Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 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

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 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

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 16 of 286 (461704)
03-27-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by FliesOnly
03-27-2008 7:25 AM


Re: freedom has costs
Ummmm, that would be "No". But what the fuck does that have to do with this case?
Yeah, randman. You'd sue the responsible parties. The doctors.
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.
TB mentioned that earlier.
Curiously, randman neglected to address his point.
Allow me to be blunt, randman:
Those who kill their daughters in the name of religion (aka "honor killings") should be protected here in the U.S.?
To wit:
Just yesterday, an Egyptian Arab Muslim father in Dallas, Texas allegedly shot his two beautiful teenage daughters to death because he disapproved of their American-style ways. Their names were Amina and Sarah Said and their father’s name was Yasser Abdul Said ... They told their friends that their father was angry with them for “not acting like proper Muslim girls."
January 3, 2008, the New York Times carried a story about a presumably non-Muslim honor killing in Chicago, in which a father, Subhash Chander, killed his pregnant daughter, son-in-law and 3 year-old grandson “because he disapproved of his daughter’s marriage” to a lower-caste man.
Dead In Dallas Honor Killings
Intentionally killing someone and killing someone thru neglect/failure to act are both felonies in this country.
Unless, of course, you are "religious" and related to your victim.
What say you, rand my man?
A cost of freedom?
(And don't just pull "well-it's-just-different" outta your hat again. How is it "different"?)
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by FliesOnly, posted 03-27-2008 7:25 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 37 of 286 (461773)
03-27-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by lyx2no
03-27-2008 5:30 PM


And unless the parents prove to be wantonly destructive of their children’s welfare.
Death is the ultimate form of parental wanton destruction.
Your answer fails to address an important point that has been raised in this thread.
When, for secular reasons (breastfeeding), a mother starved her child to death, she was convicted of homicide.
Error
This is not an isolated case.
When, for secular reasons (vegan diet), a mother starved her child to death, she was convicted as well.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/6340470?sourc...
When, for secular reasons (vegan diet), a couple starved their child to death, they were convicted of homicide and sentenced to life.
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
The list goes on.
Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos
Child abuse by vegan parents
When, for religious reasons (Scientology), a mother starved her child to death, she was convicted.
Page Not Found - HolySmoke!
When, for religious reasons (exorcism), a mother killed her child , she was convicted.
http://findarticles.com/...les/mi_m2843/is_6_27/ai_110575754
When, for religious reasons (exorcism), a father killed his child , he was convicted.
Page Not Found: 404 Not Found -
The exorcism list is particularly long, so I will let these two links suffice.
Is it your position that, for whatever reason, a parent has the right to kill his/her child?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by lyx2no, posted 03-27-2008 5:30 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 03-27-2008 6:54 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 45 by lyx2no, posted 03-27-2008 7:39 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 47 of 286 (461791)
03-27-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AZPaul3
03-27-2008 7:40 PM


This is where we will disagree. Your rights to decide the best welfare of your child end where the right of your child to live is abridged.
FYI.
"Among the secular rights granted to citizens", aka children, Holmes includes "the right to be sexually active".
You heard me.
Holmes thinks that not only are parents allowed to slaughter their children, they get to pimp them out too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 03-27-2008 7:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AZPaul3, posted 03-27-2008 8:10 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 03-28-2008 12:23 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 48 of 286 (461792)
03-27-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by lyx2no
03-27-2008 7:39 PM


Sure it is if you ignore the word wanton, and neglect these parents had a responsibility to more than just the body of the child.
What a load of horse apples.
You are a cultural relativist of the worst sort.
I am thankful that we don't live by your rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by lyx2no, posted 03-27-2008 7:39 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 49 of 286 (461794)
03-27-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Silent H
03-27-2008 6:41 PM


And when that society decides that you are the zealous parent?
I am always saddened when the new majority decides it is time to make their opinion the law of the land... even when I happen to agree with most of that opinion.
You will forgive me if I don't get all worked into a lather at the highly unlikely prospect that xians will somehow succeed in outlawing medicine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 03-27-2008 6:41 PM Silent H has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 53 of 286 (461803)
03-27-2008 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AZPaul3
03-27-2008 8:10 PM


Happy to.
Start here.
Message 50

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AZPaul3, posted 03-27-2008 8:10 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by AZPaul3, posted 03-28-2008 12:00 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 54 of 286 (461805)
03-27-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by lyx2no
03-27-2008 8:25 PM


I’m far from a moral relativist. I think they are dead wrong. I’ve not the slightest bone in my body telling me that what they did is acceptable. I only believe I do not have the right to act.
I'm not a moral relativist, I just act like one?
Oh, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by lyx2no, posted 03-27-2008 8:25 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 91 of 286 (461896)
03-28-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by AZPaul3
03-28-2008 12:00 PM


Gotta problem though. In this message 50 I see Mr Jack responding to randman. And through the rest of the page of messages I find no reference to Justice Holmes. I've missed something. More help please?
I didn't do a careful read through of the link.
I googled site: silent h age of consent.
You can do the same.
Silent H has, in the past, argued that age of consent is a ridiculous idea.
Holmes writes:
Consent of the kid is a smokescreen by some. It is really consent of the parents that are the important issue. As long as we believe parents have rights to try to impose moral systems upon their kids, there can certainly be a legitimate reason to view someone violating that family's "system" as something other than "harmless" activity.
Better?
Message 22

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by AZPaul3, posted 03-28-2008 12:00 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 03-28-2008 2:32 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 96 of 286 (461902)
03-28-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
I’d be having a real problem with this if there was an established religion that did openly profess such a stance and we had allowed them to enter into our society with that knowledge.
FYI. Sakti.
... in cults such as the Hindu Sakti sect incest is advocated as "a higher grade of sexual intercourse and an advanced step toward religious perfection".
Baiga.
In some endogamous Indian groups, such as the Baiga, actual incestuous marriage is practiced between men and their daughters, between women and their sons, between siblings, and even between grandparents and their grandchildren.
Page not found | The Association for Psychohistory
So.
Given your line of "reasoning", incest is OK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 10:56 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 2:59 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 106 of 286 (461919)
03-28-2008 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 2:59 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
These have not been practiced openly and with acceptance by the larger American society lending them, these practices, historical sanction.
Now you're moving the goalposts.
You said, and I quote:
If you can show that any of these things are openly expressed tenets of an established religion, and were necessary for the child to get into heaven so that its immortal soul would not forever suffer in fire and brimstone, and that we have been accepting of these practices having allowed them standing in society, then they become pertinent.
Tenet of an established religion?
Check.
Save its immortal soul?
Check.
Nothing about "acceptance by larger American society".
Nothing about "historical precedence" or "historical sanction".
So.
Given that I've satisfied your two "criteria" ... incest is OK?
After all, it is -- like the denial of medical treatment -- a religious conviction.
And once again, weather I personally accept or reject an idea is irrelevant. The rights of others should not be based on my whims.
You can waffle all you want, dear.
The right to life (of the child) is paramount.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 2:59 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 4:46 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 109 of 286 (461927)
03-28-2008 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 4:46 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
Did you bother to read the link?
Both are ESTABLISHED religions. Their tenets are not SECRET. They are ACCEPTED by society.
Did you bother to read the link?
BTW.
You say nothing of "American society" ... only society. Nor do you say anything of "history" ... only "allowed them standing".
If you can show that any of these things are openly expressed tenets of an established religion, and were necessary for the child to get into heaven so that its immortal soul would not forever suffer in fire and brimstone, and that we have been accepting of these practices having allowed them standing in society, then they become pertinent.
So.
Incest is OK by your standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 4:46 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 5:33 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 111 of 286 (461934)
03-28-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 5:33 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
I accept fault for not specifying that Wisconsin was in America.
You can dodge the implications of your "standards" all you like.
The fact remains, you stated unequivocally that:
If you can show that any of these things are openly expressed tenets of an established religion, and were necessary for the child to get into heaven so that its immortal soul would not forever suffer in fire and brimstone, and that we have been accepting of these practices having allowed them standing in society, then they become pertinent. Until then they are blather.
Here is the question to which you were responding:
And I've asked you several times, where do you draw the line?
I suppose now is a good a time as any to assume that you agree with the following:
Parents should be allowed to neglect caring for their children to the point of death during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to break their child's arm during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to drop their child off in the middle of a forest so that God can save their immortal soul during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to behead their children at any time during their "good faith rearing".
So, those are all included in “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”
When does this right stop? When the child turns 18?
Are you saying you want it to be legal for a parent to break the arm of their child every year up until they turn 18? After all, they only want to break their arm during their "good faith rearing".
Nothing of Wisconsin.
Nothing of America.
It was a question of "where to draw the line".
An established religion, with openly practiced tenets, which is accepted by society, promotes incest.
Using your "criteria", one has no right whatsoever to find that practice reprehensible, as it is religious.
Edited by molbiogirl, : punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 5:33 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 6:47 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 112 of 286 (461935)
03-28-2008 6:08 PM


Lyx2no,
What of exorcism?
BBC NEWS | Americas | US boy dies during 'exorcism'
An autistic eight-year-old boy has died during a prayer service held to supposedly cure him of the evil spirits blamed for causing his condition.
This is OK too?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024