• 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!

Lawyers to ask Wisconsin court to rule in prayer death

When it comes to the issue of rights, it is exactly a comparable situation. If society believes a parent has a duty to their child, then how could one have the complete opposite duty to them when they are unborn?

Because roughly half the country, and the current legal framework reject your notion of rights for the unborn. /Thread jacking.

Stay on topic, or you will be ignored by me .

It is a matter of rights, specific constitutional rights regarding the freedom of religion to be exact. I don't agree with the practice, but they certainly have the right to practice their faith. If their faith prevents them from seeking medical intervention for a third party, then that is their right IMHO.

No it bloody isn't. Their child is not an independent third party, their child is their legal responsibility. Failing to protect the interests of their child can very well be criminal, which is why some child abuse can stem from a failure to act rather than affirmative action (hence the analogy to starving a child). Furthermore, all constitutional rights, including those stemming from the free expression clause of the first amendment are contingent, not absolute. To the extent that your right to worship as you choose conflicts with a compelling state interest (in this case, preventing the needless death of a minor) your right is trumped by that state interest.
 
are you one that seeks medical care for your child when he/she is sick or do you just pray away the disease?

I seek medical attention, but that does not prevent me from defending the rights of those who do not. The child died a natural death from a disease.
 
Because roughly half the country, and the current legal framework reject your notion of rights for the unborn. /Thread jacking.

Stay on topic, or you will be ignored by me .



No it bloody isn't. Their child is not an independent third party, their child is their legal responsibility. Failing to protect the interests of their child can very well be criminal, which is why some child abuse can stem from a failure to act rather than affirmative action (hence the analogy to starving a child). Furthermore, all constitutional rights, including those stemming from the free expression clause of the first amendment are contingent, not absolute. To the extent that your right to worship as you choose conflicts with a compelling state interest (in this case, preventing the needless death of a minor) your right is trumped by that state interest.

What makes you think your attention matters to me or that you get to dictate my analysis? I stated what I believe and if you disagree that is your right, but appeasing you is not my obligation. Have a Blessed Day.
 

Im sorry, but a child health trumps a silly religous belief. Especially when the disease is treatable.
Unf---ing real!

This kind of nonsense should not be allowed to happen.


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A couple who prayed while their daughter slowly died of diabetes will try Tuesday to persuade the state Supreme Court to overturn their homicide convictions, arguing state law protects them from prosecution.
The case presents charged questions for the court about where religious freedom ends. The justices for the first time will have to weigh whether the state's faith-healing exemptions protect parents from criminal liability if their choices lead to a child's death.

Read more: Lawyers to ask Wis. court to rule in prayer death - NewsTimes

I thought they were protected. Christian scientists have been letting their kids die for quite some time now. It's not new and I thought they mostly got away with it.
 
What makes you think your attention matters to me or that you get to dictate my analysis? I stated what I believe and if you disagree that is your right, but appeasing you is not my obligation. Have a Blessed Day.

Appeasing me is certainly not your obligation. Nor is it your obligation to make a cogent argument. I see you've exercized your right to do neither. Good for you.
 
I thought they were protected. Christian scientists have been letting their kids die for quite some time now. It's not new and I thought they mostly got away with it.

It depends on the state. In California, they can't get away with it. In Minnesota they can. We'll see what Wisconsin does.
 

Im sorry, but a child health trumps a silly religous belief. Especially when the disease is treatable.
Unf---ing real!

This kind of nonsense should not be allowed to happen.


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A couple who prayed while their daughter slowly died of diabetes will try Tuesday to persuade the state Supreme Court to overturn their homicide convictions, arguing state law protects them from prosecution.
The case presents charged questions for the court about where religious freedom ends. The justices for the first time will have to weigh whether the state's faith-healing exemptions protect parents from criminal liability if their choices lead to a child's death.

Read more: Lawyers to ask Wis. court to rule in prayer death - NewsTimes

They won't win. Back in the 70's the WSCOTUS ruled on a simllar case with Christian Scientists who let their kid die of cancer instead of getting him treated. the court ruled that the parents regardless of religious affiliation had a responsiblity to provide medical care for the child to prevent the childs death. They cited several lower court cases with similar opinions.

They were not charged with murder but with negligence resulting in the death of a person who was their legal "ward" (read child)_
They both served time.

In this case the fact that the parents also did almost nothing to help would imply criminal negligence. I am not familiar with the current laws regarding "faith based healing" but i doubt this will be conclusive enough to change the verdict. I assume they were charged with 2nd degree murder and so the charge could get reduced to negligent homicide.

The child is a victim here of the parents neglect. the religious issues are not relavent.
 
The parents should be in jail, what they did to their daughter was un-freaking believable. What the state should have done was take her away, and get her the proper medical attention she needed. If an adult wants to forgo treatment due to religious beliefs then fine, but a parent should not have the right to kill their child because of a religious belief they hold.

Since the authorities probably did not know the child was sick they had no way to remove it. This type of stuff happens all the time in this country and it is grotesque.
 
It is a horrible practice, but they should be allowed to do it, and their convictions should be overturned.

So it is ok to let a child die for the parents convictions? GOD what is wrong with you.
 
They didn't kill their child, diabetes did....

Man you are sick. They had the obligation as parents to save thier child and they sat on thier ass and did nothing. God grant you don't have to go through something like this.

Diabetes did MY GOD

So now we let all people with serious illness just die and do nothing because its Gods will to kill them. Would that include your family?

YOu need help
 
I seriously cannot fathom how anybody can justify child abuse and/or neglect for the sake of free practice of religion. You have a right to the free exercise of your religious beliefs. You do not have a right to harm another person in said practice. If these parents were atheists who withheld food and water as a form of punishment nobody would justify the parents' behavior on the basis of their beliefs (religious, moralistic, or otherwise). If these parents were opposed to modern medicine because a psychic had told them it was "bad luck" nobody would justify the parents' behavior on the basis of their beliefs.

The 1st amendment does not guarantee you the free exercise of your religious rights with absolutely no limitations. There are a multitude of limitations placed upon all of our rights, and most of those limitations are based upon how the exercise of your rights interferes with the ability of another to exercise theirs, or how the exercise of your rights negatively impacts another. The idea that we, as a society, would allow a parent to knowingly and willfully cause the death of their child in order to avoid infringing upon their religious rights is absolutely sickening. If the parent does not believe in modern medicine on the basis of religious doctrine then the parent can choose to deny themselves access to modern medical care. Their religious rights do not extend to denying their child that same access. Just as an adult can choose to starve themselves, beat themselves, cut themselves, burn themselves, castigate themselves...they have absolutely no right through any constitutional channel to do the same thing to their child.

Using the 1st amendment as a shield to allow willful abuse upon the most vulnerable members of our society is most assuredly not what was intended when the founders wrote the constitution. But even if the founders were completely unconcerned with child welfare, we damn sure know better than to tolerate abuse and neglect of children in the modern era....even in the name of God.
 
The legal question is a bit complicated, because specific Wisconsin law states a parent who used faith/prayer healing of a child and that fails may not be charged with child abuse.

The state claimed that since the charge was murder, not child abuse, that legal protection doesn't apply. The defense attorney argues that is a dodge around the law and Wisconsin should first have to change - or at least clarify - the statute because murdering a child certainly is "child abuse" and specific law says a parent can't be charged with child abuse for failed faith healing.

In short the defense is arguing that the prosecution was making the absurd claim that murdering your child isn't abusing your child. The prosecution claims that child abuse and child murder aren't the same.

While I do NOT support the principle of letting a child die upon a religious belief if this extreme, I think the defense is correct technically. Murdering a child is child abuse - and the law as written exempts faith healing from criminal prosecution for child abuse. In short, it is a bad old law that needs to be changed, but criminal laws can not be made retroactive.

So it is more than just a generic question.

No offense Joko but I beleive the wording is not child abuse but chid negligence. Since the child was not harmed physically the term abuse does not specifically apply. Wisconsin law has for years made this distinction.
In this case the failure of the parent to treat the child did not result in physical harm (beating) but in willful neglect leading to an aggrevation of the illness resulting in death. This is murder under state statute (or was) and so the charge is and should reamain neglegent homicide.
 
When the Godless side of the aisle rails against Darwinism, and the pro-abortion side of the aisle suddenly rails against parental rights, I LOL at their silly hypocrisy.

Who are you to say who is godless or not. God is God and makes such distinctions. Anyone who says otherwise is a loon and should be put away.

And where is the hypocracy? In your mind? they neglected their charge (child) and did not treat her as any thinking parent would.

WOuld you let your child die thus?
 
And abortion is hardly ever necessary but we don't mind when women have their babies brains blended out do we?

Evasion. Abortion is legal Child neglect is not. Again how do you know abortion is "hardly ever necessary" just sitting back inyour rocking chair and blurting out stupidities/
 
This is one of those issues where, no matter how it's decided in statute, someone loses their constitutional freedoms.

How so? the child died because of willful negligence of the parents. Render onto Caesar. There is no first amendment rights to murder or the murderer.
 
It depends on the state. In California, they can't get away with it. In Minnesota they can. We'll see what Wisconsin does.

Wisconsin will condemn the parents for the hannis act of Willful neglence of a ward (aka Negligent homicide) as it should be
 
The legal question is a bit complicated, because specific Wisconsin law states a parent who used faith/prayer healing of a child and that fails may not be charged with child abuse.

The state claimed that since the charge was murder, not child abuse, that legal protection doesn't apply. The defense attorney argues that is a dodge around the law and Wisconsin should first have to change - or at least clarify - the statute because murdering a child certainly is "child abuse" and specific law says a parent can't be charged with child abuse for failed faith healing.

In short the defense is arguing that the prosecution was making the absurd claim that murdering your child isn't abusing your child. The prosecution claims that child abuse and child murder aren't the same.

While I do NOT support the principle of letting a child die upon a religious belief if this extreme, I think the defense is correct technically. Murdering a child is child abuse - and the law as written exempts faith healing from criminal prosecution for child abuse. In short, it is a bad old law that needs to be changed, but criminal laws can not be made retroactive.

So it is more than just a generic question.

You're raising a good point, and you're correct that murdering the child is also child abuse, but therein lies the problem with the reasoning of the defense. Imagine this was a much more straightforward situation: dad beats the child to death. In all probability he'd be charged with both child abuse and murder. It's not necessary to just pick one. Here, we have a situation where both charges apply, but the defendants are shielded from one of them. That usually isn't - and shouldn't be - a bar to prosecuting them on the other charge.
 
Wisconsin will condemn the parents for the hannis act of Willful neglence of a ward (aka Negligent homicide) as it should be

Hopefully. Like I said, it did go the other way in Minnesota, and not all that long ago (I think). Also, I normally wouldn't correct someone's spelling, but since you're German, I thought you might appreciate it in this case: the word is "heinous," not "hannis."
 
Hopefully. Like I said, it did go the other way in Minnesota, and not all that long ago (I think). Also, I normally wouldn't correct someone's spelling, but since you're German, I thought you might appreciate it in this case: the word is "heinous," not "hannis."

I'm an American and don't pay attention to my spelling for health reasons. I am Ethnic German-American (correction)
 
I'm an American and don't pay attention to my spelling for health reasons. I am Ethnic German-American (correction)

Ah. I was under the impression that you were a German national living in the US. My mistake.
 
Ah. I was under the impression that you were a German national living in the US. My mistake.

No problem. I like it when posters do that. It makes me feel warm all over. Ethnic does not infer "national" it generally refers to a citizen who maintains the langauge, culture, heritage and traditions, and history of their ancestors.
 
No problem. I like it when posters do that. It makes me feel warm all over. Ethnic does not infer "national" it generally refers to a citizen who maintains the langauge, culture, heritage and traditions, and history of their ancestors.

Sure. I actually just figured out that I was conflating you with German Guy. You have similar avatars. He is, I'm pretty sure, a German national.
 
Sure. I actually just figured out that I was conflating you with German Guy. You have similar avatars. He is, I'm pretty sure, a German national.

He is a good Berliner.
 
Back
Top Bottom