• 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

justabubba said:
do you believe that parents who fast, consistent with their religious beliefs, also do not compel their children to also fast?
Click to expand...

A parent that chooses to fast based upon their religious beliefs is an adult and thus can legally consent to fasting even if they did so for such a long period of time that it was dangerous to their health or life.

However, a child cannot legally consent. Thus while it is legally permissible for a parent to compel their child to fast in observance of their religious beliefs, it is not legal for a parent to compel their child to fast for such a long period that it endangers the life or health of their child. Certainly you see the difference there.
 
Our freedoms are such that they allow us to make decisions which may cause
harm to others.
Everyone needs to understand that while we have the freedom
to make the decisions, some decisions have consequences.
Some of those consequences include the loss of freedom, or even our lives.
 
justabubba said:
do you believe that parents who fast, consistent with their religious beliefs, also do not compel their children to also fast?
Click to expand...
As long as fasting doesn't cause physical harm or involve extreme mental cruelty then they shouldn't have to worry. Parents, normal parents don't like to see their children suffer and usually make sure family members eat a full meal before fasting and a big meal afterwards. It's really not that big of deal.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You sit here and ridicule others faith
Click to expand...

I have zero problem with people having faith. Even if they want to believe in a book teeming with fairy tales. Go for it.

However I have a huge problem when their faith kills 2 young children when it was completely avoidable. They should be dropped on their heads.

So run along now or you will miss Fox and Friends.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
In terms of public policy, verifiable facts should always trump faith.
Click to expand...

Well, in terms of public policy in Australia and Canada, the evidence was overwhelming that Aborigine and Native, respectively, parents weren't raising their children as successfully as white parents raised their children, so for the sake of the children, each government set out to remove these children from the homes of their parents and raise them in residential schools.

It was for the children. The evidence supported the government's position.

The children, when they became adults, were, ahem, kind of upset by the government's position that it knew better than the parents what was in the best interests of the children.
 
justabubba said:
re making good decisions on behalf of their children:
and as parents, they believe they have done so
they subscribe to a faith which believes in the healing power of prayer
and while they are in the distinct minority (fortunately) who believe that, because their religious credo is different than others of us does not mean they are not entitled to practice their own faith. it's established by the bill of rights
these parents appear to genuinely to believe in the medicinal power of prayer
and in these two instances that approach failed
but medical approaches fail, too
and who among us can establish with 100% accuracy that the power of prayer does not work
Click to expand...

That's why this faith-based nonsense simply does not work and should never be acceptable. We, as a society, set the standards for child care. Everyone complies or pays the consequences for not doing it. I don't give a damn what their religious beliefs are. If their religious beliefs told them to cut off their children's fingers and eat them with a nice chiante, we wouldn't allow that. Why do we allow them to do this?

Screw the idiot religious.
 
RiverDad said:
Well, in terms of public policy in Australia and Canada, the evidence was overwhelming that Aborigine and Native, respectively, parents weren't raising their children as successfully as white parents raised their children, so for the sake of the children, each government set out to remove these children from the homes of their parents and raise them in residential schools.

It was for the children. The evidence supported the government's position.

The children, when they became adults, were, ahem, kind of upset by the government's position that it knew better than the parents what was in the best interests of the children.
Click to expand...

That is not even remotely comparable. Moreover, we have laws against that here. You can't even adopt a native american orphan if you are not native american yourself. This is about life saving care. Do you think that a parent can deny food to their kids and thus starve them to death if doing so is their sincerely held religious belief?
 
The few dissenters in this thread do not seem to get the concept that your children are not your property. You are your child's guardian, and thus you are responsible for raising that child, providing for their needs, and making decisions for that child that is in the child's best interest. There is a lot of leeway in this, we all have known terrible parents that still managed to raise their kids. However, because you are your kid's guardian and not your kid's owner, you cannot deny them lifesaving care. You cannot deny them food. You cannot deny them proper shelter or other life saving / preserving needs. That is where the line is drawn. If I were to quite feeding my kids, it would certainly be appropriate for the state to step in, and if necessary either remove custody from me or even prosecute me for my negligence. This way my kids would not face the horrendous death of slow starvation. Similarly, if I had a child that developed cancer, and I refused to get my child any medical treatment for that cancer, it would be perfectly appropriate for the state to step in and thus save my child, that cannot legally consent themselves yet, from probably dying a slow and extremely painful death. My motivations for doing this would be irrelevant as it would have no impact on the results of my actions either way. Even if I thought I could pray away my kid's cancer, it would not change the fact that my denying them medical care would result in their dying a slow and extremely painful death.

