• 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

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...

actually its subjective all one can say is they have an OPINION on whether there was neglect, You can not say he was wrong nor can he say you are wrong.

neglect in general is subjective and a opinion

legally it was neglect but should it be?
 
PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

again same thing i already pointed out you dont get to make that call at all

there are women beaters that are convinced they beat thier women out of love and to teach them they see no neglect or abuse in what they do but that doesnt mean there was none present and this is the very thing that makes the discussion and where to draw the line on children even possible
 
I can't believe anyone is actually defending these people.

The idea that children are property like livestock is laughable to the point of absurdity. For starters, you can sell or eat your livestock.
 
Kobie said:
I can't believe anyone is actually defending these people.

The idea that children are property like livestock is laughable to the point of absurdity. For starters, you can sell or eat your livestock.
Click to expand...

You can sell or eat you children. It isn't the right thing to do, but I'm sure it's happened before. I hear they taste like chicken.
 
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
Click to expand...

Right, of course we must tolerate the religious beliefs of others no matter how absurd they may seem. We also must recognize that others have the right to act on those beliefs. For example, if someone is a Christian Scientist, they get diagnosed with cancer yet refuse medical treatment because of their personal religious beliefs, then we have to respect their beliefs even if it means they will almost certainly die.

However, their kids cannot consent to such beliefs. That is the problem here. You cannot deny life saving treatment for your child because your child is not an adult and thus cannot consent. Your child is not your "property".

this is not the same thing
Click to expand...

Of course its the same thing. If it is my deeply held religious belief that prayer is all the nourishment one needs and through prayer one is nourished, then if I completely deny my kids any food at all because of my deeply held religious belief, then how is that any different at all?
 
Texmex said:
You can sell or eat you children. It isn't the right thing to do, but I'm sure it's happened before. I hear they taste like chicken.
Click to expand...

Too chewy.
 
It's amazing to me that religious idiots like this are (likely) against abortion. At least the fetuses dont suffer.
 
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...

The children weren't old enough to declare their religious belief of their own free will, either.
 
AGENT J said:
again same thing i already pointed out you dont get to make that call at all

there are women beaters that are convinced they beat thier women out of love and to teach them they see no neglect or abuse in what they do but that doesnt mean there was none present and this is the very thing that makes the discussion and where to draw the line on children even possible
Click to expand...

This is absolutely not the same thing as physical abuse because no harm is being perpetrated. This case is very clear. This was a decision that was made. There is not a nuance here. Neglect requires a lack of care. This cannot be demonstrated at all. They are said to have loved and cared for their children dearly. In fact I do not think that was ever disputed. These children were NEVER abused physically or verbally. The only thing at play here is a decision. Not neglect. People for whatever reason seem to be confusing the two. The decision was not to seek medical care. That was a decision, not lack thereof. I am not sure how their lawyer went about the defense but I sincerely doubt, he attempted to make the case there was no neglect at all and that this was a wholly made decision. Neglect in the law has very strict criteria to meet. This case in my opinion does not meet that criteria by any stretch.
 
Moot said:
The children weren't old enough to declare their religious belief of their own free will, either.
Click to expand...

Hence the parents have the explicit right to determine that until the children are of age to dissent.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Right, of course we must tolerate the religious beliefs of others no matter how absurd they may seem. We also must recognize that others have the right to act on those beliefs. For example, if someone is a Christian Scientist, they get diagnosed with cancer yet refuse medical treatment because of their personal religious beliefs, then we have to respect their beliefs even if it means they will almost certainly die.

However, their kids cannot consent to such beliefs. That is the problem here. You cannot deny life saving treatment for your child because your child is not an adult and thus cannot consent. Your child is not your "property".





Of course its the same thing. If it is my deeply held religious belief that prayer is all the nourishment one needs and through prayer one is nourished, then if I completely deny my kids any food at all because of my deeply held religious belief, then how is that any different at all?
Click to expand...

Treatment by medical professionals is always a gamble. Most times you stack the odds in your favor. However they are just that odds. Things can and do go wrong in the medical field and quite often. It is a legitimate choice not to seek medical assistance.
 
