Faith Healing Parents Charged In Death of Infant Son

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I always find it completely ridiculous and stupid when people rely on God for things they can simply do themselves. In this case, they chose NOT to act, and to NOT save their child. It was THEIR choice, not God's. But they decided to pray and lean on God like an ultimate cop-out from responsibility, rather than doing what they were simply and fully able to do. In my opinion, they should be charged with murder. No one has a right to decide whether a child should live or die, and these people directly caused this child's death.




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
believe it or not, I am actually a fan of faith healing...but do it while recieving proper treatment ffs! Pray, meditate, light a candle, do whatever, but also take meds and get the latest and greatest treatment available to you.

If your waiting on a biblical God to come heal you or your kids...reread the bloody bible already...especially the part where God kills most of the world in a flood, tells Abraham to kill his son for kicks, kills babies during passover...
Sorry to tell em this, but if they are doing any biblical based religion (christianity, islam, judism), then the God is one sonofabitch wrathful and rather "evil" God.

sinless children? not according to the faithful...we are still dealing with the original sin since day 1...so you start off hated by God and it doesnt get much better (since God hates sin, and you are born sinful...God hates you technically)

Religion is nutty..and also destroys personal spirituality.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I would never do that with my son, but I think it is the cost of freedom.

If kids like this died more often, people would quit thinking it worked.
Who really is hurt by this? Any parent that loves their child.
Who is hurt by putting people in jail for practicing their religious beliefs? Potentially everyone.

We see our 17 year olds shipped off to Afganistan and Iraq killed by the hundreds, thousands...many more maimed...as a 'price for freedom' for others.

I do not believe medical care should be forced on anyone. Otherwise you force the religion of science on all of us.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by hadriana]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I say let them faith heal. Its called survival of the fittest and evolution will, like this example, weed them out.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Aesthetic]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I would never do that with my son, but I think it is the cost of freedom.

If kids like this died more often, people would quit thinking it worked.
Who really is hurt by this? Any parent that loves their child.
Who is hurt by putting people in jail for practicing their religious beliefs? Potentially everyone.

We see our 17 year olds shipped off to Afganistan and Iraq killed by the hundreds, thousands...many more maimed...as a 'price for freedom' for others.

I do not believe medical care should be forced on anyone. Otherwise you force the science of religion on all of us.


Are you seriously advocating using senseless preventable deaths as a teaching tool?

Should we remove traffic laws so people can learn the cost of driving recklessly as well?

The ones who are hurt most are the kids that die... not just their ignorant parents.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
Cases like this are.. complex.


I realy can't see anything that complex about it.

Its quite straightforward realy.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aesthetic
 


I agree with the Darwinian response to this. That religious fundamentalists - (focus on the 'mentalist' part of that word) - will eventually kill themselves off because of stupid superstitions and an obsession with Apocalypse.

However, what I don't agree with is that this poor little boy was only 2 years old, and he knew NOTHING of religion. He just had 2 years of life, and wanted more. I've WASTED more than 2 years of my life, is that fair?

Religious people get this into your frakking skulls you ignorant bints -

1) There is no god.
2) Wishing for something doesn't make it happen.
3) Science makes the rules. Stupidity, gullibility, naivety or even Pastor Alamo make sod all. Get a grip.
4) Religion is a tool of control, if you like being a 'Sheeple', carry on as you are.
5) Watch out, the atheists are winning, and there's nothing you can do about it because we are right and you are wrong. Period.


Come on you religious ingrates, I dare one of you to say that "God works in mysterious ways".

The Para.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 


Nope. But what if you don't get your kid the flu vaccine, and they die of h1n1? Should you go to jail?

I'm advocating parent's rights to determine the medical care or not of their children. That's very different from traffic laws, and the two should not be compared.

This country's freedom will be lost on the wringing hands and voices going "but what about the children?"

What about them? Welcome the nanny state. The govt can raise the children.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


Science is not a religion. Theists can spout this if they want, but SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGION.

Atheism, however is a form of one.

These parents were clearly incompetent of making a decision. It is no different than if the govt. takes a child away when they know that a mother or father is using crack or cooking meth in their house.

Let the children live so that they can discover their own religion. If they are set on faith healing when they are old enough (16) then they can die by their own whim.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
reply to post by Angus123
 


Nope. But what if you don't get your kid the flu vaccine, and they die of h1n1? Should you go to jail?

I'm advocating parent's rights to determine the medical care or not of their children. That's very different from traffic laws, and the two should not be compared.

This country's freedom will be lost on the wringing hands and voices going "but what about the children?"

What about them? Welcome the nanny state. The govt can raise the children.


That is utter nonsense.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
A lot of people claim to be anti-government, but they're so anti-religion they side with the government.

How many people do hospitals kill?

If the parent doesn't have the right to the medical decisions of an underaged child, who does? The government? Or is it once again conventional modern medicine that wins?

If this doesn't frighten everyone who is so eager to cry conspiracy wolf, nothing will.

*Edited for a typo.



[edit on 11-10-2009 by fbnks]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Darwin smiles, the rest of us just shake our head.


Firstly that's absolutely sick, this was a two year old child. Secondly the child may have grown up to be a really smart person. Just because the parents are so extreme in their religion that they allowed their child to die does not mean the child would be the same.

Examine what you just said, how callous and ignorant of evolution it was and then post something constructive.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Leave the parents alone, its not like they wanted the kid to die! Too much government interfearence here.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 


Exactly what part of it is...utter nonsense?

Break it down for me.

The parents did not KILL their child - an illness did.
If they had wanted the child DEAD, they'd not have been praying for him/her.

Science certainly seems like a religion to me. It takes a leap of faith to believe in anything that someone else has tested and deemed to be the scientific truth, but I don't see people running around doing their own experients all the time.

It proposes to tell me that it knows the truth. But yet, it taught me in school that there were brontosauruses.

So where exactly does the govt. interferences STOP? Religious freedom is a basic right in this country - nothing about it condons crime or human sacrifice - but to pray instead of getting a doctor that gives drugs that you might believe are evil or dangerous is NOT the same as saying it is ok for a parent somewhere to hold a child down and cut his or her heart out if a snow white ram doesn't appear.

People seemed to have it down for thousands of years that the children were wards of the parents to raise. We trust each other so little that we'd let the government set the standards of child care for each one of us, so we have a nice little homogenously raised race of people that never question a darn thing.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


Debating someone like you is a waste of time. If you truly don't see the absurdity of the things you just said then I wish you well and have a nice life.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


Accidental double post... sorry.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Angus123]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana

Exactly what part of it is...utter nonsense?

Break it down for me.

The parents did not KILL their child - an illness did.
If they had wanted the child DEAD, they'd not have been praying for him/her.



If someone is hanging from the end of a rope over a pit of lions and i can press a button to lower a ladder they can climb and i don't do that then it is as good as murder. I could have stopped it, i had the ability to stop it but i chose to let someone die. That is exactly what the parents did.

They could have taken this child to hospital and the child would have more than likely survived as the illness was very treatable. People have that exact illness all the time and are almost always cured.

So yes this was murder.

Your argument is like saying "The shooter didn't kill the person, the bullet did"!



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


GOOD

F-N back assed people



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Well, you took one isolated quote from that article, here's another;



Francis Carmen, Catherine Schaible's attorney, said that the couple's decision to forgo medical attention was not due to their religion, but because they thought Kent had a cold.

"The commonwealth wants to use [the Schaible's] religious beliefs as a self-fulfilling prophecy that, somehow, because they are different and because they exercise religious beliefs that are not necessarily in line with the majority of us," he said, "that is the cause of them failing to recognize that this child was as ill as he was."


That quote puts the whole issue in a completely different light.
But in general terms, how many of you would say that if the government mandated the vaccine, that they would have to prise the gun out of your hands before you would let them vaccinate your child with something that you believed may harm or kill them? Are you the same people who say they will take their chances with the flu rather than the vaccine? Are you the people saying it is the parent's decision what drugs or vaccines are pumped into your children's bodies, not the medical profession's or the drug companies or government's? So what is the difference?
These parents made a terrible mistake which will haunt them, and may cause their whole belief system to implode in time, so they will be suffering hugely for this.
But what gets me is that the general hysteria of a lot of folk when a child is mentioned, does not extend to the elderly being euthanised, or the disabled or terminally ill. A two year old will not know what is happening, but an elderly person will absolutely know they are being starved to death or killed.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
I fully believe that the course of the Universe was decided at its conception, and any decisions we seem to make are mere illusions.

Does that mean people shouldn't be held accountable for their misdeeds? Of course it doesn't.
[edit on 10/10/2009 by LiquidLight]


It doesn't?

If you have no choice then why should you be held accountable?





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join