2nd child of Pa. couple, who seek prayer not doctors, dies; violates probation, no ch

Oh no, I was just addressing that particular question...

I get the "two lives" thing, but, it seems like it'd be difficult to just tell a woman who was pregnant by rape to suck it up, and deal with the pregnancy...

That's all I'm saying...

But, back to the subject at hand...

 

OK, then are you with me and dragging the 2 of them behind a dune buggy or is that too good for them?

 

It seems a bit kindly for them...lol

 

Well, I'm not on that thread, but I am very much for religious freedom and parental rights. But this isn't about either of those things. This is a thread about parental neglect.

 

then when do you suggest society steps in? How do we monitor all the children to ensure the parents are adhering to the govt handbook?

When do we intervene in pregnancies on behalf of the children? If we catch a pregnant woman smoking, drinking or doing drugs do we arrest her?

Do we not intervene on behalf of the children when abortions are attempted?

 

There's a government handbook? Who knew? As for the other bit, it's not all that complicated. One of the only legitimate functions of government is to protect the rights of the innocent. If a child is being endangered by anyone, parent or not, the government can feel free to step in as the protector of said child's rights. Will they be able to discover every neglected kid? Likely not. But it's not like they solve every adult on adult crime either.

Seems a topic for the abortion section of the site, no?

 

interesting. Then, other than after the fact, namely when the child has died, how do we ensure that parents are providing adequate care and who deems what is adequate?

 

Do we not do that now? Seems to me there are thousands of kids being supervised by the various state child welfare agencies. Actually, from all the stories I hear they are swamped. It's not like I'm inventing some new thing here. The system failed the dead kid, of course, so like all people who commit crimes his parents will head to court.

 

Except the parents in this case do not believe that they are harming or neglecting their child. According to their religious beliefs, it is "God's will" for them to pray rather than taking their child in for medical treatment. So why don't their supposed parental rights and religious rights not apply?

Flip this over to the arguments in the circumcision thread: If Jews can invoke "God's will"and legally mutilate their children, then why is it wrong for parents to invoke "God's will" in refusing to treat their children for illnesses or injuries in any way except prayer?

Really, there is only one moral choice: Make it illegal for individuals to inflict harm on other individuals against that person's will. It doesn't matter if someone is a parent or not. They have no right to inflict harm on their children.

 

interesting. Then giving hormones to a little boy so he becomes a girl would fall under that category, correct?

How about stopping the heart from beating on an unborn child?

 

Yes. And yes.

The first is psychological harm. The second is physical harm.

 

kudos for being consistent

 

For the same reason my religious rights do not allow me to sacrifice your child to my God. You have no rights that include infringing on my rights.

I'm fine with that. I'm guessing the pro-circumcision folks, however, would claim that while the procedure my cause pain, it does not actually cause harm. You may disagree, but I think there are valid arguments on both sides. Not so much with the case in the OP.

 

Then you would agree with me that a parent's rights to their religious beliefs end at the limits of their child's individual rights, yes?

How exactly is cutting a part off a person not harm? The example was brought up in that thread that removing a child's finger and toe nails would prevent infections and problems in the future, but I doubt that any supports of circumcision would say that a parent has the right to have their child's nail ripped out.

 

I'm sure this post will not be popular.

This issue is a difficult one for me. On the one hand, we have the fundamental right to practice our religion and, as parents/guardians of children, to pass our religious beliefs onto our children. On the other hand, we have the well being of the child to be concerned about and what is an acceptable level of care that child should expect.

While our medical profession has come a long ways from the days of "leeching", who is to know what long term effects modern medical care will have. It has already been mentioned by a lot of people that our society is over medicated. Does this cause harmful long term effects? What about the claim that all of the antibiotics our society takes is creating strains of viruses that are immune to modern antibiotics? Could it be that our medical treatment is actually causing worse illnesses like cancer? Is our medical treatment actually causing our bodies to become more vulnerable to other issues?

Truly, these are not issues that go through my mind when I am in need of a doctor, but what right is it of ours to tell others that their beliefs towards the medical field is unwarranted, especially when those beliefs are religion driven? Who decides what is an acceptable level of care for children?

Bottom line, I believe those parents should have taken their children to see a doctor...........but is it neglect? On the surface, Yes..... But what if we are the ones that are wrong?

 

That's a good question..... something was seriously wrong and it's called child neglect and abuse.

 

These are misguided people. And I'd be curious to know what type if any insurance policy was on these kids.

 

How is natural sickness harm inflicted by the parents?

 

Well, IMO if God hears prayers then He should honor even goofballs when their little kids' lives are at stake.

 

I would be more supportive of intervention in cases like this if I was confident our government had restraint, since it is obvious they don't I'd back the parents on this one...

 

This has been making the news in Australia.

Teen Witness must have a transfusion, rules judge


http://www.smh.com.au/national/teen-witness-must-have-a-transfusion-rules-judge-20130417-2i0lc.html

 

Refusal to provide aid is harm.

 

So just the typical thought policing, got it...

 

Out of curiosity which is worse, gay parents who rape thir kids or straight ones who let their's die because of religious beliefs?

 

There are religious people and there are the religious zealots where every breathing moment of their day is wrapped around their religion....

Most religious people do have some common sense and love their kids enuf where they want them to live long, healthy lives, so will take them to the dr when the child is sick...... and then there's the other type that's dangerous - to their sick children anyway.