• 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

madman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
10,538
Reaction score
7,943
Location
So. California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal

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
 
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.
 
It is a horrible practice, but they should be allowed to do it, and their convictions should be overturned.
 

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


Hopefully the judge just laughs at the couple and tells them no.Its one thing trying every medical doctor under the sun and praying to god for help and its another thing not taking the child to the doctor and expecting God to go do something. Kind of reminds me of this joke

A religious man is on top of a roof during a great flood. A man comes by in a boat and says "get in, get in!" The religous man replies, " no I have faith in God, he will grant me a miracle."

Later the water is up to his waist and another boat comes by and the guy tells him to get in again. He responds that he has faith in god and god will give him a miracle. With the water at about chest high, another boat comes to rescue him, but he turns down the offer again cause "God will grant him a miracle."

With the water at chin high, a helicopter throws down a ladder and they tell him to get in, mumbling with the water in his mouth, he again turns down the request for help for the faith of God. He arrives at the gates of heaven with broken faith and says to Peter, I thought God would grand me a miracle and I have been let down." St. Peter chuckles and responds, "I don't know what you're complaining about, we sent you three boats and a helicopter."
 
It is a horrible practice, but they should be allowed to do it, and their convictions should be overturned.

It's a horrible practice, but they should be allowed to kill their child.
Is that what you are saying?
 
It's a horrible practice, but they should be allowed to kill their child.
Is that what you are saying?

They didn't kill their child, diabetes did....
 
It is a horrible practice, but they should be allowed to do it, and their convictions should be overturned.

Well, I guess you are ok with honor killings then too right? I mean, that is their religious belief as well.
 
They didn't kill their child, diabetes did....

LOL. No, they neglected their child and failed to get medical attention that she needed. I blame them and their silly beliefs.
 
They didn't kill their child, diabetes did....

Since diabetes is entirely treatable, that's a little like arguing that a parent who never feeds their kid didn't kill the kid, starvation did.
 
They didn't kill their child, diabetes did....

Diabetes is treatable and that child could have lived until their 70s with proper medical care. They withheld necessary care and their refusal to allow treatment resulted in the death of their child.

Your argument is the same thing as saying "refusing to provide him with food didn't kill him, starvation did."
 
Since diabetes is entirely treatable, that's a little like arguing that a parent who never feeds their kid didn't kill the kid, starvation did.

Damn, you beat me to it!

Great minds....
 
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.

So, at what point do you take these children? How does the state know, in adavnce, that this would (could?) happen? Are all in this religious sect to be barred from keeping their offspring? If the past six illnesses all "went away naturally", or were "cured by prayer", when does one "cross the line"?
 
They didn't kill their child, diabetes did....

What if the parents deliberately withheld food, from their child because they believed God would ensure their child wouldn't starve to death?
What if the parents left their child in the middle of the busy highway because they believed God would ensure their child's safety?
What if the parents threw their child in tiger exhibit at the zoo because they believed God would ensure their child's safety?
 
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.
 
LOL. No, they neglected their child and failed to get medical attention that she needed. I blame them and their silly beliefs.

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.
 
Since diabetes is entirely treatable, that's a little like arguing that a parent who never feeds their kid didn't kill the kid, starvation did.

And abortion is hardly ever necessary but we don't mind when women have their babies brains blended out do we?
 
And abortion is hardly ever necessary but we don't mind when women have their babies brains blended out do we?

Ah. A totally irrelevant off-topic response. Well argued.
 
How sad.

Hard to believe people would refuse the gifts right under their noses.
 
What if the parents deliberately withheld food, from their child because they believed God would ensure their child wouldn't starve to death?
What if the parents left their child in the middle of the busy highway because they believed God would ensure their child's safety?
What if the parents threw their child in tiger exhibit at the zoo because they believed God would ensure their child's safety?

Only the first one is arguably a comparable situation because it was a passive act. The other two would be affirmative acts and therefore a different analysis. As for the first one, I am unaware of that being a part of religious practice.
 
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.

are you one that seeks medical care for your child when he/she is sick or do you just pray away the disease?
 
Ah. A totally irrelevant off-topic response. Well argued.

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? 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.
 
This is one of those issues where, no matter how it's decided in statute, someone loses their constitutional freedoms.
 
Back
Top Bottom