• 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!

Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

Notice how man made global warming fairy believer dismisses the religious bashing and goes straight for my 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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 child’s life or prevent life-threatening injury, disability or disfigurement.

Although medical neglect is highly correlated with poverty, there is a distinction between a caregiver’s inability to provide the needed care based on cultural norms or the lack of financial resources and a caregiver’s 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 parent’s 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:
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 child’s life or prevent life-threatening injury, disability or disfigurement.

Although medical neglect is highly correlated with poverty, there is a distinction between a caregiver’s inability to provide the needed care based on cultural norms or the lack of financial resources and a caregiver’s 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 parent’s 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.

Nice post. However it clearly states the parent's refusal to provide medical care. Nothing about the child refusing medical care.

There was a case here in Virginia regarding this very issue. The state tried to intervene and the circuit court prevented them from doing so. The boy's name is Abraham Cherrix. He is alive and doing fine today.

The Abraham Cherrix Story

They now have "Abraham's Law" on the books here in Va.

I appreciate the article, and I did ask for a link. But there is legal precedent already, and I should have asked for the law you cite, not just a link. Sorry, I apologize.


So the same child should be able to walk into a walmart and buy a gun without the presence of a parent?

That's the 2nd amendment. The SCUTUS has already ruled on the age qualifier to the 2nd. So far the 1st still applies to everyone.
 
Which means that it is up to the parents. If the child had religious beliefs in divine intervention, then the courts hands are tied.

Not true. If there is criminal negligence on the part of the parents, then the state may step in and administer care for the child. The beliefs of the child are irrelevant when such a thing is necessary. It's the same thing as if a child doesn't believe in school but a truant officer will still show up to take him there if he does not attend. :shrug:

That's just one precedent. There are a plethora of others.
 
This is what religion does to people. It makes them believe the unbelievable which gives them grounds to do and say the most ignorant things. ALL religious people suffer from this to one degree or another. This is just a moderately extreme example of such nuttery.

You've apparently never met a hippie.

I have friends who had **** go untreated their entire lives because their parents insisted on treating symptoms with herbal essences and meditation.

Stupidity cuts across religious lines.
 
Not true. If there is criminal negligence on the part of the parents, then the state may step in and administer care for the child. The beliefs of the child are irrelevant when such a thing is necessary.

Please see previous posts regarding criminal negligence.

The State will step in, but they will most likely lose on appeal. Please see previous post about Abraham's law.



It's the same thing as if a child doesn't believe in school but a truant officer will still show up to take him there if he does not attend. :shrug:

That's just one precedent. There are a plethora of others.

I home schooled my daughter during her 5th grade year. All I had to do was make sure she completed the work, and answer questions for her. I have never had a truant officer come to my house.
 
I home schooled my daughter during her 5th grade year. All I had to do was make sure she completed the work, and answer questions for her. I have never had a truant officer come to my house.

Provisions were made for her education. Rest assured if they weren't, you would have gotten a knock at your door.
 
Someone who believes in the man made global warming fairy tale has absolutely no room what so ever to mock or bash people just because they believe in a supreme being. Oh no the world is over heating we got to increase taxes, buy carbon credits, recycle and make kids watch Al Gore's film or else the polar ice caps will melt and the world will flood.
That's just more of you exposing your ignorance. I believe man is contributing to global warming, accelerating/exacerbating a naturally occurring "problem" (for us anyway). Now back to the invisible man in the sky...
 
So, all you people that think the decision to medically treat a child should lay in the power of the parents... was this mother right? Her decision to "pray her daughter back to health" killed her. Should someone have stepped in to force insulin into this little girl's veins... to save her life?

Now the obvious, as in some were bound to make them because of their own agendas, and lame attacks on religion that have come and are likely to come from some quarters in this thread makes me reluctant to even post in it but I'll give my two pence.

Parents should not be able to do this to a child, if the child is in a life threatening position and they completely refuse reasonable treatment then someone should step in however the autonomy of the family and its dignity is of prime importance so any intervention must be cautious and restrained and it must not be allowed to compromise this autonomy and dignity any more than the absolute minimum needed. This should in no way become a precedent for interventions in the families autonomy in almost all other circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I'm in favor of separation of Church and State and I'm weary of government coming in to take away children, but religious fanatics like this just make it too easy to give government powers an excuse to be exercised.
 
That's just more of you exposing your ignorance. I believe man is contributing to global warming, accelerating/exacerbating a naturally occurring "problem" (for us anyway). Now back to the invisible man in the sky...

Again you have no room to mock or bash people over things you do not believe in or consider when you believe in something not real such as the man made global warming fairy tale(which a lot of you now call climate change so that even if it doesn't get warmer on a global scale you can still claim you are right).
 
Nice post. However it clearly states the parent's refusal to provide medical care. Nothing about the child refusing medical care.

There was a case here in Virginia regarding this very issue. The state tried to intervene and the circuit court prevented them from doing so. The boy's name is Abraham Cherrix. He is alive and doing fine today.

The Abraham Cherrix Story

They now have "Abraham's Law" on the books here in Va.

I appreciate the article, and I did ask for a link. But there is legal precedent already, and I should have asked for the law you cite, not just a link. Sorry, I apologize.




That's the 2nd amendment. The SCUTUS has already ruled on the age qualifier to the 2nd. So far the 1st still applies to everyone.


It doesn't matter what the child want,the child may not want schooling because of some religious view as jallman pointed out. The parents are still required by law to not medically neglect their child and to make sure the child has schooling(regardless if it is a private,public or home school).
 
