Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 286 (461679)
03-27-2008 1:16 AM


Fox News
quote:
The aunt of a sick Wisconsin girl whose parents trusted in faith rather than medicine pleaded for authorities' help in a 911 call obtained by the Wausau Daily Herald.
The girl, 11-year-old Madeline Neumann, died Sunday from a treatable form of diabetes.
Emergency personnel responded to Neumann's home Sunday after receiving a 911 call from Neumann's aunt, Ariel Gomez. In the call, Gomez pleaded for help because Neumann's mother "believes in faith instead of doctors," the Wausau Daily Herald reports.
"My sister in law is, her daughter's severely, severely sick and she believes her daughter is in a coma. And, she's very religious so she's refusing to take (Neumann) to the hospital, so I was hoping maybe somebody could go over there," Gomez said.
Journal Sentinel
quote:
Under Wisconsin statutes, parents can't be accused of abuse or neglect if the sole reason for the injury is that they relied on prayer, Fost said. But Robyn S. Shapiro, an attorney who is professor of bioethics and director of the Bioethics Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said abuse or neglect can include "failure to appropriately respond or supply medical care to your kid."
Basically, if the parents could prove that they really believed they could have healed the child with faith healing they would get off for free because of of the faith healing law in Wisconsin.
The Daily Page
quote:
The death early this week of a young Wisconsin girl from a treatable form of diabetes, whose parents prayed over her rather than seek medical help, could re-ignite a debate over a state law that essentially shields such activity from criminal prosecution.
So says the Madison-based author of When Prayer Fails, a new book about parents who, for religious reasons, refuse to provide medical care for their children.
"Maybe the statute will get tested out soon," muses Shawn Francis Peters, who teaches writing and U.S. history at the UW-Madison.
Peters is referring to state statute 948.03(6), against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm. It contains an exemption for what it refers to as " Treatment through prayer." To wit: "A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing . in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."
The Wisconsin case concerned an 11-year-girl in Weston, in Marathon County. According to an Associated Press account, the girl withered away from diabetic ketoacidosis, suffering from such symptoms as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, and loss of appetite.
"She just got sicker and sicker until she was dead," the local police chief, Dan Vergin, is quoted as saying.
The girl’s parents, Dale and Leilana Neumann, who do not belong to any organized faith, purportedly prayed over her, believing even after her death that she would be resurrected. They chalked up her death to their own lack of faith, said Vergin.
The case remains under investigation and will be reviewed for possible charges by the Marathon County district attorney.
But the state’s law, which Peters mentions in his book, could make that difficult. Peters, in an interview, says the law likely found its way into the statute books through the efforts of Christian Scientists, as in other states with similar exemptions. But while some other states have rescinded these statutes, Wisconsin’s remains on the books.
The statute drew some attention in 2003, when a two-year-old autistic child in Milwaukee was crushed to death during an attempted exorcism. The practitioner was convicted, albeit of a lesser offense than what some felt was appropriate. Afterwards, Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann urged state lawmakers to remove this exemption, lest it lead to what he called "mischief." Wisconsin’s do-little Legislature has not done so.
In an email, Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard says he thinks there have been cases where doctors and hospitals, "concerned that asserted religious beliefs of parents might result in physical harm to an ailing child," have asked the courts to step in. But "no one can recall" a Dane County case where a faith-based refusal to seek treatment was presented as "potential criminal child neglect."
Blanchard outlines the high threshold such a case would have to meet: "In the criminal child neglect area, we look for evidence of criminal thinking, not just inattention or momentary lapses in judgment. So, for example, if we had a baby death due to failure to thrive or treatable illness, and there was a claim that religious belief prevented the caretaker from seeking treatment, we would certainly ask police to be alert to any facts suggesting that religion was being used only as an after the fact excuse or ruse. That would of course be criminal thinking.
"If on the other hand the religious belief appeared genuine and there were no other signs of abuse or neglect, it might be difficult for us to say a case had merit as a criminal child neglect prosecution."
In other words, if you kill or maim your kids because you truly believe they need prayer more than medical attention, there’s not much authorities around here can or will do about it.
"The way the statute is worded, I think he’s right," says Peters. "The statute says if you treat a child by religious means, you’re not going to be prosecuted." He adds, somewhat superfluously, that he thinks the statute should be written differently: "I think my book sort of illustrates the perils of that."
Peters has written three books, all about the dangerous intersection of Religion and Law. The first two dealt with the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag or serve in the military (Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, 2000), and the refusal of the Amish to educate their kids past grade school (The Yoder Case, 2003).
When Prayer Fails, published by Oxford University Press, is a compelling and often shocking book. There is the anecdote of the little girl who died from a tumor in her eye that enlarged to the size of her head; investigators found blood smears in her home from where she had apparently dragged her tiny body along walls. There are cases of children who died from choking on food or ailments that could have been easily treated with a shot of insulin or dose of antibiotics. Some true believers have even refused treatment from communicable diseases, putting others at risk.
Why the hell are christians allowed to abuse their children like this? I mean, am I missing something really obvious here? If you can prove that you really believe god would heal your kid, you can get away with child negligent and manslaughter? How the hell is this different than the honor killing laws in the middle east?
This poor little girl literally got prayed to death. I swear, if christian organizations begin to offer prayer services for her, my head will explode from the irony.
Edited by True Believer, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 1:23 AM Taz has replied
 Message 13 by obvious Child, posted 03-27-2008 5:52 AM Taz has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 2 of 286 (461680)
03-27-2008 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
03-27-2008 1:16 AM


It's called freedom of religion. Children die at the hospital as well due to mistakes and the imperfection of medicine.
It's a free country or at least partly that way. Let's keep it that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 1:16 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 1:27 AM randman has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 286 (461681)
03-27-2008 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by randman
03-27-2008 1:23 AM


randman writes:
It's called freedom of religion. Children die at the hospital as well due to mistakes and the imperfection of medicine.
This girl's life could have been saved by a single insulin shot. It seems to me like you're more interested in your religion than this girl's welfare.
It's a free country or at least partly that way. Let's keep it that way.
Free country for christian parents to abuse their children like this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 1:23 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 1:39 AM Taz has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 4 of 286 (461684)
03-27-2008 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
03-27-2008 1:27 AM


freedom has costs
I am not saying what they did was right. What I am saying is that trying to use the law and the State to correct every problem and even protect a life is not always the right path in the long run.
Parents have ultimate responsibility for their children's care, and they will, just like doctors, sometimes make mistakes.
Sure, if their parents believed differently, in this case, their child's life could have been saved and they will suffer the knowledge for the rest of their lives that they could have saved her by not being so uncompromising.
We live in a soceity that respects to a degree at least, freedom, and one of those freedoms is religious freedom. To insist because someone died that we throw out religious freedom is wrong.
Let's look at this from another angle....I am sure some religious people consider it child abuse to raise children in unbelief and not expose them to prayer, faith and worship of God. Would it be OK to prosecute unbelievers for their lack of faith? What if a child committed suicide or got on drugs (and yes I know that occurs with religious families as well) but for sake of argument, religious people stated, hey, that child could easily have been saved if they knew God loved them and had a plan for their life, but their parents did bad....they didn't teach them what could have saved them and their materialist teaching led the child to despair.
Sorry, but we need to give parents the freedom to make their best decisions and that will mean there will sometimes be terrible lapses in judgement.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 1:27 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 1:56 AM randman has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 286 (461685)
03-27-2008 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
03-27-2008 1:39 AM


Re: freedom has costs
randman writes:
To insist because someone died that we throw out religious freedom is wrong.
What religious freedom? The religious freedom to murder your children in the name of god? I can't believe what I'm seeing.
Parents have ultimate responsibility for their children's care, and they will, just like doctors, sometimes make mistakes.
What the hell are you talking about? These people had an entire month to get their daughter the help she needed. Mistake?
I am not saying what they did was right. What I am saying is that trying to use the law and the State to correct every problem and even protect a life is not always the right path in the long run.
What the hell are you talking about? It's you christians that have used the law to sanctify child abuse.
Let's look at this from another angle....I am sure some religious people consider it child abuse to raise children in unbelief and not expose them to prayer, faith and worship of God.
Nobody is suggesting we ban prayer. Read those fucking articles again, randman. There's a law in place that says parents can maim or murder their children without being prosecuted by the law if they can prove they truly had faith. You're arguing a strawman.
What if a child committed suicide or got on drugs (and yes I know that occurs with religious families as well) but for sake of argument, religious people stated, hey, that child could easily have been saved if they knew God loved them and had a plan for their life, but their parents did bad....they didn't teach them what could have saved them and their materialist teaching led the child to despair.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? Nobody is suggesting we ban prayers. Read the fucking articles. Basically, christians are shielded from the law regarding child abuse simply because of their faith.
Sorry, but we need to give parents the freedom to make their best decisions and that will mean there will sometimes be terrible lapses in judgement.
Oh, really? Do you support honor killing also? How about female circumcision? What about selling your children into slavery?
You are proving my point for years now that it's always the christians that support legalized child abuse.
Edited by True Believer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 1:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 2:05 AM Taz has replied
 Message 7 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 2:06 AM Taz has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 286 (461686)
03-27-2008 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
03-27-2008 1:56 AM


Re: freedom has costs
What religious freedom? The religious freedom to murder your children in the name of god? I can't believe what I'm seeing.
No one murdered anyone here. The parents believed prayer and faith were the best medicine. You believe medical science was.
In this case, medical science may well have been, but at the same time, people die due to medical science all the time. That's a fact whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
What the hell are you talking about? These people had an entire month to get their daughter the help she needed. Mistake?
If a parent takes a child to a hospital and the child dies due to medical mistakes, are you going to say the parents murdered the child?
Bottom line is you are insisting your worldview is the right one and want to impose that on others. In this case, the parent's worldview and faith led to the death of their child, which is tragic, but they have a right to hold those beliefs just as you do your's. You are outraged they didn't do the right thing, but at the same time, you wouldn't show any outrage at parents whose child died getting routine surgery died due to some complication. In fact, you'd think it was the doctor's fault or just bad luck, but it was the parents that put the child at risk in the first place.
You need to realize that freedom of religion and freedom in general is important.
On honor killings or abortion (legal murder), no, those are clear acts of aggression that should not be tolerated. There's a difference.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 1:56 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 2:19 AM randman has replied
 Message 14 by FliesOnly, posted 03-27-2008 7:25 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 286 (461687)
03-27-2008 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
03-27-2008 1:56 AM


Re: freedom has costs
You are proving my point for years now that it's always the christians that support legalized child abuse.
Hmmm.....you sure about that? How many Christians advocate it's OK to kill a baby growing peacefully in the womb?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 1:56 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 2:22 AM randman has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 286 (461688)
03-27-2008 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
03-27-2008 2:05 AM


Re: freedom has costs
randman writes:
In this case, medical science may well have been, but at the same time, people die due to medical science all the time. That's a fact whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
I don't deny it. Do you or do you not deny that this girl simply needed an insulin shot or two? You are dancing around this quite a lot.
Nobody has ever claimed that medical science is perfect. It's you christians that claim faith healing that's perfect.
If a parent takes a child to a hospital and the child dies due to medical mistakes, are you going to say the parents murdered the child?
At least they gave the child a fighting chance. That's better than watching their child die a slow and painful death that took a month.
If it was my child and I was a christian, I would have tried everything to save my child, and that includes both prayer and medical science.
Bottom line is you are insisting your worldview is the right one and want to impose that on others.
Um, no.
Randman, shut up for a second and think about it. The current law states that you can maim or murder your child in the name of faith and the law can't do anything to you. The same cannot be said of atheistic views. Basically, you're advocating we allow christian parents to do whatever the hell they want with their children even if it means costing their children their lives.
All I'm saying is this law is out of place in a modern society. If people can watch their children die slowly and painfully over the course of a month, they don't deserve to be parents.
But then of course you don't really care for these children do you? All you care about is pleasing your god so you could go to heaven.
You are outraged they didn't do the right thing, but at the same time, you wouldn't show any outrage at parents whose child died getting routine surgery died due to some complication.
Look, you're making a strawman argument. Until someone can repeatedly prove that miracles work or faith healing works, why the hell are you putting faith healing on the same grounds as medical science?
There are 20-40 million people in this country without health care. Please, do us all a favor and stop seeing doctors. Since you don't believe in medical science anyway. You should really step back and let other, more deserving people in line.
You need to realize that freedom of religion and freedom in general is important.
But shielding abusive parents from prosecution because they're christian? If I decide that my kid doesn't need a doctor and then she dies, I will face the full force of the law. But christians get a free ticket because of the faith healing statute.
This is not an issue of freedom of religion. This is an issue of child abuse in the name of religion.
On honor killings or abortion (legal murder), no, those are clear acts of aggression that should not be tolerated. There's a difference.
And refusing your kid medical help and let her die a very slow and painful death over a whole month not an act of aggression? What the hell happened to your superior christian morals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 2:05 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 2:41 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 286 (461689)
03-27-2008 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
03-27-2008 2:06 AM


Re: freedom has costs
randman writes:
How many Christians advocate it's OK to kill a baby growing peacefully in the womb?
Apparently, all of you christians do since you advocate such a law that shield christian parents from responsibility of child abuse.
Oh, by the way, I've been pro-life for a while now. I somehow get the impression that you're not pro-life at all. Being pro-life is more than just having a loud mouth about it. It means you care for the kids from the bottom of your heart. Apparently, you seem to care for christian dogma more than the kids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 2:06 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 2:36 AM Taz has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 10 of 286 (461690)
03-27-2008 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
03-27-2008 2:22 AM


Re: freedom has costs
TB, it's not Christian dogma. It's a matter of freedom. In fact, most Christians would take their kid to the doctor in such a situation.
What you don't seem to realize is that if you want the freedom to not go to church or a specific church, you also need to grant others the freedom to not go to the doctor or go to doctor they choose and treat illnesses according to their own beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 2:22 AM Taz has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 286 (461691)
03-27-2008 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
03-27-2008 2:19 AM


Re: freedom has costs
If it was my child and I was a christian, I would have tried everything to save my child, and that includes both prayer and medical science.
As would 99.999% of Christians and people of other faiths. So what?
why the hell are you putting faith healing on the same grounds as medical science?
Because it's a matter of religion and under our Constitution, religious freedom is guaranteed.
And refusing your kid medical help and let her die a very slow and painful death over a whole month not an act of aggression?
No, it's not. But I am not surprised by your lack of tolerance. It's very typical. The simple fact is their motive was to save their child's life. It was not murder. It was an error in judgement imo, but it was an error religiously motivated and as such, it is not something they should be prosecuted for. People have a right to follow their own religion even if that entails some risks, including the risk of death due to avoiding medicine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 2:19 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by molbiogirl, posted 03-27-2008 5:02 AM randman has not replied
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 10:42 AM randman has not replied
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 03-27-2008 11:56 AM randman has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 12 of 286 (461695)
03-27-2008 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
03-27-2008 2:41 AM


Re: freedom has costs
As would 99.999% of Christians and people of other faiths. So what?
Mmm. Well, TB. 99.999 is a lot, but there are a lotta xian scientists. Almost half a million. That's a lotta kids.
wiki writes:
The Journal of the American Medical Association (22 September 1989) reported on a study of more than 5,500 "Christian Scientists" as compared to a "lay group" of almost 30,000. The death rate among "Christian Scientists" from cancer was double the national average, and 6 percent of them died from causes considered preventable by doctors.
That's 24,000 preventable deaths/year.
And they're not the only xian wingnuts who rely solely on prayer.
And thanks to the xian scientists' "good" work ...
wiki writes:
There are now statutes in 44 states which contain a provision stating that a child is not to be deemed abused or neglected merely because he or she is receiving treatment by spiritual means, through prayer according to the tenets of a recognized religion.
44/50.
Yup. That's a lot of dead kids.
Christian Science children have died and continue to die of diabetes, ruptured appendixes, measles, diphtheria, blood poisoning, cancer, and other illnesses that are curable or treatable with modern medicine.
Two Christian Science parents, David and Ginger Twitchell, of Hyde Park, a section of Boston, were scheduled to go on trial shortly for involuntary manslaughter in the 1986 death of their two-year-old son, Robyn. (He died of an intestinal blockage that could have been surgically corrected.)
Andrew weighed only about 105 pounds at his death and was severely emaciated. The Orange County coroner's report listed three causes of death and their duration:
A. Multiple system failure/days
B. Diabetic ketoacidosis/months
C. Diabetes mellitus/months
In other words, Andrew Wantland died of diabetes after months of illness.
Ashley King died in 1988. She was twelve years old, and she had bone cancer ... the tumor on her right leg that was forty-one inches in circumference (the size of a watermelon) ... Her heart was enlarged from the burden of pumping blood to the tumor, her pulse was twice normal, the cancer had spread to her lungs, and she was in immediate danger of dying from congestive heart failure. Immobilized by the tumor, she had been lying in the same position for months. Her buttocks and genitals were covered with bedsores ... Ashley would have had a 55 to 60 percent chance of recovery if she had had timely, proper medical treatment ... She died on June 5, 1988 (after one and a half years of untreated, unbearable suffering).
(Spaulding Gray was raised as a Xian Scientist) "So one day I was in the bathtub taking a very hot bath. It was a cold day and the radiator was going full blast. I got out of the tub. . . . I hit my head on the sink. . . . When I landed my arm fell against the radiator. I must have been out quite a long time because when I came to, I lifted my arm up and it was like this dripping-rare red roast beef, third-degree burn. Actually it didn't hurt at all because I was in shock, a steam burn on my finger would have hurt more. I ran downstairs and showed it to my mother and she said, "Put some soap in it, dear, and wrap it in gauze." She was a Christian Scientist, so she had a distance on those things.
"The next day when I got to school, the burn began to drip through the gauze. I went down to the infirmary, and when the nurse saw it she screamed, "What, you haven't been to a doctor with this? That's a third-degree burn. You've got to get to a doctor right away."
I am certain it was that same complacency that killed a child I knew, Michael Schram, whose appendix burst when he was twelve. His mother, Betty, whom I remember as a very kind, quiet woman, patient with children, sat calmly on their couch with him the night he died and, apparently just as calmly, sat beside his dead body for two and a half days, praying, she later told the local paper, with "the idea of rousing him."
H. R. Haldeman's son Peter wrote recently in The New York Times Magazine about his father's death, in 1993, of an undiagnosed, untreated stomach ailment.
Rita Swan was a Christian Scientist until she left the Church, in 1977, after her sixteen-month-old son, Matthew, died of bacterial meningitis under Christian Science treatment. She and her husband prayed over their son for days, employing two successive Christian Science practitioners; she listened to the baby screaming and watched him convulsing for hours before he died.
... thirteen-year-old Kris Ann Lewin, who in 1981 died at home of bone cancer after an illness lasting at least a year.
... two Christian Scientists who had allowed their seven-year-old daughter to die of diabetes after a long, wasting illness ...
In 1993 Douglass Lundman's ex-wife ... (allowed) his eleven-year-old son, Ian, to die of diabetes in 1989. He had been ill for four days--losing 35 percent of his body weight--and had been vomiting and urinating uncontrollably before falling into the coma.
A fourth-generation Christian Scientist, Shepard has seen many members of her family die prematurely and terribly. Her mother died at age fifty of untreated cervical cancer; her stepmother died of a melanoma on her chest which metastasized; her grandfather developed a melanoma on his cheek which ate completely through the flesh. As a teenager, she was paralyzed for several weeks after fracturing two vertebrae in her neck; her right side is still affected because she didn't go to a doctor until years after the injury.
The parents of a six-year-old girl called to ask her to pray for the child because she had fallen and bruised her arm. The girl herself later called Shepard, crying uncontrollably. Shepard drove to her home and found her alone, lying on the floor with a protruding broken collarbone.
On another occasion a mother called and described her child as having a sore throat. Three days later Shepard visited the child and found that he had swallowed lye and had a hole in his throat.
Suffering Children and the Christian Science Church - 95.04
You know what? I think I see randman's point, TB.
Compound fractures, watermelon sized tumors, comas, convulsions, third degree burns, bacterial meningitis.
It's all good.
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 2:41 AM randman has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 13 of 286 (461696)
03-27-2008 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
03-27-2008 1:16 AM


Let's look at this in the long run. This may sound crude but natural selection will ensure that people who believe such nonsense as these two parents will not be passing down their inferior genes and inferior ideals. Eventually those people who believe such garbage will die out. Those with common sense will react differently and change their beliefs to favor actual science and medicine over a hokey religious belief (credits of course to Mr. Solo). In the end many kids will pay the price but won't society be better off?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 03-27-2008 1:16 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by molbiogirl, posted 03-27-2008 7:40 AM obvious Child has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 14 of 286 (461700)
03-27-2008 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
03-27-2008 2:05 AM


Re: freedom has costs
randman writes:
In this case, medical science may well have been, but at the same time, people die due to medical science all the time. That's a fact whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
But these doctors can (and often times, are) held responsible for their actions. They can be sued and/or they can be prosecuted.
randman writes:
If a parent takes a child to a hospital and the child dies due to medical mistakes, are you going to say the parents murdered the child?
Ummmm, that would be "No". But what the fuck does that have to do with this case?
randman writes:
Bottom line is you are insisting your worldview is the right one and want to impose that on others. In this case, the parent's worldview and faith led to the death of their child, which is tragic, but they have a right to hold those beliefs just as you do your's.
So, as True Believer has been suggesting...you do think it's OK to murder your child in the name of religion. Well, to be more specific...it's OK for Christians to kill their kids. How very very sad. You're a sick twisted individual, randman.
randman writes:
You need to realize that freedom of religion and freedom in general is important.
Yes, religious people must not have the right to kill their children infringed upon. I'm curious as to how you would feel if this were a Muslim family that allowed their child to die. Somehow, I seriously doubt that you'd be defending their actions.
randman writes:
On honor killings or abortion (legal murder), no, those are clear acts of aggression that should not be tolerated. There's a difference.
I refuse to believe that you're serious. You MUST be saying this crap just to get a rise out of people. No one can be this utterly hypocritical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 03-27-2008 2:05 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by molbiogirl, posted 03-27-2008 7:50 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 15 of 286 (461703)
03-27-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by obvious Child
03-27-2008 5:52 AM


In the end many kids will pay the price but won't society be better off?
Teensy problem with that line of reasoning, OC.
These sorta xians tend to drop a lotta crotchfruit.
Kinda negates any evolutionary impact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by obvious Child, posted 03-27-2008 5:52 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by obvious Child, posted 03-27-2008 6:48 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024