Travolta's teen son dead.

Captain America said:

Is it not just another issue in the pro-choice society? It's his choice to "worship" and believe and practice whatever the hell it is those people believe. :roll: (Reminds me of snake handlers. :shock

Myself, I don't think it's cool, at all, especially when it's the kids that have to suffer their parents folly. If the older religious zealots want to refuse logic and reason and suffer as a result, more power to them. But the kids? Well, I'm not one to stand between a parent and his/her parental rights, but c'mon.

Should they sue the Co$ out of existance? Well, I'm not gonna try to stop them. I hope I get paid to serve the court papers. :rofl

But if we're going to start attacking the people who are making these free choices, (and actually exercizing the very freedoms we all boast about, here in the good ol' USA of A,) can we get to the abortion clinics next? I mean, there is no shortage of people who want to shut down that choice too.

Or, is it better to say, "I am all for the freedom of choice as long as I agree with that choice?"

I think we should just let Mr. Travolta and his family mourn in privacy and just keep our snoots out of it. I know gossip goes with his chosen profession, but some things should be sacred to us all. This being one of them.

Click to expand...

Suing the Church is out of line, I agree, but this is not just a private matter. When a parent endangers or causes the death of their child as a direct result of their religious beliefs they have run afoul of the law. Parents whose children die as a result of reliance of faith healing in lieu of medical treatment are often charged for their negligence. We do not have nearly enough information to determine if this was the case here, but it should be fully investigated and action should be taken if warranted. You (universal) have every right to believe in the Evil Lord Xenu and every right to act on that belief. You do not have the right to cause or fail to prevent the death of your child because of your faith in a bad sci-fi plot.

Captain America said:

Is it not just another issue in the pro-choice society? It's his choice to "worship" and believe and practice whatever the hell it is those people believe. :roll: (Reminds me of snake handlers. :shock

Myself, I don't think it's cool, at all, especially when it's the kids that have to suffer their parents folly. If the older religious zealots want to refuse logic and reason and suffer as a result, more power to them. But the kids? Well, I'm not one to stand between a parent and his/her parental rights, but c'mon.

Should they sue the Co$ out of existance? Well, I'm not gonna try to stop them. I hope I get paid to serve the court papers. :rofl

But if we're going to start attacking the people who are making these free choices, (and actually exercizing the very freedoms we all boast about, here in the good ol' USA of A,) can we get to the abortion clinics next? I mean, there is no shortage of people who want to shut down that choice too.

Or, is it better to say, "I am all for the freedom of choice as long as I agree with that choice?"

I think we should just let Mr. Travolta and his family mourn in privacy and just keep our snoots out of it. I know gossip goes with his chosen profession, but some things should be sacred to us all. This being one of them.

Click to expand...

The Co$ does a ton of evil, indoctrinates and brainwashes, and takes advantage of those who cannot protect themselves...persons who need certain medications who do not understand the implications of not taking them. I am not suggesting that their rights to free speech be prevented. Legally sue them so their scummy organization is bankrupt. For sure they have committed enough crimes to earn this.

Exactly.
From the photos I've seen and the information I've read, poor Jett was severely mentally disabled.
Chronologically, he may have been almost an adult, but it is my suspicion that mentally he was still a very young child, helpless and vulnerable and trusting the adults around him to take care of him and do the right thing.

I hope they did, and that all this was merely a horrible, tragic, unpreventable accident.
If it wasn't- if withholding of medication or treatment was somehow involved, it is not a private matter, and no the family does not have the right to mourn in private.
I hope they and the CoS are held accountable for what has occurred, if in fact they are somehow responsible.
The situation must be investigated, and it will be.
Healthy 16-year-olds don't just have seizures in the bathtub and drop dead.
Somebody needs to figure out what occurred here.

CaptainCourtesy said:

The Co$ does a ton of evil, indoctrinates and brainwashes, and takes advantage of those who cannot protect themselves...persons who need certain medications who do not understand the implications of not taking them. I am not suggesting that their rights to free speech be prevented. Legally sue them so their scummy organization is bankrupt. For sure they have committed enough crimes to earn this.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. But the point, or parallel, I was trying to draw is this.

Some of the same people who debate with diligence the right to abort a child and defend the choice to do so are now calling to castrate the Co$ for their right to practice their religion when it "hurts the child." Both issues, albeit they are poles apart, are similar. The end result is detrimental to the children in both "choices." Yet, one is acceptable, and one is not. And that depends on who you're askin'.

One one side, you got your people who want to close abortion clinics and make them illegal. Similarly, you got people who want to shut down a church for their beliefs and make them illegal.

I was more or less just pointing out the irony in beliefs, of some of the posters here, I have come to know. Probably only makes sense to me. :3oops: I could have done a better job at explaining myself perhaps.

How horrible, prayers for the Travolta family. Such a tragedy that no family should have to endure.

Captain America said:

I agree 100%. But the point, or parallel, I was trying to draw is this.

Some of the same people who debate with diligence the right to abort a child and defend the choice to do so are now calling to castrate the Co$ for their right to practice their religion when it "hurts the child." Both issues, albeit they are poles apart, are similar. The end result is detrimental to the children in both "choices." Yet, one is acceptable, and one is not. And that depends on who you're askin'.

One one side, you got your people who want to close abortion clinics and make them illegal. Similarly, you got people who want to shut down a church for their beliefs and make them illegal.

I was more or less just pointing out the irony in beliefs, of some of the posters here, I have come to know. Probably only makes sense to me. :3oops: I could have done a better job at explaining myself perhaps.

Click to expand...

You find it "ironic" that prochoicers- people who believe in reproductive choice for girls and women- would also care about keeping children safe?

I suppose it's about as ironic as the fact that "prolifers"- those who wish to force girls and women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term against their will- do not support causes or legislation which benefits born children.

See, one group only cares about actual children, while the other group only cares about hypothetical "children".

Oh, the irony!!

You see, one group is not concerned about hypothetical children, while the other group is not concerned about actual children.

Wow. Just.... wow. I mean, like, if irony were avocados, we'd all be eating a lot of guacamole right about now.

... :roll:

1069 said:

I suppose it's about as ironic as the fact that "prolifers"- those who wish to force girls and women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term against their will- do not support causes or legislation which benefits born children.

See, one group only cares about actual children, while the other group only cares about hypothetical "children".

Click to expand...

Utter b.s.

You see, one group is not concerned about hypothetical children, while the other group is not concerned about actual children.

Click to expand...

more b.s.

Wow. Just.... wow. I mean, like, if irony were avocados, we'd all be eating a lot of guacamole right about now.

... :roll:

Click to expand...

Avocados are out of season.

Here's a recent picture of John Travolta and his son Jett.
No matter what happened, I'm sure that he loved the boy very much.

Ya'll are all pathetic. The man lost his son, and we're having debates over stupid BS? Shame on all ya'll.

MrVicchio said:

Ya'll are all pathetic. The man lost his son, and we're having debates over stupid BS? Shame on all ya'll.

Click to expand...

The world lost Jett Travolta.
If the Church of Scientology and their radical beliefs about illness and medicine had something to do with that loss, they need to be held accountable.
They need to be prevented from doing it again.

I got an idea. Let's drown them in guacamole. :rofl

1069 said:

The world lost Jett Travolta.
If the Church of Scientology and their radical beliefs about illness and medicine had something to do with that loss, they need to be held accountable.
They need to be prevented from doing it again.

Click to expand...

No, the world didn't. I don't know the kid, never met him, never will. Mr. Travolta lost his son. His family lost his son... wtf is this world crap? Why the world? Goofy.

Now, you want to do a thread on Scientologies faults, and they ARE legion, fine, start one.

Captain America said:

I got an idea. Let's drown them in guacamole. :rofl

Click to expand...

I can think of worse ways to go :mrgreen:

Captain America said:

I agree 100%. But the point, or parallel, I was trying to draw is this.

Some of the same people who debate with diligence the right to abort a child and defend the choice to do so are now calling to castrate the Co$ for their right to practice their religion when it "hurts the child." Both issues, albeit they are poles apart, are similar. The end result is detrimental to the children in both "choices." Yet, one is acceptable, and one is not. And that depends on who you're askin'.

One one side, you got your people who want to close abortion clinics and make them illegal. Similarly, you got people who want to shut down a church for their beliefs and make them illegal.

I was more or less just pointing out the irony in beliefs, of some of the posters here, I have come to know. Probably only makes sense to me. :3oops: I could have done a better job at explaining myself perhaps.

Click to expand...

The problem with your analogy here is that most pro-choicers do not consider the fetus a child, so the analogy doesn't work. The "definition" issue is, at least to me, the cornerstone of the entire abortion debate.

CaptainCourtesy said:

The problem with your analogy here is that most pro-choicers do not consider the fetus a child, so the analogy doesn't work. The "definition" issue is, at least to me, the cornerstone of the entire abortion debate.

Click to expand...

Tru dat. But, speakin' for myself, I do consider the "fetus" to be a baby-baby. So, there you have it, and here we are. :roll:

I mean, I understand why some would like to consider it a "fetus" or just a mass of tissue, or whatever. It make's it a lot easier to dehumanize it.

I am even guilty of doing the same in other issues. For example, I never "cancel" a show. I always "reschedule" it.

Definitions. Yes sir. You hit the nail on the head.

I don't call what the whacko's over at the C0$ do as "child abuse" as child abuse is normally defined. But I can totally understand why someone else might. To me, they are simply exercizing their religious rights. Much like someone can opt to abort if they choose to. Gotta take the good with the bad I suppose. I have said it before. Democracy is a double-edged sword.

But, hey, you guys all know me. If it were up to me, all religion would be outlawed. Good thing nobody asked me to help pen the constitution, hey? :mrgreen:

Preston said in 2003 that she had detoxed her son in a programme devised by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. “I had a friend of mine, an environmental scientist and a toxicologist, go through our home and tell us exactly what was going on in the home. It wasn’t only the carpet. We had lots of cleansers under the sink.”

