Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

But these doctors can (and often times, are) held responsible for their actions. They can be sued and/or they can be prosecuted. Ummmm, that would be "No". But what the fuck does that have to do with this case? 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. 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. 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.

OK, this is getting to the point of being utterly ridiculous. Where do you draw the line, Silent H? Are you proposing that we, as a Society, should have no rules or limitations placed on our "freedoms"? Fuck it, why have any laws whatsoever? Live and let live, baby. "Your neighbor pissing you off?" Shoot the fucker. "Your wife burn dinner?" Flog the bitch. You're pathetic Silent H. Ya know...the whole concept of someones different "Worldview" as an excuse to do what ever the hell they want is getting a bit old and tiresome. After all, my "Worldview" tells me that these parents are criminally negligent and solely responsible for the preventable death of the daughter, and as such they should be sterilized and placed in prison for the remainder of their lives. So why can't I have my way, Silent H...it is, after all, my "Worldview"? Not true. If, as an atheist, I let my kid die in this manner, I'd be prosecuted in a heart beat. Because in this example, it was not a choice made by the child. She did not volunteer to have assholes as parents...it was "forced" upon her by her parents doing the "Mommy-Daddy Dance" some time ago. I'd be willing to bet that their remorse is something along the lines of..."oh well...it's what God wanted...she's with baby Jesus now". I believe that you are incorrect here. I have not yet had the time available to look for case studies...but I'd be surprised to learn that this sort of thing has not happened in the past, and that the parents were charged. I can only hope that it also happens in this case. I will look into it, when I have some free time. Again...total bull shit. We have limitations (and rightfully so) placed upon our Constitutional Rights. I cannot scream "FIRE" in a movie theater. Nor can I kill my child in the name of Thor. To equate what these parents did with Constitutional freedoms is a patently stupid argument.

Security? What the fuck did killing this little girl have to do with protecting our Security? Oh wait...I see...you're gonna off on how it's securing us from the evil actions of "The State". But are there not already numerous restrictions placed upon us by "The State"? No, Silent H, it is most definitely not rhetorical propaganda. Supporting the notion that religious freedoms should allow you to kill your child...will lead directly to the death of children. How do you see that as rhetorical propaganda? Yes...and there can be legal consequences to such actions. People can be held responsible.Regardless of any potential legalities though, can you not see a fundamental difference between trying to help, but failing, as opposed to knowingly letting someone die by withholding lifesaving assistance? Ummm...yes they did. Here we go again with the whole stupid "Worldview" crap. Why is someones "Worldview" able to trump murder? How do you figure this, Silent H? Where did Granny Magda say that her way would result in no dead kids? You're just making this shit up as you go along, so you can impress us all with your superior intellect and understanding of "Worldviews", as well as demonstrating how you want nothing more than to protect us all from the most evil of empires...The State. What a crock.Look, it's quite simple. These parents killed their child in the name of Religion. If you honestly want to protect that right, then I truly feel for you. But don't turn this into some big Constitutional issue, cuz it's not one. It's a case of parents neglecting their child to the point of death, and should be treated as such. Otherwise, why even have a Constitution? It won't be needed in a society where everything is allowed, for fear on trampling on someones "Worldview".

Wow...I go to bed a bit early, and look at all the stuff I have missed. The rant does not depart from anything you said, clearly or otherwise. They are all valid "Worldviews" that you seem to think each person is not only entitled to have, but to live by as well Which is exactly what I said above...so why did you imply that it was a non-related "rant"? Make up your mind, Silent H. Can I beat the crap out of my wife (without fear of any criminal prosecution) for burning my dinner or not? But you are wrong. We do not have Constitution which is suppose to keep people from imposing their "Worldviews" on others, per say. We have a Constitution designed to protect our freedoms...but it has restrictions..."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."...does not mean each individual can live by their Worldview at the expense of others.And even though you say you are arguing against this position, in reality you seem to be arguing for this position. That is, it seems to me, at least, that you do think that a person should be able to live by their own Worldview, at the expense of others. How else can a parent directly kill their child, and not be held responsible"You need to remember that this is NOT a case of religious freedoms. It is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. The Wisconsin legislature has passed a law exempting Christians from prosecution for killing their kids. That is what's at issue here. You do realize that the 1st Amendment does not give Christians the right to kill their children...right? Where do you get this paranoid crap? Honestly Silent H, I don't now what you're talking about here.What if these parents were babysitting a neighbors child. Would it have been OK to let that child? According to you..."yes".Does this family pray for everything? Do they live in a house? Do they use electricity? Do they consume food? Do they have jobs? Do they drive a car? If they do, then their "faith" defense falls apart. It does not matter one iota if they "knew" their child was diabetic or not. Unless they use (and are successful with) the power of prayer and faith to provide every need in their lives, then they are well aware that God does not provide for their every need. They have no leg to stand on. It was negligent homicide (at best), pure and simple. I did not say it secured anything, Silent H...where did you get that idea?Here's what you did say, in total:So your position, then, is that in sacrificing (ie. giving up) the freedom to kill your child on a religious whim, you give up your security (ie. protection) from the evil empire (The State). A bit paranoid, are we Silent H? I mean, seriously, to go from:
"it should be legal to kill your kids"
to:
"making it illegal to kill your kids means that I am no longer free from the control of The State",
is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think? Well, luckily you are wrong...as others have already pointed out to you. Wha? Sure it is. These parents killed their child in the name of their God. If they had done the EXCACT SAME THING, except that they claimed to have done it in the name of Thor, they would have been arrested and charged. Do you not agree? "Your honor...I did not kill my child...the bullet killed my child. Sure, I pulled the trigger...but I had total faith in Zeus that the bullet would not harm my child...Oops". Come on Silent H, get real.Their choice TO DO NOTHING killed their child. Like I said earlier, Silent H...unless they prayed for everything they needed and unless every prayer was answered, their defense is meaningless. Are you for real? Nobody can be this ignorant and still function normally in society. You're such a big protector of our Constitutional freedoms, but yet, according to you...we really shouldn't have one. Everyone should just be able to do whatever the hell they want. You are an enigma, wrapped in riddle, surrounded by a dilemma. You make no sense whatsoever. So in addition to being brilliant Constitutional scholar, you're a lawyer too? Again, others have addressed this, so I will simply say that you are wrong, and let it go at that. Really...wow...thanks for the insight...I never knew this. What's your point though?However, it is a means by which the family can collect compensatory damages. Sure, their child is still dead...but they can collect damages. I want the Constitution.
I like the Constitution.You, Silent H, are the one arguing against it.You, Silent H, are the one who wants to have the right of everybody to live by their own personal "Worldview".I, Silent H, am the one arguing against such a stupid idea.That, Silent H, is why we have the Constitution.And I'm sorry Silent H, but this is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. If it were, then the Wisconsin Legislature would not have needed to write a law protecting Christians from the legal consequences of killing their children.Edited by FliesOnly, : To clarify my position on a couple of points. I re-read what I wrote, and it seemed a bit unclear in a couple of places.

This is nothing more than a cheap and total avoidance of what is really a cut and dry issue. And it's total BS. Your position does imply that some people do not have a right to life. You can't have it both ways. If you feel that killing your child is a part of "good faith rearing", then by default, you must also feel that that child did not, as it turns out, have a right to life.Maybe in your make believe, philosophical World, killing a child does not take away their right to life...but here in the real World, it most certainly does.And while we're at it, define "good faith rearing"?Can there be "bad faith rearing"?Would you feel the right to interfere if you deemed something to be "bad faith rearing"?Your position seems quite similar to the argument Silent H is putting forth, which, as far as I can tell, seems to suggest that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want...that nobody has the right to tell anyone else how they should live their lives. Do you seriously believe this?We, as a society, have every right to decide what we will determine to be right and wrong. And we long ago decided that killing someone is wrong.
And while there certainly may be instances with extenuating circumstances...this particular example most certainly does not fall into that category. These parents stood by and did nothing while their child's health worsened and worsened over time...right before their very eyes. Did they fail to "see" that God was not answering their prayers?Or, here's a thought...maybe God answered that prayer a long fucking time ago when doctors found ways to treat diabetes.Either way, to let you're child die a slow miserable death is not what I would consider "good faith rearing" It's sad that you think it is.

Hello lyx2no:Well, let's see nowI wrote so I assume that you know what's coming next.Who decides if it's "bad faith rearing"?But first, I have to ask what you mean by "faith". Are you using "faith" in a religious sense, or are you using it more in the sense of a reliance or a commitment? That is to say, are you passing judgement on someones religion being bad...and as such you'd consider their child rearing to be based on "bad faith", or do you mean to imply that "bad faith rearing" would be the parents doing something that you deem as inappropriate, without any religious attachments?Nonetheless, I fail to see how you can not consider letting your child die a slow miserable death as "bad faith rearing" unless you are using "faith" in the religious sense...and you feel that Christians should be allowed to kill their children if they feel so inclined. Honestly, I fail to see how your point of view can be taken in any other way...especially when viewed in context with your earlier response to my question..

Irrelevant. This girl received no medical treatment. That's the whole argument. Try to keep up. Strong evidence in favor? Look, Silent H, we live in the 21st Century. We have advanced medical technologies and diagnostic capabilities. These people did not live in a cave, and as such were more than aware of these medical advancements. You want to let them off the hook because they are religious and have their on Worldview (Man...I friggin HATE that term). But yet, there is no evidence to support their claim. There is no concrete evidence to support the notion that prayer cures people. They have to know this. Hell, it was being demonstrated right in front of them.In this day and age...religion should not get a free pass...ever. No it doesn't. If there was evidence of a soul, and that letting her die was important, then perhaps you'd have an argument. But again, religion should not get a free pass. They killed their child in the name of religion. Irrelevant. If we abide by this argument, no person that has a child should ever be incarcerated. Not true. All this shows is that none of their other children were unfortunate enough to have a serious illness requiring REAL medical attention. Admittedly however, if you can demonstrate that one of their other children did indeed, suffer a major, serious, fatal if left untreated, illness, and that the power of the parents prayer cured and saved this child...you might have a more valid argument. Which, to me is evidence that any remaining minors should be removed from the home. Hey, sorry...but that's just my "Worldview".

Funny...I was calm when I responded to you, Can you show me where it was that I hurt your feelings? Wow! You certainly make it difficult to remain calm...

Well...sorry to burst your bubble, but I honestly cannot see why you would consider me beating my wife as something different than these people letting their child die. I guess I don't see your argument. But then, you have never explained why you view the two examples so differently. But that is a ridiculous argument Silent H. It's completely and utterly meaningless. Why do we ever treat anyone then? It ignores the fact that we live in the 21st Century, Silent H. Can't you see that? In order for this argument to have any validity whatsoever, this family would have to have been living like someone out of the 16th or 17th centuries...with no contact or knowledge of the World around them. Now, if that was indeed the case, I could excuse their behavior and blame it on a true lack of knowledge. But I'm doubtful. True..if this were 1749. Man...you're good at shoving the "blame" into others. My argument is that their three surviving kids mean nothing to this argument. Who cares that they survived? Really Silent H, it means nothing. And you know that, so quit acting all high and mighty...like your arguments are superior and mine are meaningless. It's annoying as hell, and you do it all the time. But I'm remaining calm and not letting my anger get the better of me. See, you're doing it again. I brought up this very issue in my last post and you address it yourself later in this one. So let's go right to that little exchange: Arrrg. Remain calm...remain calm. OK, look, just above this you said that perhaps one of their kids did get sick, and perhaps prayer saved them. I mention virtually the same thing and you say..."How on earth would they or you distinguish such a thing? To them they would have likely viewed all illness as potentially life threatening, and prayer have been useful in solving such." Do you see why I get frustrated? Now I agree, in my example, the illness would have needed to be fatal if left untreated, and I could see where perhaps that would be your source of "How on earth would the distinguish that"...but my point still remains. If they catch a damned cold, and it doesn't kill them, that's hardly evidence that prayer works. And (and this is the important part) the family damned well knows that too...unless they're living in 1749. Now who's acting childish? How does it ever solve anything? This argument can be taken out Ad Infinitum. Personally, I do not think that they have been punished enough. But the unfortunate thing is that the legal system will not be allowed to make that judgement either. That gets to the heart of the problem. Religious freedom should not mean you can kill your kids. Then my argument stands. Thank you. Yes, I understand that. And it's wrong. Society cannot function that way. It has never successfully functioned that way. There have always been limitations placed on society. I assume you can support this? I have my doubts. But then, that doesn't really address this issue unless you can cite evidence that these people with higher survival rates did so only through the power of prayer. Making the leap from the specific case of this thread, to the example you just listed is a bit of a stretch. No...but that's not what this is about.

Well, as usual, I'm late coming back to the game. Excuse my tardiness, I was out of town most of the weekend (bicycle race...I did terrible...oh well). We know your position, and it seems a bit flawed, primarily based on your paranoia that the Evil Empire will soon be snatching our children. It seems (based on the above, as well as some of the stuff you have written as of late) that your primary concern is that by allowing the Government to step in, in cases like this one, that we are sliding down a slippery slope of Government intrusion. But yet, you don't know this will happen. It's just your own personal fear. And in the mean time, what we DO know is the kids are being killed by their parents. So doing nothing means more kids die. Do something means fewer kids die. Let's stick with what we do know...not some paranoid fantasy on your part.Let's look even more closely at a specific portion of the above quote:Do you see a bit pf a problem with the above quote? Does it not seem to be perhaps just a bit contradictory? On one hand, you mention how "whimsy", or "overt lack of care" should not be protected. But then you say "choosing health care options in line with their belief". Wow. So watching your kid slowly die is OK, if you (in the 21st century) believe in magic?And you also say "includes decisions which are not optimum" Ha..good one Silent H.You always try to present this stuff like your a total disinterested party, only looking out for our Constitutional freedoms...but yet, when examined closely, your arguments fall apart. Rather than saying "Decisions that re not optimum" why can't you say what actually happened in this case. They did nothing. To say what they did was "not optimum" makes it sound like they did something. They did nothing. That's why people are upset. They did nothing.And what's more, they did nothing in the name of religion. And therein lies the problem, Silent H. All we're saying is the the 1st amendment does not give you the right to kill your kids, and that any laws passed on a religious bases that say you do have the right to kill your kids should be removed from the books. You're making this into an issue that's not really applicable. We say remove the religious exceptions. You say let them stand. We point out that these are laws passed by religious politicians, forcing their religious agenda upon innocent children. Yet you somehow or another think that this is a 1st amendment issue. It's not. But you have noting to support this claim. You're essentially trying to predict the future. You're not acting in the here and now. You'd rather let kids die now, out of fear that the Government might later do something you don't like.Your fear seems to be that the Government, if allowed to intervene in cases like this one, will eventually intervene when any harm is deemed potential. My fear is that the religious right, if allowed to continue to killing their kids, will eventually say that my kid must die too. Do you see what I'm saying here. To me, as long as some religious nut-job says it's OK to let their kids die, then that idea will start to grow. And Politicians will start passing more laws, giving religion a much stronger voice in our system. Oh wait...isn't that already happening, Silent H? Why, yes it is, FliesOnly...thanks for pointing that out. Just use stem cell research as an example. Why is it banned? Hmmmmm...which group, the religious or the non-religious, wants a ban on stem cell research? Well, I guess I feel that they do. The 1st amendment does not give you the right to kill your kids. Why do you think it should? OK, since I don't really trust these sorts of studies, my answer would be no. Well, to be honest, you don't really provide us with enough information to make a decision. I mean, you do say "letting both live" and then later "let one die", so obviously, both would not live. In that case, they should be separated (if one will die). Or do you mean that the parents perhaps stop feeding one, thus letting it die? But how often is it the case that this can happen without also killing the remaining twin? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that. Don't most conjoined twins share organs or blood vessels, such that letting one die probably means that both die? Again, you're setting up a situation worded in a manner that attempts to make you look like the good guy. If left untreated, how many cancer patients survive? Specifically, if you have a form of cancer that requires such radical treatment, what are the odds that you'll survive if you decide to receive no treatment? Zero, Silent H, so stop with the unrealistic scenarios.The answer to the "real" question, would be "yes". I can't believe you're asking this one. These things happen all the time, Silent H. Parents need to rely on the medical establishment. Errors may be made, but modern medicine is still the best answer. A false dichotomy. You first say "no current medical treatment", but then you ask can the government step in a make a decision. The answer is "since there is no treatment available, the parents can try alternatives". Now you're just being paranoid again.

While it may seem that you're taking the moral high ground in asserting that even secularists should have the right to kill their children, I fail to see how this is relevant. You're the one that is fearful of the slippery slope, so your answer is to have no slope, no rules, no restrictions, no regulations. But yet, we must draw the line somewhere. For you (I assume), it's in administering health care to children. It's OK to kill your kids so long as they were "sick" and you did something you truly believed would help them (homeopathy is pretty much the only non-religious response that I can think of to such a claim. I cannot come up with another potential defense for a secularist). When, in your World, would parents be criminally responsible for things they have done to their children? Would they ever, or can parents do pretty much anything they want to to their own children? In other words, where do you draw the line? Wha? We should go back to living in the 1800s? That's your solution?I'm curious to read some of these government powers used to judge minority belief systems that have gone so terribly wrong. Will you provide us with a few?And you still have not explained how/why this particular case is indeed a 1st amendment issue.

Last time I checked, we live in the year 2008. Watching your child die from diabetes, while whimsically praying, and overtly doing nothing is negligent homicide. As I've said before...if you can demonstrate to me that this family had no knowledge whatsoever of the modern World around them, then perhaps you would have a case.And to me, yes, this is significant. To say otherwise basically ignores all of mankind's advancements over the last hundred years or so. In this day and age, religious freedom does not give you the right to let your children die from easily treatable maladies. Religion should not get a free pass on ignorance, simple because the parents choose to live certain aspects of their lives as if they were living in the 1600s.Let me step back for a second and see if maybe I can clarify my position. I would agree that in this particular case, criminal prosecution could be avoided if the parents were found to be mentally incompetent to stand trail. Personally, I think they'd have a pretty good case. They are nuts if the truly believed that prayer alone was going to heal their obviously seriously ill child.My point is that there should NOT be laws on the books that exempt parents from the legal system if, because of their religious beliefs, they allow their children to die from a treatable illness . And I must emphasise this that is what we're discussing here. This "right" did not exist until such time the the legislature passed laws allowing religious parent to kill their kids.

Hello Again Silent H: Then why should we legalize healthcare practices that were state of the art back in the 1600s? So why are we even having this discussion? I mean, can you assure me that Madeline's parents were not whimsically praying? Hasn't Molbiogirl provided numerous links that cite cases where non-Christians were prosecuted and convicted for these sorts of activities?And then we have the Reynolds v United States case of 1878 where the Supreme Court held that religious duty was not a defense for criminal activity. In upholding the conviction the Court basically stated that to do otherwise might allow extreme religious beliefs, including human sacrifice done in the name of religion. And they also said "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." Praying is not "healthcare". Again...maybe it was considered as viable healthcare in 1643, but we're now living in 2008, and there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim the praying is a legitimate form of healthcare.And Modulous raises an interesting point that I do not think you have addressed quite yet. How do we know if Madeline's parents were actually praying for her recovery? If you're going to allow prayer as a viable healthcare option, how will we know if the person doing the praying is actually praying for the "improvement" of the individual. Hey, maybe the parents were praying for her to die. Hey, maybe the neighbors were praying for her to die. Hey, maybe all her supposed friends, as it turns out, actually hated her and were praying for her to die. Holy crap, Silent H, it's the power of prayer run amok. We quite obviously need Governmental regulation, certification, and licensing of prayer if it is to be used as a viable healthcare option. Prayer is not a healthcare system.You keep coming back to this whole "their belief system" as if that should matter. I have asked you repeatedly why my "belief system" that beating my wife for burning my dinner should not be allowed. I do not recall you ever having answered yet.And you have also stated that I incorrectly associate the 1st amendment with your justification for allowing parents to kill their kids. Well, if you're not relying on the 1st amendment to defend your position, may I ask what you relying upon? Where, in our Constitution, are parents allowed to kill their children, based on their religious beliefs? Oh come on Silent H. This is a discussion about religious exemptions. Christ...how many times do you bitch about how so many others change the subject, or discuss topics not directly related to the one at hand, or have assertions made about your position that you have never made...and yet, here you are, doing it yourself (as usual).Nowhere have I mentioned anything about how I feel about the poor.Nowhere have a said anything about what I think our Government should do to help (or, as you imply, not help), these sorts of people.Nowhere have I mentioned anything about the greed or ridiculous policies and procedures of our healthcare system.Why? Well, it's not what this topic is about, Silent H. So your answer to this problem is since the Government doesn't provide adequate healthcare to the poor, then the Government should also allow Christians to kill their kids? What...as a way of evening the playing field or something?...or maybe you feel that the government shouldn't be allowed to have a monopoly on killing kids for no good reason? Since the topic of this thread is religious exemptions for killing your kids, we could start right there. Let's get rid of the laws that allow parents to kill their kids based on their "Worldview".Next, we can address the issue of Universal healthcare coverage and the elimination of HMOs and other stupid systems that are based primarily on the bottom line and run on greed, rather than any real concerns about the health of their "members". How would that be? Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix a couple typosEdited by FliesOnly, : to fix even more typos and to clarify a couple points

Well in this Country at least, the Fourteenth Amendment. So before the availability of insulin, praying was the only viable alternative?Like I feel the Silent H is doing (although I'm sure he'd disagree)...you are just pushing this to the level of absurdity. I mean, why have any laws whatsoever? Why not just let every person live by their own personal "Worldview" and be done with it. Or is that what your purposing? But aren't you arguing that their inaction is, indeed, a legal form of action? And even Madeline's parents would argue that they did do something. They prayed. Did you forget that little part of this discussion? Even her parents don't agree with your defense of them. Wait, didn't you just say that they did nothing? Make up your mind here.Nonetheless, what we're saying is that religious groups should not have a legal loophole available to kill their kids. Prayer should not be a legal, legitimate effort, since it's so easy to demonstrate that it shows no evidence of being legitimate.I will never understand your argument if it truly is that religious individuals should have the right to do whatever the hell they want. That is what your advocating...correct? The religion be given a pass on anything they want. Here we go again with the "you can't prosecute them, cuz they didn't do anything" defense. What a pathetic defense...especially when you realize that to them...they did so something...they prayed. So your defense of them doesn't really hold. Nor, I believe, does it work in a Court of Law. If I were a pilot and half way through a flight, I just decided to "fly by prayer", could/should I be held responsible for the inevitable plane crash and death of my passengers? After all, it wasn't my actions that killed them, it was my inaction. What is a person who "cannot live"? I mean, you can play stupid semantic philosophical word games and live in some fantasy World all you want. The rest of us out here in the real World simply want to stop religious parents from being allowed to kill their kids.

This is a ridiculous argument. You're really just playing semantics here. I can do the same thing buy defining "action" however I see fit. Praying is an action that they deemed adequate. Not giving insulin is an action they deemed unnecessary. They acted and she died. Why should they not be held responsible? Their religious freedom did not give them the right to kill their daughter (the Supreme Court decided as such way back in the late 1800s). A "new" law did. We simply want that law repealed. Some? Pretty weak argument. Why not "anything"? I mean, killing you kid is about as extreme as you can get. Why not? Seems rather short-sided of them...no? Hell, if it can apparently be a viable option to cure diabetes, or to treat cancer, why can't we use this wonderful tool to fly airplanes for us...or drive our cars? Why are we so limiting ourselves access to this wonderful mechanism of solving real problems to just the medical establishment? While you may be able to argue that currently it is "legal" (and I am not necessarily agreeing with you), you certainly cannot make any reasonable argument that it is legitimate. That's why we want it changed.To be honest, I'm a bit pressed for time right now so I cannot look for the actual Law used in Wisconsin. Does it specifically say praying is only a viable option when treating an ill child? Honestly, I don't know. But that does not take away from her (or "their") Constitutionally granted right to life.