Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 114 of 286 (461941)
03-28-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 6:47 PM


But in the larger picture you force me to, you are right: My standards do not grant me the right to enforce my will upon the Salti or the Baiga.
And if a member of said cult were to move to the U.S.?
The children are raised in little restraint. The attitude toward erotic play is generally indulgent, and sex experience begins in child-hood. The Baiga "have no fear of deflowering virgins, for there are no virgins. Each little girl has slowly . . . had her vagina enlarged, and by her wedding-night, she is already an experienced lover."
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles09/sexual-emotion-21.shtml

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 6:47 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 7:03 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 116 of 286 (461943)
03-28-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 6:47 PM


From your reply in Message 76:
To your earlier example of a vegan’s child being malnourished as a direct result of the parents beliefs. After it became apparent that the child was malnourished the parents were no longer acting in accordance with their duty to act in the best interest of their child. They were acting in the best interests of their belief.
Madeline's parents were well aware of her diabetes.
She had been ill for about a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.
They chose to deny medical treatment.
How is this different from a vegan parent's denial of proper nourishment?
FYI.
An exorcist who killed a Wisconsin child in a 2003 exorcism was prosecuted and convicted despite the "religious exemption" law.
Why do you suppose an exorcist is punished while these wingnuts walk free?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 6:47 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 117 of 286 (461944)
03-28-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 7:03 PM


We do have the right to demand potential immigrants conform to our standards as a condition of entrance. Incest is not openly practiced here.
And yet, when it comes to respecting the religious convictions of a Jehovah Witness parent, our courts are more than ready to "violate" the religious "right" to withhold treatment.
In April 1999, Marcella Buckland was born prematurely at Tulsa's Hillcrest Medical Center to a Jehovah's Witness couple named Buckland. Marcella Buckland was born three months premature, and was severely anemic, and required blood transfusions to survive. However, the Bucklands refused to give their consent for the life-saving transfusions. The hospital sought and obtained court ordered guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including transfusions. Marcella also required surgery after birth.
2000s MINORS Blood Transfusion Court Cases
There are over 370 other cases with similar results -- the JW parents are taken to court; the children are given life-saving blood transfusions.
Why do you suppose JWs haven't the same sort of "rights" as xian wingnuts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 7:03 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 7:55 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 123 of 286 (462039)
03-29-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Silent H
03-29-2008 3:50 PM


I have argued that with a change in majority, the practice of letting the gov't step in to save the life of a child, over the choice of parents, would lead to decisions many may not like.
Your far-flung fantasies are irrelevant.
Let's stick to the topic at hand.
Does the gov't have the right to reject such concerns as irrelevant or "stupid"? If so, what is the point of the 2nd amendment, other than to allow superficial verbiage?
(1) Yes.
(2) I fail to see what "the right to bear arms" has to do with the topic at hand.
While prayer has shown no effectiveness as a medical treatment, religious faith itself (by an ill person) is significantly correlated to better health and survival rates.
Cites, please.
If one has conjoined twins, and the choice is between letting both live with less productive lives, or let one die (or kill it) in order that the remaining one can live a much better life, does the gov't choose more life for both?
Absolutely.
The birth of 'Siamese' twins in August 2000 whose parents refused to consent to surgery for separation required English courts to decide whether the twins could lawfully be separated despite that refusal when one twin would certainly die as a direct surgical result. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge's decision to authorize surgery, taking account of principles of family law, criminal law and human rights law. Parental duties to the viable twin were found consistent with the justification of allowing, without intending, natural death of the non-viable twin. The right to human dignity of both twins supported the justification of separation surgery. The decision did not elevate physicians' choices over parents', but subjected both to the law.
The management of severely malformed newborn infants: the case of conjoined twins - PubMed
If a child has cancer, and there is a treatment which may work but will cause immense suffering, while nontreatment will mean less suffering yet a much greater likelihood of death, does the gov't decide to force the child to suffer for the greater chance of survival?
Absolutely.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the International Society of Pediatric Oncology assert that physicians are obliged to seek legal recourse when parental refusal places a child at clear and substantial risk.
The biomedical ethical principles of respect for autonomy (allowing free choice by the patient, perhaps exercised through a surrogate), beneficence (providing benefit to the patient), nonmaleficence (doing no harm to the patient), and justice (the obligation to distribute benefits and burdens proportionally) all weigh heavily on the providers' decision about how to respond when parents refuse standard therapy for their child with a favorable-prognosis malignancy.
When parents wish to withhold or discontinue standard proven treatment in a child with cancer that has a likelihood of long-term cure, referral to the local child protection agency is indicated because a parent's inability to provide adequate care for a child is a criminal offense.
Do Parents Have the Right to Refuse Standard Treatment for Their Child With Favorable-Prognosis Cancer? Ethical and Legal Concerns | Journal of Clinical Oncology
If a child is comatose, and it is unlikely that the child will revive, though there is still a chance, does the gov't get to choose to keep the child on life support? What if the only likelihood (thought it might be high) is recovery to the state without full mental capacity?
If the medical consensus is that the child is brain-dead, no.
If the medical consensus is that the child is not brain-dead, yes.
aka Terry Schiavo.
If one has a sick child for which there is no current medical treatment, yet there are alternative treatments (faith or other), as well as purely experimental techniques with no surety of success, does the gov't get to make the decision on which must be pursued?
If there is no medical treatment, what treatment are you suggesting the government will "pursue"?
What if the likelihood for success is small, and the chance for suffering is high?
Asked and answered. See: cancer treatment, above.
Does the gov't get to effect other lifestyle decisions which directly impact the health of children, such as diet and exercise? How about what friends they can hang out with? How much time you spend at home with the children? What about chip implants or tattoing for emergency contact, tracking, and health info? With the mandate asserted, how does gov't interest not extend to such things?
More of your overheated fantasies.
Please try to remain in the realm of the possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 3:50 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 9:31 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 126 of 286 (462050)
03-29-2008 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Taz
03-29-2008 7:39 PM