I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Its not even controversial.
 
Last edited:
This country recognizes the separation of church and state and also the exercise of religious beliefs. But those beliefs are already restricted in some instances and this to me seems like a legitimate place to do so as well.

We do not allow certain substances to be used in religious ceremonies, we do not allow the marriage of girls of a certain age, we do not allow polygamy, we do not allow stoning an adulterer.

The secular laws of the state and as supported by the Constitution come *first.*

If you allow this, do you also allow Shari'a law? Cutting off a thief's hand? Stoning an adulterer? Honor killings?
 
WCH said:
Well I didn't need any, large sampling, journals or my peers to decide prayer works for me.

What about the power of positive thinking.... Anything scientific there. Like L. Ron Hubbard.
Click to expand...

You don't have to. You can do and believe whatever it is that is best to you by your own judgement so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. If what you experienced is enough to convince you, that's fine. I was merely telling you what it would take to convince ME.

L. Ron Hubbard made my nemesis religion. I have strong desire to create my own "church" that is diametrically opposed to Scientology. Then set up shop across the street.
 
Ikari said:
You don't have to. You can do and believe whatever it is that is best to you by your own judgement so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. If what you experienced is enough to convince you, that's fine. I was merely telling you what it would take to convince ME.

L. Ron Hubbard made my nemesis religion. I have strong desire to create my own "church" that is diametrically opposed to Scientology. Then set up shop across the street.
Click to expand...

I kind of figured Scientology wasn't your cup of tea. ;)
 
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the mother holds the religious view that the fetus is the product of a sin and must be destroyed, she should have that right. It is neither neglect nor murder, just her strongly-held religious belief. She may indeed believe that this is in the best interests of the fetus, that she is 'saving' its soul.

FWIW, in the OP case, there's no neglect here...it's intentional and the parents have stated the reasons behind it. This is their strongly-held belief, and they believe that it is right and that they will be saving their child's soul.
 
RiverDad said:
Well, in terms of public policy in Australia and Canada, the evidence was overwhelming that Aborigine and Native, respectively, parents weren't raising their children as successfully as white parents raised their children, so for the sake of the children, each government set out to remove these children from the homes of their parents and raise them in residential schools.

It was for the children. The evidence supported the government's position.

The children, when they became adults, were, ahem, kind of upset by the government's position that it knew better than the parents what was in the best interests of the children.
Click to expand...

same thing with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation back in the 1800's
well intended quaker schools were established to teach the Cherokee children
the kids infrequently reunited with their parents
and the parents never learned how to parent
one learns to be a parent from their own parents
that became a lost skill among the Cherokee for many generations
unintended consequences of benevolent acts
 
Cephus said:
That's why this faith-based nonsense simply does not work and should never be acceptable. We, as a society, set the standards for child care. Everyone complies or pays the consequences for not doing it. I don't give a damn what their religious beliefs are. If their religious beliefs told them to cut off their children's fingers and eat them with a nice chiante, we wouldn't allow that. Why do we allow them to do this?

Screw the idiot religious.
Click to expand...

but they have the religious freedom to believe that prayer heals
and their religious beliefs direct them to prayer for healing instead of medicine
why do your beliefs trump theirs?
 
WCH said:
I kind of figured Scientology wasn't your cup of tea. ;)
Click to expand...

It's clearly a cult and a scam, I don't see how it was allowed to be defined as a "religion".
 
justabubba said:
but they have the religious freedom to believe that prayer heals
and their religious beliefs direct them to prayer for healing instead of medicine
why do your beliefs trump theirs?
Click to expand...

Because in a secularly-run nation, the state trumps religious beliefs where those beliefs are counter to the law. IMO. To me, it should apply to the rights listed in the BOR at minimum.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The few dissenters in this thread do not seem to get the concept that your children are not your property.
Click to expand...
the parents are the legal guardians of the children; and the parents are raising their children within the failth and belief system followed by the parents

You are your child's guardian, and thus you are responsible for raising that child, providing for their needs, and making decisions for that child that is in the child's best interest.
Click to expand...
and we are in agreement in all of this
the parent guardians are responsible for caring for their children in the way THEY view best
in this instance THEY chose to follow prayer as the healing mechanism, consistent with THEIR religious convictions

There is a lot of leeway in this, we all have known terrible parents that still managed to raise their kids. However, because you are your kid's guardian and not your kid's owner, you cannot deny them lifesaving care.
Click to expand...
and consistent with THEIR religious beliefs, the parents chose prayer as the way to effect healing

You cannot deny them food.
Click to expand...
food was NOT denied

You cannot deny them proper shelter
Click to expand...
they were NOT denied shelter

... or other life saving / preserving needs.
Click to expand...
and in the parents' religious view, they did not deny their children life saving/preserving attention. they offered what THE PARENTS believed to be best for their children. they chose the healing of religious prayer
not what you or i would have chosen, but we are not of the parents' faith. they have a right to choose their faith and to live by the tenants of their own religion. and that called for the healing powers of prayer

That is where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...
and the parents acted within that line
THEY did what they believed was best for their children, consistent with their personal beliefs

If I were to quite feeding my kids, it would certainly be appropriate for the state to step in, and if necessary either remove custody from me or even prosecute me for my negligence.
Click to expand...
yes, but unlike you, these parents did not choose to starve their children. they did choose to follow the articles of their faith

This way my kids would not face the horrendous death of slow starvation.
Click to expand...
and these children did not face starvation

Similarly, if I had a child that developed cancer, and I refused to get my child any medical treatment for that cancer, it would be perfectly appropriate for the state to step in and thus save my child, that cannot legally consent themselves yet, from probably dying a slow and extremely painful death.
Click to expand...
but if your religious faith directed you to choose prayer instead of medicine, that would be the course of action directed by a higher power, your G_d
and that was the circumstance in extant circumstance

My motivations for doing this would be irrelevant as it would have no impact on the results of my actions either way.
Click to expand...
if you were a religious person who obeyed the directives of G_d as you understood them to be, and if those directives were to apply prayer rather than medicine, then you would choose prayer

Even if I thought I could pray away my kid's cancer, it would not change the fact that my denying them medical care would result in their dying a slow and extremely painful death.
Click to expand...
this assumes prayer would not help
you cannot offer any assurance that would not be the result

I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Its not even controversial.
Click to expand...
it is not difficult to grasp for those who choose to recognize the right to live by one's religious edicts
it becomes controversial when that choice is other than what would be prevalent, as in this instance
 
RiverDad said:
A mother about to abort her fetus doesn't have the best interests of the fetus in mind.
Click to expand...
That is not necessarily true. I gather that you are pro-life and as such would you be OK with a crack addict mother wanting to abort because she has the best interests of the fetus in mind? There are any number of scenarios along this line, but I believe you get the point.
 
Lursa said:
An adult JW? No. And eating pork is not of a life saving or abusive nature.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it all comes back to religious freedom and to whether the government really needs to be a nanny state (literally) taking care of our children.

There's a role for government, and there's a role for parents. Unfortunately not all parents are spectacular. Same can be said for governments. I still don't like mixing the roles.
 
Moot said:
They took their religion to the extreme and ultimately killed two of their own in the name of their religion. People are free to practice whatever religion or belief they chose...but its not a legal or protected right to do harm in the name of a relgion, not even to your own kids.

Religious individuals are still subject to the same criminal laws as everyone else.
Click to expand...

They didn't kill anyone. The kid died of natural causes.
 
Peter Grimm said:
They didn't kill anyone. The kid died of natural causes.
Click to expand...
With your logic, If you fall into a lake and I stand by offering no help to you. and just watch you drown, you've died of natural causes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom