It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Indiana Couple Convicted In Prayer Death Of Newborn

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Hey, djohn, deeply held religious beliefs are deeply held religious beliefs.

Whether it is among your religious beliefs to sacrifice children with a knife or by withholding medical care, as long as it's a deeply held religious belief to do so then no man can stay that hand right?

Zip




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Luckly we don't have an established religion presently existing the United States with a history of sacrificing children, so we've never run across that problem. Again, though, that is an active process of taking a life.

A hundred years ago when there were no antibiotics, this wouldn't be an issue since the child would have died anyway and nothing could have been done about it. I agree this is an edge issue, but the parents are the guardians of the child and can make decisions regarding their child enlightened by their religious beliefs.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
A hundred years ago when there were no antibiotics, this wouldn't be an issue since the child would have died anyway and nothing could have been done about it.


This argument is without merit. A million years ago, during the Stone Age, the life expectancy was something like 19-23 years. I can speculate than infant mortality was 70% (yes, I believe the caves weren't very sanitary). It doesn't mean that we shouldn't attend to the injuries of a 32 year old car accident victim, because, you know, in Stone Age he would live to 32 anyway.

This doesn't have to do with 21th century medicine and the ease with which the poor child's life could have been saved to enjoy God's creation.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Any way you look at it, and this is the point that I keep trying to make (I know my writing at the moment isn't very good because I'm rushing these posts from work), is that we have a double standard when it comes to religious protection.

We say "that's going too far" in some cases, and if we're to do that at all then we need to hold everybody in the country to the same laws without regard to religion.

Zip



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I am from England and do not know your American Consitution, but i do remember that there is a phrase somewhere in it (I think) 'Life, Liberty & Freedom to all'

Perhaps I 'm completely wrong in which case please feel free to flame me.

If I 'm correct, at what point in a persons life does this part of your Constitution become valid? Is it at birth or is it at voting age?

Whatever your thoughts are on this issue, and it will be interesting if their Church wishes to make this into a Constitutional issue, they made an ACTIVE not passive decision to deny their child medical treatment. The child was only 2 days old and having children of my own I know the paranoia one feels at every sniffle, cough or temperature.

To justify this by saying perhaps they were unaware of the seriousness of the childs' illnesss is just looking for an excuse to allow them the freedom to ACTIVELY allow their child to die.

What this teaches us is that blind faith in any Deity is worthless and only results in termination.

Sorry...I have to rush as I am fortunate enough to be taking my healthy daughter to receive an award from her under 13 football club as Player Of The Year *Proud Dad*

Peace Out



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

No doubt the court challenges will be interesting. But this should come into the domain of general welfare of children. This case differs from most I am familiar with in that the parents did not even get a medical opinion.


That is a very good point. I just did a quick search and there were more then two cases that have been overturned and all were treatable as I understand.

I only posted them to show there may be a precedent that already has been set by higher courts with similar cases. Indeed it will be intersting to see how this turns out.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Hmm, that's actually in the Declaration of Independence, but your point is well taken. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Freedom of religion? The parents can practice whatever religion they want. That's freedom. The child can also practice whatever religion he or she wants. That's freedom as well.

But until the child is old enough to say for his or herself, "Meh, I don't want to take life saving medicine," then the parents must be held accountable for lethally forcing their views upon their helpless and agnostic child.

Zip

EDIT In other words, the court is not imposing on the religious beliefs of the child because SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY YET.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I have an idea:

take these two parents and send them to an ebola-infested African village, equipped with a couple of prayer books. I really want to know what will happen.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
"Whatever your thoughts are on this issue, and it will be interesting if their Church wishes to make this into a Constitutional issue, they made an ACTIVE not passive decision to deny their child medical treatment. The child was only 2 days old and having children of my own I know the paranoia one feels at every sniffle, cough or temperature. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If being uninsured in america was an illness, some say, it would be something like the third leading cause of death!! 40 some-odd million americans are without health insurance in this country, and although I'll admit that some are that way by chose, I know danged well, that some would have insurance if there was a way for them to get it!!

considering the costs of the medical care, and the perscription drugs in this country, well, I am sorry, I know what it's like to have to wait till payday for the medicine the kid needs today!!! Been there, done that.
A society that can't find a way to have that medical care available for all it's members has no justification to prosecute parents for failing to provide it to their children. And, well, no neocon should be on this board saying otherwise, since they seem to constantly want to gripe about how wrong it is to take their money for someone else's care, while justifying unlivable minimum wages and invisable borders that aliens cross on a regular bases to work for such low wages illegally.

For some, that's all we have to get by on.....is a prayer.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
If they would have just murdered the baby in the womb 2 days earlier they would be exalted as beacons of choice by some. Instead the baby dies of natural causes and they will spend 8 years in prison while their 2 other children stay in foster homes probably to get abused.
Great country we live in. Thank you democrats.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
This issue extends farther than people are considering, for the most part...

What consitutes care? Would they have been legally protected if they had given aspirin? Would a doctors visit do the trick? An X Ray? What about drugs, what if they had refused drugs? Therapy? Regular doctors visits? Isolation? A feeding tube?

What consitutes care, think about this...

If the government tells you to take a pill and give it to your kids, and you refuse, are you a criminal?

Think a few moves ahead and ask yourself, where is this going?

What power should the state have over children? What responsibility does the state have regarding our kids? Are our kids wards of the state, or wards of the parents? The state already plays a huge role in directing the growth of most of this nation's children, through education, medical attention, legislation, and in extreme cases incarceration.

Are they your kids, or the state's kids? If they're your kids, you're responsible for them, and if you're irresponsible, they suffer. If they're the state's kids, they're responsible.

Here's the problem. When you are responsible for your childrens suffering, you are held accountable under the law and prosecuted. When the state is responsible for a child's suffering, there is no accountability - they have a practically unlimited capacity for injuring children. Just look at FL...

I know this issue is very hard to discuss rationally, but we have to look at the big picture.

Sex abuse of minors is a real problem, and I understand the need to intervene to prevent parents from choosing their children as mates. I wish people were smart enough to know what to have sex with, but some aren't. This seems ludicrous, I know. Parents often beat their kids, and most of us see that as wrong, and similarly ludicrous. Now the state is the defacto protector of the wellbeing and virginity of our children. Add onto that education standards, mental illness diagnoses, and laws restricting homeschooling, and you have a state that tells you whether or not your child can learn something, and in fact, tells you what they must learn. Then you go to the doctor, the state has rules about what medications and treatments are allowed for children, so the state is the primary decision maker in the health of your child.

So what the hell does the parent do? Chauffer? Chef?

And to the issue of child sex abuse, I think it's probably been an issue all throughout our evolutionary history. I think a huge contributing factor is the tendency of human societies to engage in patterns of serial monogamy, which leaves a lot of frustrated people on the sidelines. If this issue was adressed with education regarding the motivation behind our actions, I think real change could be accomplished. Maybe not, maybe we just have created unreasonable expectations with clever illusions of civility.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join