Murder by prayer: When is enough, enough?

Ummm, yeah we do. If a mother locks her kid in the car for hours in the middle of the summer we get to take that child away until she shows that she is capable of correctly raising that child. We do get to take children out of homes where they are neglected, and we get to prosecute parents for endangering the lives of their children. It's the law. Prayer is incompetent health care. Would you please cite this study?

That's not true at all. I fully support the rights of parents to share their religious beliefs with their children. What I don't support is negligent homocide, which happens to be against the law. That is what is going on here. These parents are being negligent, and it ends up killing their children.I'm sorry, but simply stating "God told me to" does not excuse people from obeying the law. Neglecting your children's health is a crime. Period. It doesn't matter if God tells them to do so, or if the spirit in the jar of pickles tells them to. It is a crime. If someone states that God told them to kill someone would they be acquited of all charges right there on the spot? Of course not. So why is this any different? Can you remind us of that speech you made concerning not judging others? No one has the freedom to allow their children to die from treatable diseases and bar them from seeking medical treatment. We get it just fine. Some people are so deluded by their religious beliefs that they will endanger the lives of their own children because of them.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It is not my opinion that antibiotics can clear infections that would otherwise be life threatening. That is a fact. Denying your children the chance to live by denying them antibiotics is negligent behavior. Period. It is wrong. I am not saying that they can not use faith healers. What I am saying is that they should not deny their children the simplest of medical attention.If you are an example of what christian morality really is, then I don't see how christians can claim the high ground. No, it doesn't. We are all responsible for our own actions which includes the consequences of those actions. I find it rather disturbing that I have to tell a christian this. Nowhere did I state that they should have traditional style only medicine. What I did state is that these children should not be denied access to modern medicine that can save their lives. That is wrong. Period. Again, I find it rather horrifying that I should have to explain this to the supposedly morally superior christians. So God would not tell someone to go into a town and kill every man, woman, and child, not to mention all the animals in the fields? Have you read the Old Testament? I never said that faith healing is murder. I said that preventing your child from getting medical attention is murder, more specifically negligent homocide. So which of these is the cause in this case? Are these parents who deny their children medical attention deceived by the devil?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

When someone says something like this you would at least hope that it would be followed by actual evidence that supports their position. If you want to claim bias THEN EXPOSE THE BIAS. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air.

That doesn't excuse parents from denying their children life saving medical treatment. Then why are these parents denying their children access to doctors in the name of God? I was a christian the first 22 years of my life. I understand it just fine. I agree with you. No parent should be charged with murder for using faith healing. However, they should be charged with murder if they deny their children access to life saving medicine. In this case they are negligent parents. I wasn't aware that taking antibiotics and seeing doctors was an atheist-only thing. That is news to me. I grew up in a christian household and my mom took me to the doctor all of the time. She even forced me to take antibiotics. Are you telling me that she was an atheist appeaser? And that is what scares me. Instead of being obedient I would hope that people would act morally. There were quite a few Nazi officers that tried to get away with genocide using the same excuse, they were just following orders. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Obedience is not a substitute for morality. I have millions of clinical trials which demonstrate the efficacy of modern medicine. No blind faith is needed. I have the proof.You might as well claim that I have a limited view of how bacterial infections occur, so letting a child wallow in their own feces is just fine. It is certainly not a sign of neglect. Also, you must have a very limited view of methamphetamines so you can not judge whether or not I can force my child to take meth.Just claiming that someone has a limited view doesn't mean anything. It's a lot of hot air. SHOW ME that I have a limited view. SHOW ME that medicine does not work. Then I will believe you. You are probably right. It was probably the catholic approved one given the number of catholic hospitals.

It is quite strange that you don't mention "mistakes" when it comes to insulin. Surely there have been batches of insulin that have either been contaminated or ineffective which have lead to deaths. Even more, there have probably been pharmacists who have given customers the wrong drug or the wrong concentration which has also led to deaths. So why are you suddenly so quiet when it comes to "mistakes"? In the cases being discussed in this thread God has commanded people to withhold medical treatment that then led to the deaths of children. You are saying that this is fine. We disagree.

I will gladly separate Archy from my own speculations. That is fine.From my own experiences in the christian community it is quite common to have people equivocate "Scripture says" with "God says" or "God commands". It is quite common for christians to claim that God speaks to them through scripture.With this said, does anyone really think that these parents are just going out on their own? Or do you think that they have a biblical justification, at least in their own eyes? Whether Archy agrees or disagrees with this justification is beside the point as it concerns the protection of religious beliefs. The Constitution does not state that only "true teachings" are protected under law, so any argument based on Constitutional law must apply euqally to both true and false teachings. I am sure Archy disagrees with Mormonism, and I would also assume that Archy supports the religious freedoms that Mormons enjoy (am I wrong Archy?).The only middle road I see through this is to take a very common sposition. Personal rights stop being personal rights when they violate the rights of others. The parents are free to believe that prayer is all you need when it comes to medical care. They are also free to deny medical care for THEMSELVES. They are also free to pray for their children's health. Praying for someone does not infringe on anyone's rights. However, when they deny their children the right to seek and receive medical care then they are violating those childrens' rights. Given that minors are not capable of consent as it relates to law then the state must step in, or at least have a court appointed guardian to help make medical decisions for that minor.

I worry about that too. There seems to be two arguments butting heads on this one. The most obvious is religious freedom. The second, not so obvious, is the argument that those giving medical advice should either be licensed or at least have scientific support for that advice. We arrest people for practicing medicine without a license, so should we apply the same law to those who give medical advice that then results in the death of a child? That's a tough question.

I said it was beside the point, not that I didn't care. I am still curious even if it doesn't affect the argument one way or the other. What is wrong with that? Why does this cause problems for "true christians"? Access to health care is one of those rights that children do have, is it not? Actually, yes they do. They have the authority of law. If the state deems that the parents are negligent or abusive then the state can appoint a guardian for those children. It happens all of the time. Never said it was. Denying medical care is denying medical care. That is what we are talking about. I would have no problem if parents used faith healers AND gave their kids access to such simple things as insulin and antibiotics. Not as broad as you think. In the case of Madeline Kara Neumann we are talking about something so horrific that I don't see how anyone could justify it. This is the 11 year old that died of ketoacidosis, finally."Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness."
Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News VideosFor about 30 days this poor girl suffered pain and misery that none of us would ever wish on anyone simply because her parents didn't want to go to a doctor. You tell me that this isn't neglect. Broad brush my ass.

Have you never heard of doctors being prosecuted for malpractice? If it is shown that these doctors were negligent then yes, they should be prosecuted. Why shouldn't they be?