PirateMk1 said:
This is absolutely not the same thing as physical abuse because no harm is being perpetrated.
This case is very clear. This was a decision that was made. There is not a nuance here. Neglect requires a lack of care. This cannot be demonstrated at all. They are said to have loved and cared for their children dearly. In fact I do not think that was ever disputed. These children were NEVER abused physically or verbally. The only thing at play here is a decision. Not neglect. People for whatever reason seem to be confusing the two. The decision was not to seek medical care. That was a decision, not lack thereof. I am not sure how their lawyer went about the defense but I sincerely doubt, he attempted to make the case there was no neglect at all and that this was a wholly made decision. Neglect in the law has very strict criteria to meet. This case in my opinion does not meet that criteria by any stretch.
Click to expand...


fact remains all that adds up to is your opinion
there is NOTHING you said that makes this FACTUALLY no neglect
subjectively it could not be
in a persons opinion it could not be

but thats it :shrug:
 
AGENT J said:
fact remains all that adds up to is your opinion
there is NOTHING you said that makes this FACTUALLY no neglect
subjectively it could not be
in a persons opinion it could not be

but thats it :shrug:
Click to expand...

Is there a point you wish to make? Please do so soon as your Factual BS routine has become tedious. Make it interesting or I am just not going to reply.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Is there a point you wish to make? Please do so soon as your Factual BS routine has become tedious. Make it interesting or I am just not going to reply.
Click to expand...
ooooooooooooooOOOOOooooh noooooOOOOOoooo lol

its already been made
i pointed out the fact that your statement, the way it was worded, was factually wrong

its only OPINION that you think there was no neglect

no bs
facts dont have to be interesting
you not replying doesnt change the fact your statement was wrong


that was my point and its been made

bow your job is to accept that fact or continue to deny it, either way that fact will remain :shrug:

are you still denying that its only your opinion that it was no neglect?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Hence the parents have the explicit right to determine that until the children are of age to dissent.
Click to expand...

No, parents do not have explicit right to neglect and abuse their children under the guise of religion.
 
Moot said:
No, parents do not have explicit right to neglect and abuse their children under the guise of religion.
Click to expand...

I have said several times so far there was NO neglect in this case. It cannot be proven. All accounts stated they were loving caring attentive parents. No neglect or abuse was involved. They made a decision. A medical decision which is their right and responsibility. Medical decisions are inherently a odds proposition. You generally stack these odds in your favor with medical care. However it can and often does turn against you. I contend they made a decision that is contrary to what you or I would have done, nothing more or less.
I am not devotedly religious per say, but I do know and have very serious conviction about certain things, so I only have an inkling of what being devoutly religious means. They took their child's perceived religious soul into account in accordance with their beliefs which says that modern medical care is verboten. That's not neglect.
 
Zyphlin said:
Just want to ask because I want to understand your stance on this...

Are you pro-life or pro-choice? The reason I ask is often the pro-life position is predicated on the notion that a child is incapable of defending their own rights, and as such the state has a duty to step in and protect it's right to life if the parent is neglecting said right.

In this instance, the parent is clearly neglecting the right the child has to life by disallowing the child to seek medical treatment for a life threatening disease.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with how you've formulated the comparison here.

Pro-life people believe that the State should step in to prevent an abortion, not when a pregnant mother is neglecting her fetus, but when the pregnant mother is attempting to murder the fetus. You reference neglect to the fetus. I take that to mean the mother is not eating enough, is drinking or smoking during pregnancy, etc so the mother is harming the fetus through neglect. Pro-life people don't see abortion as neglect, they see it as murder.

Now this couple, they have a belief in faith, that faith will save their child. People who don't share that faith believe that medical treatment will save their child.

A mother about to abort her fetus doesn't have the best interests of the fetus in mind. The parents of this child did have the best interests of their child in mind. They were praying to save the child. Pro-lifers disagree with a mother's decision to abort her fetus. Outsiders disagree that these parents had the best interests of their child in mind.

The only point where I think your analysis works is the equation of Pro-Life intervention to stop an abortion and the States intervention to save a child. In both cases we have outsiders imposing their viewpoints (mother is intent on killing her fetus and parents are going to let their child die with their praying strategy) and so intervention to stop the mother and parents is warranted.