Critics of Scientology suggested yesterday that Jett may have been suffering from autism, a condition that the church does not recognise because it considers mental illness to be psychosomatic and argues that it should be treated through spiritual healing.

Joey Travolta, the star’s film-maker younger brother and an autism activist, reportedly clashed with his brother about what was wrong with Jett. Joey Travolta worked on a documentary called Normal People Scare Me and helped to found Actors with Autism.

Click to expand...

Scientology row over Jett Travolta as post mortem reveals he died of seizure - Times Online



Scientologists are kooks. This is a tragedy that is played out in thousands of lives, not just famous actors.

I feel if due to the parents religion of Scientology that if they withheld meds that could have prevented this seizure? The parents should be charged with neglect. Also what happened to him falling and hitting his head? There were even reports there was blood all over makes me wonder if a cover up have went down

Kali said:

I feel if due to the parents religion of Scientology that if they withheld meds that could have prevented this seizure? The parents should be charged with neglect. Also what happened to him falling and hitting his head? There were even reports there was blood all over makes me wonder if a cover up have went down

Click to expand...

Seizures normally involve falling. Especially gran mall seizures. You don't stay standing through one of them.

talloulou said:

Seizures normally involve falling. Especially gran mall seizures. You don't stay standing through one of them.

Click to expand...

I get that but my point is why are they now saying he did not fall? What happened to him hitting his head? Also they sure did cremate the body pretty fast. Just seems strange to me

Kali said:

I get that but my point is why are they now saying he did not fall? What happened to him hitting his head? Also they sure did cremate the body pretty fast. Just seems strange to me

Click to expand...

He had a seizure, which caused him to fall and hit his head

Kernel Sanders said:

He had a seizure, which caused him to fall and hit his head

Click to expand...

Why are the media now saying he did NOT hit his head

Kali said:

Why are the media now saying he did NOT hit his head

Click to expand...

Oh - nevermind I thought you were asking something different. I have not been following this story in the slightest, I only heard the initial reports.

Kali said:

Why are the media now saying he did NOT hit his head

Click to expand...

Kali...the media is so stupid they can`t splain things. I believe the coroners take was that the minor blow to the head was NOT a contributing factor,(if the kid fell he DID hit his head) NBStupid CBStupid ABStupid and all the otherSTUPIDS "translate insignificant blow to the head".or "non-contributing injury to the head" as meaning `he didn`t hit his head. Why has none of our REPORTER wanabe crowds answered the question of "was the boy on anti-siezure meds"? Not a psych med this one may have saved his life,but Lafayet ron hubard in his vast science fiction knowledge of medicine had determined that simply evicting the evil XENU from the families life would fix everything.

Well, be that as it may, anti-seizure meds tend to have rather extreme side effects in many cases, and I suppose it is the right of a parent (and the right of a 16-year-old boy, provided he is of sound mind) to decide whether or not to take such meds or forego them.

Of course, if the Travoltas were poor, CPS would no doubt be sniffing around.
But they're wealthy, they can afford to take legal recourse if unfairly persecuted, and Child Protective Services tends to steer clear of people like that.
It is not, in fact, a crime not to force anti-seizure meds upon a 16-year-old who is refusing them.
Whether it's a crime to withhold anti-seizure meds from a mentally disabled teenager who suffers from a seizure disorder is another matter, but 1. we have no proof the Travoltas did this, and 2. we don't even know for sure that Jett was mentally or psychologicaly disabled; all of Hollywood claims he was, including John Travolta's brother, who made a documentary about autism... but the Travoltas themselves claim their son suffered from no illness except Kawasaki Disease, a rare malady (occurs in 19 out of every 100000 kids) that he contracted as a baby.

Perhaps they're right.
Or perhaps they were within their rights to withhold anti-seizure meds from Jett, even if he was autistic or otherwise ill. Perhaps they felt the seizures were more managable than the side effects of the meds.
The thing is, we really don't know all the details, and neither does Hollywood.
It would behoove us all to wait for more information before jumping to conclusions.

Kali said:

I feel if due to the parents religion of Scientology that if they withheld meds that could have prevented this seizure? The parents should be charged with neglect. Also what happened to him falling and hitting his head? There were even reports there was blood all over makes me wonder if a cover up have went down

Click to expand...

There is another side to the coin. Our children are deserving of protection from American medicine(Log onto `CDC/WrongfulDeaths in medical facilities`). Do you want the pharmaceutical industry to load your kid up with toxic chinese manufactured drugs,far from perfect vacines that lead to such problems as AUTISM,ADD,ADHD,infertility,and autoimune disorders,just to name a few.Good nutrition, a few vitamins ,and an apple a day in most cases will keep the bad doctor away. Back to seizures. A known organ defect,treatable with meds,(by a COMPITENT doctor) should have been treated.