Again you have no room to mock or bash people over things you do not believe in or consider when you believe in something not real such as the man made global warming fairy tale(which a lot of you now call climate change so that even if it doesn't get warmer on a global scale you can still claim you are right).

Why can't someone with evidence for their belief criticize the lack of evidence in another's?
 
It doesn't matter what the child want,the child may not want schooling because of some religious view as jallman pointed out. The parents are still required by law to not medically neglect their child and to make sure the child has schooling(regardless if it is a private,public or home school).

The circuit court of Virginia disagrees with you. Did you read the link on Abraham's law?
 
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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So if my personal religion honestly says that not only is murder moral, but I'm obligated to kill in the name of my god; it's ok according to you. The rights of others, such as the child's innate and inalienable right to life, has nothing to do with it. Just that since it's religiously motivated it's ok.

The reality of the situation is that it will not be overturned and will be looked at as a proper police means. Our rights are guaranteed and we are free to exercise them, but in the exercise of our rights we are not allowed to infringe upon the rights of others. There is no congressional law being made forbidding a religion. There is merely action which takes place once a murder has been committed. Religion does not give you proper excuse for murder, sorry.

I find it interesting, and arrogant, that you believe that your personal beliefs are the only ones protected by the first amendment. You believe God isn't a vending machine, so therefore, any one who doesn't agree with you shouldn't have the right to believe the way they do. It's also interesting that you use the word "quack". This coming from someone who believes there is a giant, invisible, bearded man living in the sky.

I find it interesting that you think murder is lawful should it be committed in the name of some god. I suppose that dude who bombed the abortion clinic shouldn't be in jail either...huh?
 
So if my personal religion honestly says that not only is murder moral, but I'm obligated to kill in the name of my god; it's ok according to you. The rights of others, such as the child's innate and inalienable right to life, has nothing to do with it. Just that since it's religiously motivated it's ok.

The reality of the situation is that it will not be overturned and will be looked at as a proper police means. Our rights are guaranteed and we are free to exercise them, but in the exercise of our rights we are not allowed to infringe upon the rights of others. There is no congressional law being made forbidding a religion. There is merely action which takes place once a murder has been committed. Religion does not give you proper excuse for murder, sorry.



I find it interesting that you think murder is lawful should it be committed in the name of some god. I suppose that dude who bombed the abortion clinic shouldn't be in jail either...huh?

I'll give you time to read all of my post's in this thread. Most of your absurd questions were already answered. When you have done so, please feel free to post any "new" opinions. Welcome to the thread, thanks for playing. Please catch up.
 
So if my personal religion honestly says that not only is murder moral, but I'm obligated to kill in the name of my god; it's ok according to you. The rights of others, such as the child's innate and inalienable right to life, has nothing to do with it. Just that since it's religiously motivated it's ok.

The reality of the situation is that it will not be overturned and will be looked at as a proper police means. Our rights are guaranteed and we are free to exercise them, but in the exercise of our rights we are not allowed to infringe upon the rights of others. There is no congressional law being made forbidding a religion. There is merely action which takes place once a murder has been committed. Religion does not give you proper excuse for murder, sorry.



I find it interesting that you think murder is lawful should it be committed in the name of some god. I suppose that dude who bombed the abortion clinic shouldn't be in jail either...huh?
agree...
Last I heard, "God told me so" is not a viable defense....
The law of the land trumps God's law and will until God comes again and dismisses secular governments....
But don't hold your breath waiting.
 
I'm wondering where you draw the line......

Mom gets arrested for not having her daughter treated....

Another mom goes on the run with her son because she says it's against her religion for him to have chemo.....

As a mom, I find that appalling! I, personally, think the gift of medicine comes from God and he instills in a choice few, the passion to help people.

On the flip side........ If government is given the power to act, will THEY be able to draw the line? Are they going to extend that power and tell YOU, the parent, how your children should be treated?

I agree, to let your child go without medical attention that would save their life is indeed criminal !!

I'm just don't trust the government enough to make that discernment.


:cool:
 
Last edited:
I'll give you time to read all of my post's in this thread. Most of your absurd questions were already answered. When you have done so, please feel free to post any "new" opinions. Welcome to the thread, thanks for playing. Please catch up.

I read the thread, and it doesn't excuse the fact that you tried to excuse murder through religion and now are trying to back out. The girl didn't refuse medical treatment, her mother did. Once you infringe upon the rights of someone else you've committed a crime and can rightfully be arrested, charged, and convicted as was done in this case. But if smarmy responses and dodges is all you want to engage in, then noted.
 
I read the thread, and it doesn't excuse the fact that you tried to excuse murder through religion and now are trying to back out. The girl didn't refuse medical treatment, her mother did. Once you infringe upon the rights of someone else you've committed a crime and can rightfully be arrested, charged, and convicted as was done in this case. But if smarmy responses and dodges is all you want to engage in, then noted.

Seriously? You read the thread, and you came up with this. Obviously your reading comprehension skills are not one of your strengths. Here, allow me help you out.

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.

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.

Thanks, I believe I got the point. In fact I agree with him. However...Some people believe God is there to tend to their every need through prayer and divine intervention. They certainly have that right, even if I personally disagree.

Which means that it is up to the parents. If the child had religious beliefs in divine intervention, then the courts hands are tied.

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.

I will ask you to please cite the actual statute that says refusing treatment is against the law. Denying treatment to another is a whole other issue.

Please post the link to your claim the the child, in this case, desired treatment. I have not heard that, and if that is the case, then the facts of the case change.

Explain how I ever even implied religion is an excuse for murder. And how I'm trying to back out. I'm here defending my position, hardly backing away.
 
Back
Top Bottom