That last point though seriously undercuts the Pro-Choice argument. It's difficult therefore to argue that the reasoning for intervention is sound in the case of these parents but unsound in the case of abortions.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I have said several times so far there was NO neglect in this case. It cannot be proven. All accounts stated they were loving caring attentive parents. No neglect or abuse was involved. They made a decision. A medical decision which is their right and responsibility. Medical decisions are inherently a odds proposition. You generally stack these odds in your favor with medical care. However it can and often does turn against you. I contend they made a decision that is contrary to what you or I would have done, nothing more or less.
I am not devotedly religious per say, but I do know and have very serious conviction about certain things, so I only have an inkling of what being devoutly religious means. They took their child's perceived religious soul into account in accordance with their beliefs which says that modern medical care is verboten. That's not neglect.
Click to expand...

Willfully letting an infant child suffer and die from a preventable and curable illess is neglect and abuse by almost any humane, moral and legal standards. But to do it twice.....they deserve time in prison where they can be free to believe whatever they want and never to procreate again. People take better care of their dogs than those parents did with their children.
 
Sherman123 said:
I may think my kid should play sports, hell I may think exercise is a holy pursuit, it doesn't mean I have the right to send my child on a death march and see if he comes out the other side as a religious test.
Click to expand...

Do I have a right to step forward and remove your children from your custody if I see you permitting them to go swimming? There is some risk of death during swimming. Sure, it's a minor risk, but it's still a risk. So, how much risk should I, an outsider, tolerate with respect to your parenting of your children before my ludicrous attempt to remove your children from your care is no longer ludicrous but not becomes justified? What if you and I can't agree on a risk threshold? What if you think that it's none of my business how much risk you allow your children to undertake? At what point does it become my business to the point that I can override your best judgment with respect to what you see as tolerable risk levels for your own children?

Now does anything change if you're really Mark Spitz and you've trained your children yourself and you know that they can swim through river rapids and through mountainous surf and survive. That is, your specific knowledge is superior to my general knowledge where I simply point to drowning statistics and such.

Lastly, if you are Mark Spitz and you've trained your children to Olympic standards and seen then perform, thus validating your assessment against reality and you dismiss my concerns for the welfare of your children, and they do in fact drown, how do you determine if my risk assessment was accurate or if I was just lucky (and your kids were unlucky) in making my claim?
 
I think this infringes on the couple's religious freedom and a really hope there is an appeal coming.

Would you force a Jehovas Witness to take a blood transfusion? Would you force Jewish kids to eat pork? There has to be some degree of religious freedom in this country and progressive activists should not legally be able to force people to conform to THEIR standards.
 
PirateMk1 said:
You are hanging your hat on the fact there was neglect.
Click to expand...

The law and non-insane human beings are hanging their hats on the fact that this was neglect.

PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Idiocy.


Neglect
Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other
person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food,
clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision to the degree
that the child’s health, safety, and well-being are threatened
with harm. Approximately 24 States, the District of Columbia,
American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands include
failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition
of neglect.6
Seven States specifically define medical neglect
as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental
health care needed by the child.7
In addition, four States define
medical neglect as the withholding of medical treatment or
nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.8
Click to expand...

https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf#Page=2&view=Fit
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
I think this infringes on the couple's religious freedom and a really hope there is an appeal coming.

Would you force a Jehovas Witness to take a blood transfusion? Would you force Jewish kids to eat pork? There has to be some degree of religious freedom in this country and progressive activists should not legally be able to force people to conform to THEIR standards.
Click to expand...

No one, no one, no one... is saying that an adult Jehovah's Witness should be forced to take a blood transfusion. No one, no one, no one... is saying that an adult Christian Scientist should be forced to accept medical care when they believe that prayer is all the care they need. In both cases if they are conscious adults, then they can consent to care or not.

However, a child of a Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist cannot consent. A young child cannot state "I am a Jehovah's Witness, so I refuse a blood transfusion even though it will mean my certain death, and I am fully aware of the consequences of my decision." Because a child is the not the physical property of their parents (because human beings are never property), that child's parents cannot make such a decision for a child. This is a simple legal concept, I am not sure why it is so difficult for a few people on here to comprehend.

Denying a child life saving care because of your religious beliefs would be no different than starving a child to death because of your religious beliefs.
 
Ikari said:
Nope. Singular personal testimonial is singular personal testimonial not carefully screened for cross-contamination of interpretation. It has to be scientific.
Click to expand...

I can produce many others who will testify. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom