Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

  1. #11
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts, U.S.
    Last Seen
    03-23-11 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    585

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Ok, I see now.

    However, I think your rights end precisely where another person's rights begin. Meaning that this woman's rights to exercise her religion freely end where her child's right to live is put into danger.

    I'm glad they convicted the moonbat. She should fry for what she did to her daughter along with everyone in the room encouraging it.
    That sounds about right. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. They cannot, however, recklessly endanger their children by denying them life saving medical care. The reason doesn't matter.

  2. #12
    Educator Shep Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-19-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    911

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Ok, I see now.

    However, I think your rights end precisely where another person's rights begin. Meaning that this woman's rights to exercise her religion freely end where her child's right to live is put into danger.

    I'm glad they convicted the moonbat. She should fry for what she did to her daughter along with everyone in the room encouraging it.
    Personally I don't disagree with you. The first amendment is just far too important to have every judge interpreting what it means and to whom it applies. The child has a right to medical care. If the child is being denied medical care and want's medical care, then clearly the parents are liable. However, if the child's belief is in divine intervention, and faith healing (even if taught by the parent's) then it's out of the court's hands. The first amendment doesn't have an age clause in it. Therefore it applies to everyone, regardless of age. In fact I would argue if there is any ambiguity, it would favor the child's rights, as when the first amendment was written and ratified, children were considered to be adults at a much younger age.
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote Benjamin Franklin

    I'm a Tiki Bar Tarte, wanna gnaw on my bone

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Dawg View Post
    Personally I don't disagree with you. The first amendment is just far too important to have every judge interpreting what it means and to whom it applies. The child has a right to medical care. If the child is being denied medical care and want's medical care, then clearly the parents are liable. However, if the child's belief is in divine intervention, and faith healing (even if taught by the parent's) then it's out of the court's hands. The first amendment doesn't have an age clause in it. Therefore it applies to everyone, regardless of age. In fact I would argue if there is any ambiguity, it would favor the child's rights, as when the first amendment was written and ratified, children were considered to be adults at a much younger age.
    No, the first amendment doesn't have an age clause but, historically, the rights of minors have been restricted and protected by the state until the age of majority.

  4. #14
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    I think this is a very touchy issue, and though I feel that the woman should have taken her daughter to the doctor, I do not move so quick to call a person insane for their religious beliefs. We all have the right to believe or not believe and though I agree God is not a vending machine, people do take the notion of God is the provider of all good things to heart and live by it.

    I am not of mind that the government has any place forcing things upon a free people, but we do need to protect children. Tough question for me. Freedom of religion and privacy vs protection of children. I should think the children should trump without it going overboard.

  5. #15
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts, U.S.
    Last Seen
    03-23-11 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    585

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    I am not of mind that the government has any place forcing things upon a free people, but we do need to protect children. Tough question for me. Freedom of religion and privacy vs protection of children. I should think the children should trump without it going overboard.
    I think the children aspect is key here. If the mother, for example, had diabetes and elected prayer over medication, the government probably wouldn't have a right to act. Of course, her ensuing death would hurt the children emotionally, financially, etc.

    But it would be her choice. And if a mature adult (adult being the key phrase here) makes that choice, they should have that right.

  6. #16
    Educator Shep Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-19-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    911

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    No, the first amendment doesn't have an age clause but, historically, the rights of minors have been restricted and protected by the state until the age of majority.
    Which means that it is up to the parents. If the child had religious beliefs in divine intervention, then the courts hands are tied.
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote Benjamin Franklin

    I'm a Tiki Bar Tarte, wanna gnaw on my bone

  7. #17
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Dawg View Post
    Which means that it is up to the parents. If the child had religious beliefs in divine intervention, then the courts hands are tied.
    I am first inclined to agree with you, but the child's beliefs are dictated by the parents and not a concious, informed decision, therefor I feel the government must intervene.

  8. #18
    Educator Shep Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-19-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    911

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    I am first inclined to agree with you, but the child's beliefs are dictated by the parents and not a concious, informed decision, therefor I feel the government must intervene.
    I say there can be no intervention on behalf of our Gov't. Except to assist in upholding the parent's beliefs. What happens when the roles are reversed? Say a child does not want medical treatment, the parent's want medical treatment for their child. A judge happens to practice in divine intervention as part of his/her religious beliefs, and rules in favor of the child.

    People would be outraged.

    I realize this example is an exaggeration. However where is the "new" line to be drawn? The parent's may have taught their beliefs to their child, and it's not my business, nor the Gov't, to tell them they're wrong.

    Which I believe is why freedom of religious belief's is the first amendment, and even the first phrase, of our Constitution.
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote Benjamin Franklin

    I'm a Tiki Bar Tarte, wanna gnaw on my bone

  9. #19
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Faith healing over medicine is child abuse and criminally negligent. Just because your negligence was in accordance with your faith is no excuse.

    I cannot kill a man and claim religious immunity because it was a part of my religion; Just as a man cannot claim first amendment rights for committing an act of terrorism.

    To claim otherwise is to claim that laws do not apply so long as they contradict your beliefs.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 05-26-09 at 09:44 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  10. #20
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts, U.S.
    Last Seen
    03-23-11 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    585

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Dawg View Post
    I say there can be no intervention on behalf of our Gov't. Except to assist in upholding the parent's beliefs. What happens when the roles are reversed? Say a child does not want medical treatment, the parent's want medical treatment for their child. A judge happens to practice in divine intervention as part of his/her religious beliefs, and rules in favor of the child.

    People would be outraged.

    I realize this example is an exaggeration. However where is the "new" line to be drawn? The parent's may have taught their beliefs to their child, and it's not my business, nor the Gov't, to tell them they're wrong.

    Which I believe is why freedom of religious belief's is the first amendment, and even the first phrase, of our Constitution.
    The difference, as I see it, would be erring on the side of saving the child's life no matter the case. Yes, it would mean violating the child's personal religious beliefs.

    But we don't trust a child enough to let them vote for their representatives - why trust them to make life and death decisions for themselves?

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •