• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pa. couple face prison after sons' prayer deaths

From OP's link: "Their pastor, Nelson Clark, has said the Schaibles lost their sons because of a "spiritual lack" in their lives and insisted they would not seek medical care even if another child appeared near death."

Perhaps the Pastor should be charged or sued also? I'm not sure because of the first amendment aspect of the situation.

As I recall from another article, this couple hedged their bet on their god's abilities to heal by having nine kids.
 
WCH said:
But, prayer does work and I highly recommend it. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, well I'm not so convinced till I see some peer reviewed studies in renowned medical journals with statistically significant deviation from background.
 
justabubba said:
i would be surprised if there were not large numbers of people who believed they were healed thru prayer
and Lazarus is a name, if you insist on having one


but it is. you raise your children up in your own beliefs
one cannot do that, subscribe to a belief in healing prayer, and then also appeal for medical help you do not believe is the answer. that would undermine your religious teachings to your children
and we all have a right to our personal religious beliefs (or disbeliefs)
there is nothing which indicates these parents acted other than in a consistent way with their personal religious beliefs
we must accept that not only are they are entitled to have their own religious beliefs, they also have the right to act on those beliefs
just as we must accept your own religious beliefs/non-beliefs, no matter how farfetched they seem to us
we must practice tolerance of these religious views and actions of others


while that would not be my choice, i must recognize that these parents are entitled to act on THEIR religious beliefs, no matter how different, or odd they may seem


this is not the same thing
there are many, MANY parents who feed their children crap that is unhealthy for them. look around. but we still recognize that it's the parents' call. they can choose to feed their children unnourishing foods. even worse, those kids are often being fed that crap at taxpayer expense; but that's for another thread discussion
and i would submit that there are parents who are feeding their childrens' minds inane bull ****; much of it religious. but that is the parents' right. the bill or rights says so. for them, and for these parents who tried but were unable to pray away the sickness that afflicted their children
Click to expand...
If genital mutilation or stoning were part of their religious beliefs. Are they still ENTITLED to "act" on their religious beliefs? They allowed their children to die by neglecting to seek medical help. They have zero rights to do or not do what they did.
 
MaggieD said:
I hope they both go to jail.

This is a failure of the system. Perhaps now, if they have any other children, jail or not? They'll lose them.
Click to expand...

They have four other children who have been placed in foster care. I assume there are no other suitable relatives. This is a terrible situation and I hope those children will adjust. Sometimes beliefs are detrimental to the good of people.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, well I'm not so convinced till I see some peer reviewed studies in renowned medical journals with statistically significant deviation from background.
Click to expand...

I can only tell you of my personal experience. Is that peer-reviewed enough?
 
WCH said:
I can only tell you of my personal experience. Is that peer-reviewed enough?
Click to expand...

Nope. Singular personal testimonial is singular personal testimonial not carefully screened for cross-contamination of interpretation. It has to be scientific.
 
HenryChinaski said:
If genital mutilation or stoning were part of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
and no, neither would murder as a religious belief, be found acceptable
but refusing to subscribe to the belief that modern medicine is better for their kids than prayer to their G-d, that's covered under religious freedom
what you or i believe is not at issue. it's what the parents believe. and they acted on their religious beliefs


Are they still ENTITLED to "act" on their religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
while i think teaching one's kids that the earth is 6000 years old and that the Bible is the literal word of G-d is absolute bull****
but if you believe that as a part of your faith then you are entitled to practice your religious beliefs, and spew such stupid misinformation
and ditto for believing that religious prayer is a means to cure a medical condition

They allowed their children to die by neglecting to seek medical help.
Click to expand...
my speculation is they believe G-d allowed their children to die by refusing to answer their prayers. their preacher is now insisting that they were not religious enough to have such prayers answered. it's stupid. i agree. but if stupidity were illegal, a lot of the folks on this forum would be acting illegally; and probably a large portion of the citizens of the USA


They have zero rights to do or not do what they did.
Click to expand...
and here is where we disagree
that thing called the bill of rights, that a lot of people died to establish and maintain; well that legal document says these parents are entitled to their own religious beliefs. and they are. and they acted on them
 
justabubba said:
and no, neither would murder as a religious belief, be found acceptable
but refusing to subscribe to the belief that modern medicine is better for their kids than prayer to their G-d, that's covered under religious freedom
what you or i believe is not at issue. it's what the parents believe. and they acted on their religious beliefs



while i think teaching one's kids that the earth is 6000 years old and that the Bible is the literal word of G-d is absolute bull****
but if you believe that as a part of your faith then you are entitled to practice your religious beliefs, and spew such stupid misinformation
and ditto for believing that religious prayer is a means to cure a medical condition


my speculation is they believe G-d allowed their children to die by refusing to answer their prayers. their preacher is now insisting that they were not religious enough to have such prayers answered. it's stupid. i agree. but if stupidity were illegal, a lot of the folks on this forum would be acting illegally; and probably a large portion of the citizens of the USA



and here is where we disagree
that thing called the bill of rights, that a lot of people died to establish and maintain; well that legal document says these parents are entitled to their own religious beliefs. and they are. and they acted on them
Click to expand...
That would be true if it affected only them. If they refused treatment and relied on prayer so be it, but their freedom stops when it affects the lives of others. You said it would not be OK for them to kill their child in the name of their belief, but where do you draw the line and based on what?
 
PirateMk1 said:
I guess I am gona get jumped on this, but the way I see it, unless the children are old and able enough to declare emancipation of their own free will, the parents have the absolute right to determine what if any medical treatment is appropriate. It is neither your nor my nor the states place to make that determination. These are NOT YOUR children, these children are these parents and they have the burden of responsibility to make these decisions. Would you brook someone second guessing YOUR decisions. I most certainly do not. Especially from the state. The ultimate responsibility lies with the parents. They obviously have very solid belief if they have done this a second time. The family seems to support them and their belief. I don't see this as murder or child abuse, as this works both ways as the state has done far worse far more. Case in point, the case in Massachusetts with Boston medical. Given the choice between the state and the individual I choose the individual every time.

By the way I don't think the order by the court for the parents to seek medical care for their children is lawful as it violates first amendment protections.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you, but appreciate the manner in which you've explained your position.

I wanted to ask you a hypothetical question, if you don't mind. Would you extend your position to cover a child with a severely broken leg, who would spend weeks or months in excruciating pain from an injury that if not properly treated, would cripple the child for life?
 
See im torn on this one


while personally I think the parents are completely mentally retarded and id like to punch them in the face I dont know how i feel legally about this.

I think its a huge gray area.

For me i just have to wonder where the line is at. Who and how do we determine abuse/neglect in cases like these?

If the parents believe that using medicine or doctors would be damning their child and or themselves to hell IMO the legality of this is a tough call.

Personally YES i want to take the kid away and punish them but my personal opinion doesnt matter I look at the legality of it, the rights issue of it.

I mean personally im a christian but i think its insane and abuse to teach a child that the earth is 6000 years old, its insane but again that doesnt mean that legally thier kid should be taken away.

is the line at a place where it means life or death for the child?
severe physical or mental impairment?
minor physical or mental impairment?
severe physical or mental abuse/neglect? (based on what/who)?
minor physical or mental abuse/neglect? (based on what/who)?


what about a religious family that severely mentally and physically abuse thier child because they are gay and tries to get them conversion therapy?
this most definitely would be considered abuse by the AAP and APA can we take them then? states are already banning this abuse therapy.

what about extreme religious people that teach other religions and the people that practice them are evil? IMO that seems like abuse and neglect but thats just my opinion. What system do we use to judge this?

again personally id like to punch these people in the face but so what, if they truly believe that using medicinae would damn them or their child to hell it does make it hard for me to support the law in this case.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
I disagree with you, but appreciate the manner in which you've explained your position.

I wanted to ask you a hypothetical question, if you don't mind. Would you extend your position to cover a child with a severely broken leg, who would spend weeks or months in excruciating pain from an injury that if not properly treated, would cripple the child for life?
Click to expand...

Your not going to like my answer. Yes I would. Religious freedom is a key right we have. Again unless it is demonstrated that the parents are in fact neglecting or abusing their children we have no right to interfere. These parents in particular are by all accounts besides deeply religious also very loving very supportive and caring parents. These parents believe differently than you or I, this means the decisions they will make may be much different then ones you or I may make. As much as people claim that it is neglect here, it most certainly and clearly is NOT, it is a decision clearly made, which is well within their parental rights and responsibilities. The fact you or I would not AGREE with the decision has no bearing on whether or not neglect is involved which clearly in this case there was not. Broken legs can be set without doctors or medical services. Most religions do not proscribe against the setting of bones I am aware of.
 
Ikari said:
All of our rights are subjected to the one constraint that we cannot infringe upon the rights of others in the process. If a person chooses for themselves to not seek medical help, that's one thing. But a child is unable to give consent and the parents not seeking obvious medical care endanger the life of that child, they infringe upon the child's right to life. So then it's right of religious freedom vs. right to life. I think it could be argued that the right to life overrules the right to religious freedom in this case.
Click to expand...

The very act of providing medical care may in fact endanger the lives of those children visa vi misdiagnoses or an illness picked up from the hospital. Again no neglect can be proven. They made a legitimate decision. You or I may not agree on it but the case remains it was legitimate.
 
Top Cat said:
Just as I do your argument.
Click to expand...

And I call yours a fools argument. There is a bigger picture and more at stake then just their rights to make a legitimate decision.
 
joko104 said:
A person can pray for their child without contradicting medical care.

People like to use this to attack religious people. The parents should be charged with child abuse in my opinion. But not for being religious. MANY children die due to parents not taking their child to the doctor. 99% of the time this is because they don't give a damn, are apathetic, are uneducated, don't want to spent the time or money, or it is due to child abuse they caused so don't want doctors involved - having NOTHING to do with religion.

We don't read much of those, yet that is where kids are dying in notable numbers for lack of medical care. The media (and some on this forum) seize on these stories as a way to attack religious people.

As another member noted, pray didn't kill the child. The parents being religious didn't. Pneumonia did and the parents refused to allow it to be treated.

But, as many people declare, they want them to be a SPECIAL case as example to all RELIGIOUS parents - not all parents who don't obtain medical care for their children.
Click to expand...

The reason this is a special case as is all like them as neglect has to be proven which it patently cannot be. There is no neglect. There is a decision that was made that most people seem to disagree with.
 
This couple should have prayed, but also should have had enough discernment to realize that no where in the Bible does it mention not using doctors. In fact, Luke who wrote the 3rd Gospel was a physician.

It is not inconsistent with prayer to do all a person can do besides. That includes seeking medical care when appropriate.
 
HenryChinaski said:
The refused to seek medical attention for life threatening yet treatable conditions. They allowed their children to die due to neglect. Clear as crystal there buddy.
Click to expand...
Wrong. No neglect was present in this case. What is present is a decision which you disagree with. There is a significant difference.
 
Cardinal said:
The first baby died of pneumonia, and it looks as if the second (yes...second) died of that as well. Pneumonia, if you recall, is treatable. People tend not to get killed or maimed by going to the doctor for pneumonia.

Considering that the pastor has said outright that the parents would not seek treatment even if the same thing happened with their third baby (shudder), then this really isn't the thread for you to hang that particular hat on.

You are holding what is popularly known as "an indefensible position." Time to move along.
Click to expand...

You are hanging your hat on the fact there was neglect. There is no hook for which your hat can hang. There was no neglect. it cannot be proven. Medicine is known as a the practice of such, for a reason. It improves your odds of recovering sometimes significantly. It can also decrease your odds of survival too. Its a double edge sword, very much unlike what is being presented by other posters and yourself.
 
prometeus said:
So what you are saying here is that the children are their parents property. Would you draw the line at religious sacrifice? What is the difference? I would also bet that you oppose abortion, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I've answered these questions already, but for your edification I will give the short versions. Abortions are FAMILY decisions. Children are property legally speaking like livestock or pets, with the same rights and responsibilities. Religious sacrifice would be murder and it is unlawful, unless said sacrifice was of age and consented willingly in which case be my guest.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Wrong. No neglect was present in this case. What is present is a decision which you disagree with. There is a significant difference.
Click to expand...
Clear neglect. They refused to act in the best interest of children who they are responsible for. This is no different than allowing them to starve to death or refusing to provide them with clothing and sending them out into the elements and they freeze to death. It's neglect.
 
Texmex said:
This couple should have prayed, but also should have had enough discernment to realize that no where in the Bible does it mention not using doctors. In fact, Luke who wrote the 3rd Gospel was a physician.

It is not inconsistent with prayer to do all a person can do besides. That includes seeking medical care when appropriate.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, these parents do not subscribe to YOUR religious views
but just as you are entitled to your own personal religious beliefs, these parents are entitled to those which differ from yours and mine
 
HenryChinaski said:
Clear neglect. They refused to act in the best interest of children who they are responsible for. This is no different than allowing them to starve to death or refusing to provide them with clothing and sending them out into the elements and they freeze to death. It's neglect.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They WERE acting in the best interests of the children as THEY the parents saw them. You see them differently. This is not neglect even remotely.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Clear neglect.
Click to expand...
nope. these parents acted consistent with their personal faith. they sought healing thru religious prayer

and we must admit that there are times when medical intervention is unsuccessful. why do you not permit the possibility that sometimes religious prayer is similarly unsuccessful in promoting healing

They refused to act in the best interest of children who they are responsible for.
Click to expand...
again, that is certainly not true
they believed - differently than you and i believe - that prayer heals the sick
they believed prayer was in the best interest of their sick children
while you and i do not subscribe to that belief, the parents have a right to hold and act upon their OWN personal religious beliefs. which they did


This is no different than allowing them to starve to death or refusing to provide them with clothing and sending them out into the elements and they freeze to death. It's neglect.
Click to expand...
this is very much not the same thing
deal with the matter at hand rather than constructing strawmen, which have no bearing in this matter
 
justabubba said:
nope. these parents acted consistent with their personal faith. they sought healing thru religious prayer

and we must admit that there are times when medical intervention is unsuccessful. why do you not permit the possibility that sometimes religious prayer is similarly unsuccessful in promoting healing


again, that is certainly not true
they believed - differently than you and i believe - that prayer heals the sick
they believed prayer was in the best interest of their sick children
while you and i do not subscribe to that belief, the parents have a right to hold and act upon their OWN personal religious beliefs. which they did



this is very much not the same thing
deal with the matter at hand rather than constructing strawmen, which have no bearing in this matter
Click to expand...
DENYING them medical treatment for treatable life saving illnesses IS NOT acting in their best interest and IS neglect and the court agrees with that fact. They are irresponsible and UNFIT parent's. They used zero common sense and they have two dead children because of that lack of common sense.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I've answered these questions already, but for your edification I will give the short versions. Abortions are FAMILY decisions. Children are property legally speaking like livestock or pets, with the same rights and responsibilities. Religious sacrifice would be murder and it is unlawful, unless said sacrifice was of age and consented willingly in which case be my guest.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply and the clarifications. Sorry, I was not aware of the prior answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom