not THE LEFT. Please stop suggesting that it is. </font color> even though 'fast' may take a long time, we need to get on the right track.

<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">And you alone shall be the determining factor in deciding what the right track is, I suppose?

Societies have issues and problems, and the courts, have the power to enforce the rule of law, and the laws are created by those who represent the citzenry, and where there exists controveray, the Supreme Court, determines for the courts which remedy will best represent the philosophy of the country. Instead of blaming everything you personally deem as irresponsibility, and sinful, as the rule which all others must follow, why not try to grasp the notion, that what is YOUR reality, is not EVERYONE"S reality, and the courts, not the left, have ruled on the subject of abortion. You are very confused about how our country works, but since you conservatives have such difficulty with definitions, it is no surprise.

Gayle in Md. </font color>

sack316
01-14-2008, 09:13 PM
Let me say I've really enjoyed this topic guys. It's been a really good debate and one of the most different ones we've had in a while! And everyone who has contributed has added something of value. Awesome!

This reply will be to Sonoma's last response to me:

My friend, I think that somehow you have entirely missed the points I was presenting. Of course there is no proof that such a heaven or even a God exists, that's why it is faith... that's why it is religion. So my statements were not made based on an assumption that these things exist so therefore the actions of these parents in question are justifiable, it's quite to the contrary. My statements were made with the knowledge that we DO NOT know what (if anything) is out there... and as such we have a cornucopia of different beliefs of which nobody KNOWS for certain is right or wrong. Hence the reason our founding fathers allowed for a freedom of choice in our religious beliefs. And yes these people may still be held accountable from a legal standpoint... there is no real and factual basis on which to come to the conclusion that they are "wrong". Because you or I, and 99% of the world may believe one thing... it doesn't necessarily mean the remaining 1% would be wrong. Again I personally think this is a horrible thing. As do all of us on this board including you. And I'm pretty sure we're right in that, but how do we really KNOW? And using your point exacly... how is it that any of us could possibly know given that we don't even KNOW what God is out there (again, if any)?

The way you raised your children sounds right to me. As well does Deeman's upbringing with his father not forcing them to live the exact way he did. Again, that all sounds good and right to me and you. BUT, do you not realize how may other beliefs are out there? And that NOT EVERYONE feels and thinks in the same way that we do. And that in their minds and hearts their way of living is as right and "normal" as anything that we do? What if the functions of society in this instance were polar opposites. What if our society was a faith healing based community, and it was illegal to accept modern medical care. Would you then go by that and do as society and the government wished, or would you rush your children to a black market real doctor or another community to give them what we currently deem "proper" care. Just based on your responses thus far, I feel it a safe bet that you would buck the system in that case and tend to your herd in the ways that YOU believe... reguardless of what the world nearest you would say at the time. And right or wrong, that's just what these people are doing... or not doing as the case may be.

What you refer to as cow-towing to their "superstitious delusions" only shows your closed mindedness on the matter, as what you call superstitious delusions is a very real and faith based belief to many other people. You are allowing yourself to be fully emotionally affected by the fact that it is children suffering and judging based on your emotion (FYI, that is not a knock on you, it is very understandable actually). But what that is doing is making you (for lack of a better term) intolerant in every way to what they think. Not that you should tolerate something you find so repulsive, but your mind should at least be open to some sort of understanding of the "why" to the situation, and not just the what happened part.

And no, nobody's practice of religion should be something that does harm to others. But what they believe does not quantify any malicious intent of harm. Their belief is that the child will be healed by God... as misinformed as that may seem to us, it is still is what they believe. Even any modern medicine causes some form of harm to the body... albeit that many are extremely minor in relation, at any rate some form of harm is done anytime you take a pill, go under the knife, whatever. Though this harm is designed to be a lesser harm than the ailment it is curing, sometimes a greater harm is indeed done. But the INTENT was not to cause the greater harm. See the correlation?

"How can the family hold the child accountable for having chosen? That would be ridiculous."

Most religion is rediculous if you really look at it. But the fact remains that there are religions that would have to "put out" someone who goes against their wishes... reguardless of their reasons. I don't agree with it, but it's the way it is. But really, isn't thinking a dude died and rose from the grave rediculous too? Not so much for us because that's what we believe in... but thinking from the outside looking in it sounds pretty crazy. As does reincarnation and many other beliefs. How logical or rediculous something sounds has nothing to do with religion. If it did we probably would all be atheists.

"You keep coming at this thing as if somethings are givens. Like the concept of 'immortal souls' for example. In spite of the fact that you and many others in this country may believe firmly that such a thing is real - there remains no concrete proof that it does. Hence, using such a concept to justify why it's okay to allow a sick child to die is false on it's face. Truth is that there is nothing that excuses a responsible parent from letting their superstitions over rule the right of their children to be given life saving medical treatment."

You are right, and also the converse for that matter is true based on what you said. I am not assuming anything is given, which is why I am able to debate from a side I do not agree with. You on the other hand are assuming what you know and believe is a given. For the reasons you stated, you would be correct in saying one cannot use such a conept to justify why it's ok to allow a sick child to die, the other side would be just as correct for the exact same reasons to say that you cannot use such a concept to force medical care against the families religious beliefs. I mean really, just think about it.

Again, let me clarify that I do not condone or agree with what these people did. As I said earlier, I am simply presenting what would be a debate from the other side. I know what I believe is right or wrong (in this case, I believe it is wrong), but I am open minded enough to know that what I believe is nothing more than just that.

Sack

sack316
01-14-2008, 09:23 PM
Quick little P.S. here:

Gayle I'm working on finding some of those cases for you. Was a lot easier when I used to work at a law firm /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif but I honestly do recall instances where ruling went in the favor of the parents... I recall because I remember thinking how crazy and stupid it was when I read about it lol. And I know there is a ton of law out there, but going back to basics "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yes sure other laws provide the grey line in this instance, but for the purposes of what I was getting at earlier... right or wrong that's what it says.

On a seperate note, and this is open to all posters and not directed at any individual... but should insurance companies be held criminally liable for denying medical care? There are many instances of families being cancelled off because of CHILDREN being too expensive to take care of long term. Or the best care is denied for financial reasons, in order to provide a cheaper but less effective treatment. So then should insurance companies also be prosecuted accordingly? Think, duscuss /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
01-14-2008, 09:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
you would be correct in saying one cannot use such a conept to justify why it's ok to allow a sick child to die, the other side would be just as correct for the exact same reasons to say that you cannot use such a concept to force medical care against the families religious beliefs. I mean really, just think about it.
<hr /></blockquote>

Again, I don't agree, Sack. I believe our laws would protect such children from their ignorant parents.

Do you know of any cases where children who could not speak for themselves, were allowed to die, without court interference?

then, there is the problem of, what if they themselves, were, for example, in their teens, and refused according to what their parents had brain washed them to believe in, would that too not be child abuse?

Watching those Jesus camps, on TV, I can tell you, there was no doubt in my mind that I was witnessing child abuse. Those children were being emotionally abused.

Gayle in Md.

SKennedy
01-14-2008, 10:13 PM
Read this thread late in the game amd missed all that was current....but just wanted to make a few comments. As for neglect of children from parents not seeking or allowing medical help when life threatening, here in Texas an interested party can go before a judge and get court-ordered help in almost every case. My wife worked child protective services for the state of Texas for about 12 years and she worked as a case manager for a major hospital for about 15 years. When these situations arise they have always been able to get a judge to order the appropriate care when life threatening.
My wife can tell some real stories.....and I can remember some late mights when she and others were sifting through dumpsters and at the local landfill going through the garbage looking for new born babies, etc. Children are abused by many people and for many reasons. Unfortunately, the punishment is generally light as our society seems to place more value upon an adult than a child. Punishment for killing an adult is generally always more severe than killing a child. We're not talking politics, party affiliations, social status, race, or religion here. Child abuse cuts across all spectrums. My wife has been in the slum areas and in some of the finest homes in East Texas doing her job. I use to have some misconceptions and thought only poor and uneducated people abuse children. Not so.....it's equal across the board. And it happens much more than you think.

But, you can't go around suspecting everyone either. I've mentioned on here before that I try to evaluate people by their motivations. Pedophiles love to volunteer to be around children.....little league coaches, scout leaders, etc. Again, most of these people are great folks but you have to be aware. Almost always, a child is abused by someone they know. If "Uncle Jack is always so good around the children and always loves watching them...," well keep your eyes open and speak with your children about these things in an age appropriate manner. Another reason why good open communication between kids and parents is so important!

sack316
01-14-2008, 10:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
you would be correct in saying one cannot use such a conept to justify why it's ok to allow a sick child to die, the other side would be just as correct for the exact same reasons to say that you cannot use such a concept to force medical care against the families religious beliefs. I mean really, just think about it.
<hr /></blockquote>

Again, I don't agree, Sack. I believe our laws would protect such children from their ignorant parents.

Do you know of any cases where children who could not speak for themselves, were allowed to die, without court interference?

then, there is the problem of, what if they themselves, were, for example, in their teens, and refused according to what their parents had brain washed them to believe in, would that too not be child abuse?

Watching those Jesus camps, on TV, I can tell you, there was no doubt in my mind that I was witnessing child abuse. Those children were being emotionally abused.

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

agreed with ya there Gayle. Just wanted to point out that what you quoted from me was directed towards certain ways of thinking, and not any laws or cases etc.

Sack

LWW
01-15-2008, 05:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> What if God told you that He was pissed off at the human race and that He was appointing you to gather up a group of true believers to wipe humanity from the face of the earth in any manner deemed necessary to carry out His work? Would that religion be acceptable to practice?<hr /></blockquote>
I would come to the conclusion that if God wanted the human race eliminated he would have no need of me.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-15-2008, 07:56 AM
Gotcha friend, I knew where you were coming from, just offering my view.

Gayle