Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

  1. #21
    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 Lachean View Post
    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.
    Please cite what law is being violated by one refusing treatment. Please don't cite personal opinion, please cite the actual statute.

    All of the examples you cited are in direct violation of law. Killing a man is murder. Whatever act of terrorism you mention must also be a law in order to prosecute. Act of terrorism a extremely vague, you need to be more specific.
    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

  2. #22
    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 Thales View Post
    The difference, as I see it, would be erring on the side of saving the child's life no matter the case.


    The problem is highlighted in your post. The "as I see it" part opens the door for every judge to put his/her "as I see it" spin on every ruling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thales View Post
    Yes, it would mean violating the child's personal religious beliefs.
    It would also mean violating her and her parents Constitutional rights. Are you prepared to live in a country where there is a precedent set for judges to violate the Constitution for their "as I see it" opinion?

    What rights are you willing to give up based on a judges personal opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thales View Post
    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?
    I'm glad you mentioned voting for representatives. You are right, we don't let a child vote for rep's. We vote for representatives to make the laws. We vote for the judges to enforce the laws. Why would you want judges that change the law as they personally see fit? Refusing treatment isn't against the law, nor should it be. Congress cannot change that law based on religious freedom.

    The parents are making the decision with the child. The child isn't making the decision by themselves. It just seems that the majority of the people disagree with them, as do I. But they a right to believe God is capable of (or responsible for) whatever they choose to believe.

    If they believe the Sta-Puff Marsh Mellow man is God, and finding him and taking a bite out of him will get them into heaven and heal their kid's, so be it.
    Last edited by Shep Dawg; 05-26-09 at 10:27 PM.
    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. #23
    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'm glad you mentioned voting for representatives. You are right, we don't let a child vote for rep's. We vote for representatives to make the laws. We vote for the judges to enforce the laws. Why would you want judges that change the law as they personally see fit? Refusing treatment isn't against the law, nor should it be. Congress cannot change that law based on religious freedom.

    The parents are making the decision with the child. The child isn't making the decision by themselves. It just seems that the majority of the people disagree with them, as do I. But they a right to believe God is capable of (or responsible for) whatever they choose to believe.
    The situation I was referencing in that post was a hypothetical one in which the child didn't want medical treatment, but the parents did. Just to clarify.

    But to refer back to the original post (which I believe you're addressing), the parents would be making the decision for their child. And I'm saying that in this case, the government has the right to step in and provide life-saving medical care for the child. Just as a child can be removed from an abusive home, the government should have the ability to get the child the medical care it needs, regardless of the parents' religious views.

    Does that address your point?

  4. #24
    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 Thales View Post
    The situation I was referencing in that post was a hypothetical one in which the child didn't want medical treatment, but the parents did. Just to clarify.
    Cool, I understand. But do you see the legal precedent this sets?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thales View Post
    But to refer back to the original post (which I believe you're addressing), the parents would be making the decision for their child. And I'm saying that in this case, the government has the right to step in and provide life-saving medical care for the child.

    Does that address your point?
    I believe the Gov't only has a right to meet with the child, explain the medical situation. Explain the potential consequences to the child, and only then "if" the child changes their mind and decides they want medical care, step in to protect the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thales View Post
    Just as a child can be removed from an abusive home, the government should have the ability to get the child the medical care it needs, regardless of the parents' religious views.
    Child abuse is against the law. Refusing treatment isn't.
    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

  5. #25
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Dawg View Post





    Child abuse is against the law. Refusing treatment isn't.
    Refusing treatment is child neglect, which is against the law.

    Children are not property, or pets. BTW, people have been jailed for abusing or neglecting animals, which includes pets and livestock....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  6. #26
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Notice how man made global warming fairy believer dismisses the religious bashing and goes straight for my post.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrFungus420 View Post
    A discussion of a mother's irresponsible actions causing the death of a child, and you decide that this is the place to grind a political axe on a completely different subject.

    Completely lame...
    Last edited by jamesrage; 05-26-09 at 11:23 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #27
    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 UtahBill View Post
    Refusing treatment is child neglect, which is against the law.

    Children are not property, or pets. BTW, people have been jailed for abusing or neglecting animals, which includes pets and livestock....
    I believe you are incorrect.. Denying treatment is child neglect. The child refusing medical treatment and the parents agreeing based on their religious beliefs is not child neglect. Even if that child's beliefs were formed in large part by the parents. It's only one word, and some may say it's semantics, but there is a major difference.

    However you are correct that child neglect is against the law. And it should be enforced more vigorously.

    People should go to jail for abusing or neglecting animals.
    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

  8. #28
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Dawg View Post
    I disagree. This conviction will be overturned. It is unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any law interfering with the practice of one's religious beliefs.
    This isn't my religious views trump your this is a plain and simple child neglect case.The first amendment doesn't give you the right to neglect your children any more than it gives someone the right to beat the **** out of their spouse or to murder someone.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #29
    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 jamesrage View Post
    This isn't my religious views trump your this is a plain and simple child neglect case.The first amendment doesn't give you the right to neglect your children any more than it gives someone the right to beat the **** out of their spouse or to murder someone.
    Please post the link that says a child refusing treatment is child neglect. I believe you will find in your search, that you are incorrect. A parent denying treatment is another subject. The child must first want the medical treatment. The first amendment applies to children as well.
    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

  10. #30
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Dawg View Post
    Please post the link that says a child refusing treatment is child neglect. I believe you will find in your search, that you are incorrect. A parent denying treatment is another subject. The child must first want the medical treatment.
    A parent refusing medical treatment for a child is defined as neglect.

    Child Neglect

    Medical neglect

    Medical neglect is the failure to provide appropriate health care for a child (although financially able to do so), thus placing the child at risk of being seriously disabled or disfigured or dying. According to NCANDS, in 2005, 2 percent of children (17,637 children) in the United States were victims of medical neglect (USDHHS, 2007). Concern is warranted not only when a parent refuses medical care for a child in an emergency or for an acute illness, but also when a parent ignores medical recommendations for a child with a treatable chronic disease or disability, resulting in frequent hospitalizations or significant deterioration.

    Even in non-emergency situations, medical neglect can result in poor overall health and compounded medical problems.

    Parents may refuse medical care for their children for different reasons religious beliefs, fear or anxiety about a medical condition or treatment, or financial issues. Child protective services agencies generally will intervene when:


    * Medical treatment is needed in an acute emergency (e.g., a child needs a blood transfusion to treat shock);
    * A child with a life-threatening chronic disease is not receiving needed medical treatment (e.g., a child with diabetes is not receiving medication); or
    * A child has a chronic disease that can cause disability or disfigurement if left untreated (e.g., a child with congenital cataracts needs surgery to prevent blindness).

    In these cases, child protection services agencies may seek a court order for medical treatment to save the childís life or prevent life-threatening injury, disability or disfigurement.

    Although medical neglect is highly correlated with poverty, there is a distinction between a caregiverís inability to provide the needed care based on cultural norms or the lack of financial resources and a caregiverís knowing reluctance or refusal to provide care. Children and their families may be in need of services even though the parent may not be intentionally neglectful. When poverty limits a parentís resources to adequately provide necessities for the child, services may be offered to help families provide for their children.

    Religion and the Refusal of Medical Treatment: Rights and Responsibilities - Associated Content

    Adults Can Say No for Themselves but Not for Children
    There are certain religious groups that don't believe in traditional medicine and instead turn to prayer and other means to heal themselves. Some of these people refuse medical treatment for their children, and some of these children die as a consequence. Given these issues, it is
    important to explore what a person can or cannot do to avoid having trouble with the law and what some of consequences might be for someone refusing to give medical care to a child.

    The law upholds an adult's right to refuse medical care. That's because of the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution. On the other hand, that person must be adjudged mentally competent to be able to make a reasonable decision. So people who are members of Christian Science or Jehovah's Witnesses, or fundamental Christians may refuse medical treatment so long as they are capable of making a rational decision about it.

    The same does not hold true in the case of children. Children are vulnerable, and the law supports the view that the child, when it comes to health, is part of an overall concern that the state has for the protection and welfare of those who are unable to protect or defend themselves. Therefore, if a parent refuses medical care and the child dies, the parent may face legal consequences as a result.



    The first amendment applies to children as well.
    So the same child should be able to walk into a walmart and buy a gun without the presence of a parent?
    Last edited by jamesrage; 05-26-09 at 11:40 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •