The few dissenters in this thread do not seem to get the concept that your children are not your property.
the parents are the legal guardians of the children; and the parents are raising their children within the failth and belief system followed by the parents
You are your child's guardian, and thus you are responsible for raising that child, providing for their needs, and making decisions for that child that is in the child's best interest.
and we are in agreement in all of this
the parent guardians are responsible for caring for their children in the way THEY view best
in this instance THEY chose to follow prayer as the healing mechanism, consistent with THEIR religious convictions
There is a lot of leeway in this, we all have known terrible parents that still managed to raise their kids. However, because you are your kid's guardian and not your kid's owner, you cannot deny them lifesaving care.
and consistent with THEIR religious beliefs, the parents chose prayer as the way to effect healing
You cannot deny them food.
food was NOT denied
You cannot deny them proper shelter
they were NOT denied shelter
... or other life saving / preserving needs.
and in the parents' religious view, they did not deny their children life saving/preserving attention. they offered what THE PARENTS believed to be best for their children. they chose the healing of religious prayer
not what you or i would have chosen, but we are not of the parents' faith. they have a right to choose their faith and to live by the tenants of their own religion. and that called for the healing powers of prayer
That is where the line is drawn.
and the parents acted within that line
THEY did what they believed was best for their children, consistent with their personal beliefs
If I were to quite feeding my kids, it would certainly be appropriate for the state to step in, and if necessary either remove custody from me or even prosecute me for my negligence.
yes, but unlike you, these parents did not choose to starve their children. they did choose to follow the articles of their faith
This way my kids would not face the horrendous death of slow starvation.
and these children did not face starvation
Similarly, if I had a child that developed cancer, and I refused to get my child any medical treatment for that cancer, it would be perfectly appropriate for the state to step in and thus save my child, that cannot legally consent themselves yet, from probably dying a slow and extremely painful death.
but if your religious faith directed you to choose prayer instead of medicine, that would be the course of action directed by a higher power, your G_d
and that was the circumstance in extant circumstance
My motivations for doing this would be irrelevant as it would have no impact on the results of my actions either way.
if you were a religious person who obeyed the directives of G_d as you understood them to be, and if those directives were to apply prayer rather than medicine, then you would choose prayer
Even if I thought I could pray away my kid's cancer, it would not change the fact that my denying them medical care would result in their dying a slow and extremely painful death.
this assumes prayer would not help
you cannot offer any assurance that would not be the result
I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Its not even controversial.
it is not difficult to grasp for those who choose to recognize the right to live by one's religious edicts
it becomes controversial when that choice is other than what would be prevalent, as in this instance