Parents who tried to pray away illness charged with murder

Holly (*)(*)(*)(*) , how narrow is your vision ? A law wouldn't cover just a single illness . Are you suggesting parents are ok refusing life saving treatment as long as its not pneumonia . Clearly we are talking about how a law would work , not a single illness ...

 

I am discussing how a law would work when it comes to illnesses that have multiple thoughts of how it should be treated . What happens when it's not the common flu or cold ?

 

How complicated do you think it is? You kid gets sick, you take him to the doctor, you then decide which course of treatment you want to pursue. You know, the same as all parents who are not bat shiite crazy do.

 

Because not every illness has a standard , accepted treatment . Living through one , I am well aware how doctors disagree on best treatment to the point of calling other doctors opinions negligent ... not everyone who gets sick is lucky enough to have a accepted and known treatment waiting for them . When dealing with a fatal illness , one must weigh quality of life vs treatment benefits . The world isn't as black and white as you would like to pretend .

 

Sorry, I'm not getting your point in relation to this thread. Seems wholly unrelated to me. They are not in trouble because they chose doctor recommended treatment A versus doctor recommended treatment B. They are in trouble for choosing to not treat their child at all, despite an actual clear and effective treatment. They negligently caused their child to die. That has nothing much to do with your issue.

It was here. I was not really talking about the "world". Just this topic.

 

The question started with a thought about who and what decides what illnesses should have required treatment and what illnesses shouldn't . How does that get determined ? To what extent does the government get to decide that a family or person did not seek the correct treatment for disease ? What if instead of religious thought , the dad of family was a doctor and thought it was best for child to fight off illness on his own ? How does the government decide which doctor or which opinion to accept ? Especially as the illness gets less and less common ?

What if family was from Argentina , just moved , and wanted to use holistic medicine instead ? What if kid dies then ? Still a crime ?

 

Same as they determine any other type of neglect. It's not at all as complicated as you are making it out to be. Would a reasonable person conclude that praying away pneumonia is a valid treatment option? Or would a reasonable person conclude it's flat out child neglect?

Huh? That is the same as praying! They are not in trouble because they prayed. They are in trouble for not attempting to treat their child despite total agreement from the medical profession on how to do it.

I think you are complicating this needlessly.

 

we are in agreement on this as well as this http://www.numberofabortions.com/

 

Without a doubt a very sad and sickening fact.

Everything possible should be done to lessen the number of abortions to as few as possible.

 

Good...

I hope they get the max punishment...

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s...

 

You're talking about adults who choose to drink and smoke...

This is about a child, who can only depend on his parents to look out for his well-being...

These (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s didn't and the child is dead...

Of course it's not a crime to pray for someone...

It is, however, a crime to be neglectful of a child, and that's what these (*)(*)(*)(*)ing scumbags did...

They belong under the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing jail...

 

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about!?!?!?!

Pneumonia is a very common, very treatable disease...

These (*)(*)(*)(*)heads let their baby die...

They belong in the hottest part of hell...

 

Good God!

No!

What you are being told is that it's not OK to deny a child medical treatment that could potentially save his/her life because you want to try and pray it away...

By all means, they're perfectly OK to pray for their child, but, they could've gotten the pneumonia treated too...

When they denied medical treatment that could've saved the baby, they crossed the line...

- - - Updated - - -

It was pneumonia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

What law are we even talking about here? One of the reasons it is so hard to respond to you is that you are far too vague. Probably because you know how foolish your position is

If there were a law dictating when a parent is required to take his kid in for treatment regardless of religious background, why wouldn't it apply differently to different illnesses depending on how treatable the illness is and how serious the illness can get without treatment?

Are you serious? Just because we happen to be talking about pneumonia doesn't mean I'm saying pneumonia should be some exception to the rule.

 

I don't understand people like this.

God gave man the ability to reason. The ability to use his brain to learn about God's universe. That was a gift from God to us. Through that gift, we have achieved technological marvels and an understanding of the world and universe around us.

I understand the need to pray away disease. But God is not a genie in a bottle. Faith without works is an empty faith. We have invented medicine through our great intellect to help us better our way of life. I understand allowing your child's own body to be the 1st line of defense and not immediately running to the doctor as soon as they get sick. To many people go to doctors for the dumbest of ailments. One reason why medical care is so expensive, but I digress. If your child is not doing any better in 2 or 3 days, then it's time to get that checked out.

What these parents did, was practicing their faith, whatever that is I don't have a clue, but to rely strictly on faith, and to not try and work to get help when needed, is negligent not just in that faith but against God, a sin.

These parents 100% neglected their children and should be punished according to the law.

 

/thread

 

I don't even have a clue as to what nonsense you are even beginning to start up on. I'm certain the term 'medical service' isn't even in the document, for any reason, much less for whatever mumbo jumbo concept you are talking about.

I also know for certain that there is not one instance in the document in which the state is given the power to prosecute anyone because another dies from a disease, virus, or bacteria...

If the people want the ability to prosecute parents because they fail to seek treatment, they need to use the legislature to create a law that does just that, not fumble around with existing laws that do not allow that to seek some form of social vengeance because the people failed to prepare for this situation...

This is a witchhunt, a grotesque game being played out by the state in which they are twisting the the system to persecute parents for not conforming to popular concepts, all the while trampling on these parent's 1st Amendment rights...

 

They have a Constitutional right to neglect their child until it dies? Interesting.

 

Witchhunt!?

They failed to provide adequate medical care for a child, and the child died as a result...

That is neglect, which is illegal, and they should be charged with murder...

(*)(*)(*)(*) them...

 

The Constitution protects individual rights. Individual rights, even the protection of religious freedom, do not include the right to force others to follow your religious beliefs, especially when such beliefs involve harming others.

- - - Updated - - -

The Constitution protects individual rights. Individual rights, even the protection of religious freedom, do not include the right to force others to follow your religious beliefs, especially when such beliefs involve harming others.

 

If they're white, working, taxpaying Christians, then trying to pray away an illness is about they can possibly do. Obamacare is taking away their health insurance and giving it to minorities.

 

LOLWUT?

Is there ANYTHING you morons won't try to blame on Obama? I mean seriously these clowns could have rolled up to the hospital got out , announced to the doctors that they had not money and would not possibly be able to pay their medical bills and the hospital still would have been morally and legally obligated to treat their child.

 

Why do you insist on constantly trolling?

I work with a few White, taxpaying Christians who would've taken their kid to the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing doctor...

Try not being so ridiculous...

 

No you're wrong. They would have been turned away for being white Christian and employed.

 

Well they should, if God controls how something got into the womb, then he/she/it/they can control what happens outside the womb. God controls/knows/ everything.