I'm sorry, may be I'm just a moron. But are you suggesting that this girl's condition was untreatable? Because a few insulin shots would have saved her life.
I would only add that they knew Madeline was sick. Very sick. For weeks before her death.
Madeline Neumann had been ill for about 30 days and as her insulin level slowly dropped, she became worse.
By Saturday, when the girl was unable to walk or talk, the grandmother, who lives out of state, told Leilani Neumann to take Madeline to a doctor, the document says.
And when push came to shove, they called 911.
On Sunday, Gordon spoke with Leilani Neumann and discovered the girl was in a coma. Gordon then contacted a daughter-in-law, Ariel Ness, who lives in California. Ness then called the Marathon County Dispatch Center.
"My sister-in-law, she's very religious, she believes in faith instead of doctors ...," the girl's aunt told a sheriff's dispatcher Sunday afternoon in a call from California. "And she called my mother-in-law today ... and she explained to us that she believes her daughter's in a coma now and she's relying on faith."
And they had health insurance.
Among the items taken by police from the home were eight Blue Cross HMO cards for the family, according to an inventory.
Holmes, your blather about slippery slopes and unforeseen consequences is typical ... oh, so very typical ... of your overblown horse manure.
Had the girl's aunt made the call a day sooner, Madeline wouldn't have died. Period. End of sentence.
The other children have been removed from the home.
The children removed from the home range in age from 13 to 16 and are expected to return to their parents once an investigation of the girl's death wraps up, Vergin said.
I hope that they remain with their other family.
Both her parents are nutjobs who post regularly on an end-of-days website.
Evidently, Mrs. Neumann occasionally interrupted her praying to go publish her visions on some crackpot End of Days Web site.
Eells is the founder of the Web site AmericasLastDays.com and Unleavened Bread Ministries. Leilani Neumann has written two posts on the Web site, and she and her husband had twice prayed over the telephone with Eells in the waning hours of Kara’s life.
Charges possible in diabetes death
The DA is going to announce whether or not charges are to be filed at the beginning of next week.
The parents should be charged with homicide.
Holmes, you can bloviate ad nauseum about "where-do-we-draw-the-line" ... but the fact remains: We, as a nation, have decided that a child's right to life and well-being supercede the right of the parent(s) to deny them life and well-being.
And thank god for that.
Otherwise, all sorts of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse would be tolerated.
Of course, you would rather that parents have the right to physically, sexually, and emotionally abuse their children.
I, and most of the others posting in this thread, disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Taz, posted 03-29-2008 7:39 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 10:25 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 129 of 286 (462056)
03-29-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Silent H
03-29-2008 10:25 PM


You bring up some points about the Neumanns. I have tried to distance this discussion from any particular case as it ends up getting mixed up with different sources regarding facts of one particular case. It is easier to use a very clear example, a theoretical one, with set parameters. Then we don't have to discuss what anyone knew, or what they generally do.
On the contrary. It is only by generalizing to the point of obfuscation that you can succeed.
That they would, and the parents not be charged with anything, undercuts your position from stem to stern. You seem unwilling to deal with that fact.
Only time will tell, dear.
I happen to be confident that these wingnuts will be charged.
If we had decided this, the law you want changed would not be on the books.
That these laws were passed is unfortunate.
However, the fact that exorcists (in Wisconsin, no less) and JWs HAVE been charged with homicide is proof positive that these laws are ineffective, at best.
Parents who have murdered their children have, in most cases, have been charged with homicide -- DESPITE this asinine "law".
One person's pleasure is another person's abuse.
Oh! Is this Xmas? What a present!
Yes. Allowing my daughter to die an agonizing death after a month of debilitating illness IS my idea of pleasure. How did you know?
Most people posting on this thread do not constitute the whole nation, nor the majority across space and time.
Guess what, precious?
I wasn't arguing that "the majority across space and time" were in agreement.
You are a truly sorry excuse for a relativist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 10:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 11:03 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 131 of 286 (462066)
03-30-2008 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Silent H
03-29-2008 11:03 PM


From Message 227.
Silent H writes:
If this all sounds like gibberish, it may be a combo of ignorance or lack of adequate vocabulary. I'll take whatever spanking I deserve.
If only you were so humble here.
When I generalized the case, I made it harder on my position, not easier.
Codswollop.
You blur the edges of the argument until any application to a real world situation is impossible.
That is an opinion, not an argument.
Oh! This is just too precious! From the man who offers NOTHING but opinion!
Your own citation showed that these examples are not necessarily the trend, as well as why courts might have held these cases differently then to other faith based cases.
The trend, thank god, is that the courts are IGNORING these faith-based laws.
This despite that fact that:
The deadly consequences of religious exemption laws are apparent nationwide: over the past 25 years there have been over 150 reported deaths of children whose parents chose to rely on faith healing rather than medicine.
There are at least 20 different sects and religious groups in the U.S. whose teachings deny the use of medical care. These groups include: Faith Assembly, Christian Science, The Believer's Fellowship, Faith Tabernacle, Church of the First Born, Church of God of the Union Assembly, Church of God Chapel, Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God, Jesus through John and Judy, Christ Miracle Healing Center, NE Kingdom Community Church, Christ Assembly, The Source, True Followers of Christ, "No Name" Fellowship, End Time Ministries, Faith Cathedral Fellowship, Living Word Assembly of God, Traveling Ministries Everyday Church.
How, you may ask, can the State prosecute when religious exemptions are on the books?
In 1988, the California Supreme Court (People v. Walker) determined that the state's religious exemption law applies only to the neglect statute and does not carry over to the state's manslaughter statute. The Twitchells in Boston were convicted under a similar interpretation of the Massachusetts religious exemption law.
PRECEDENT, my friend.
How often are parents prosecuted?
"Denial of critical care/child neglect" is the most commonly confirmed category of child abuse and neglect. In Iowa in 2002, the Department of Human Services reported that nearly 70% of all child abuse and neglect cases-more than 9,100 cases-involved the denial of critical care. Nationwide, half of all child abuse fatalities involve neglect.
Pretty gd often, my friend.
You can yip and yowl til the cows come home, dear.
Folks like the Neumanns are gonna hang from the yardarm. Mark my words.
Religion plays an important role in the growth and development of many children and families. However, when parental practices potentially harmful consequences, state intervention may be warranted.
The boundary between parental freedom in child rearing and the interest”or even basic rights of the child is unclear. The limits to parental decision making for children are uncertain, but it is widely accepted that parents generally will make decisions that do not directly threaten the welfare of their children. Tradition, social forces, and belief systems shape the limits of acceptable nurturance, parental imperatives and privileges, and even of physical force used in the discipline of children. These, of course, change with time. However, the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not sanction harming another person in the practice of one's religion, and they do not allow religion to be a legal defense when one harms another.
Recognition of the prevalence and serious consequences of child abuse and neglect has led society to develop increasingly comprehensive systems for its detection and reporting and to the establishment of legislation and procedures by each of the states. Federal rules, in addition to mandating that certain procedures be adopted for each state also confirm the inclusion of standard medical treatment in the category of those rights assured to children and establish the withholding of medical treatment in some circumstances as a form of child abuse or neglect.
In the United States, the constitutional guarantee of protection of religious practice from intrusion by government has been used by some religious groups to seek exemption from legislative or regulatory requirements regarding child abuse and neglect, including medical neglect in more than three quarters of the states. 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. Although these exemptions take different forms and interpretations in different state jurisdictions, the overall effect has been to limit the ability of the state to prosecute parents for abuse or medical neglect of children when such occurrences may be the result of "religious practice." Severe (even fatal) physical discipline, failure to seek medical care, or refusal of a proven efficacious treatment of a critically ill child may be protected from remedy because of the so called religious exemption clauses now found in a majority of state codes.
Two important sets of interests are in apparent opposition - those of children in the benefits of proven medical and health care and those of parents in making a decision about their children's well-being. Some parents believe that a constitutionally protected freedom of religion allows them to deny their children some or all of the benefits of standard medical intervention. However, this interpretation of the US constitution is in contradiction to important court rulings to the effect that parents may not martyr their children based on parental beliefs and that children cannot be denied essential health care.
The Committee on Bioethics asserts that (1) the opportunity to grow and develop safe from physical harm with the protection of our society is the right of every child; (2) the basic moral principles of justice and of protection of children as vulnerable citizens require that all parents and caretakers must be treated equally by the laws and regulations that have been enacted by state and federal governments to protect children; (3) all child abuse, neglect, and medical neglect statutes should be applied without potential or actual exemption for religious beliefs; (4) no statute should exist that permits or implies that denial of medical care necessary to prevent death or serious impairment to children can be supported on religious grounds; (5) state legislatures and regulatory agencies with interests in children should be urged to remove religious exemption clauses from statutes and regulations.
Religious Exemptions From Child Abuse Statutes
Your position appeared to be that the majority of this nation agrees with you, and it was only my heated fantasy that that would change.
You are a funny, funny little man.
Somehow you think that mandated chip implantation or a federally mandated diet for children are the inevitable result of STANDARD MEDICAL TREATMENT for children, regardless of the delusions of the parents.
Funny, funny little man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 11:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2008 1:20 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 154 of 286 (462149)
03-31-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Silent H
03-31-2008 1:20 AM


Your hogwash boils down to this:
"A parent has ultimate authority over the child. Unless I say different."
Your exceptions being:
This does not protect mere whimsy or overt lack of care for the wellbeing of the child.
What is "whimsy" and what is neglect?
What is "overt lack of care" and what is homicide?
As the arbiter of all things proper, please enlighten me:
Where do you draw the line?
Where does the authority of the parent end and the government's authority begin? And who gets to decide? And what rules do they use to decide?
Is parental intent the sole criteria?
Is physical child abuse OK simply because a fundie decides to follow the Bible?
Example (1)
... church members systematically held down their children while beating them with belts and other objects -- allegedly under the direction of the past, the Rev. Arthur Allen ... The youngsters were tied up and suspended by their arms and hands, and "beaten with switches, sticks or belts."
Page not found - American Atheists
Example (2)
... it is the Twelve Tribes' attitude towards children that has proved most controversial. Harsh discipline is one of the group's central tenets, as detailed in its 267-page Child Training Manual, copies of which have been handed out to parents at Picton. Written by Spriggs, the manual codifies when, why and how to hit children, saying "you must make it hurt enough to produce the desired result" and that "stripes or marks from loving discipline show love by the parent".
Religion and Child Abuse News
Please keep in mind:
The Bible mandates death by stoning for rebellious teenagers, according to a Pennsylvania preacher and Religious Right activist.
The Rev. William O. Einwechter's article, "Stoning Disobedient Children," appeared in the January issue of Chalcedon Report, a monthly journal published by the Chalcedon Foundation in Vallecito, Calif.
In the article, Einwechter cites Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which advises parents to take "a stubborn and rebellious son" before city elders to be stoned to death if he will not change his ways.
Einwechter says the death penalty should be applied to "a grown son (and by extension to a daughter as well) who, for whatever reason, has rebelled against the authority of his parents and will not profit from any of their discipline nor obey their voice in any thing."
Writes Einwechter, "[T]he execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful, and preventive. Just, in that the transgressor deserves to die; merciful, in that his quick death prevents the destruction of the family, society, and others; preventive, in that it strikes fear in the heart of other would-be rebels and restrains them from taking a similar ruinous course."
The Chalcedon Report is the leading publication of the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement, the most extreme contingent of the Religious Right. Reconstructionists reject democracy and believe Christians should take "dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen offenses, including adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft and spreading "false" religions.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9673.htm
Is homicide OK simply because some fundie wanted to drive the "demon" from a child?
A jury found minister Ray Hemphill guilty of felony child abuse Friday after he suffocated an 8-year-old child during an exorcism at his strip mall-based church.
Page not found - Court TV
Is homicide OK simply because some fundie chose prayer over antibiotics?
In Oregon City, four-year-old Alex Dale Morris received prayers for 46 days before he died. His parents, members of the Followers of Christ church denied the boy medical attention. His autopsy revealed that massive infection in his chest had filled one entire side of his chest with pus.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9074.htm
Is homicide OK simply because some fundie chose prayer over surgery?
In Boston, two-year-old Robyn Twitchell died of peritonitis and a twisted bowel after a five-day illness that began with his screaming and vomiting. His parents, members of Christian Science, refused to get medical treatment for their son.
Is homicide OK simply because some fundie chose prayer over insulin?
Bo Phillips, 11, died Feb. 23 of diabetes after suffering painful symptoms for a week. His death could have been prevented with medical care. His eyes were sunken and his face was yellow. His parents were members of the Followers of Christ Church. When his father was asked why he let the boy die, the father said it was his choice (Van Biema, David "Faith Or Healing" Time Aug. 311998 vol. 152 No9).
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9074.htm
Is homicide OK simply because some fundie chose prayer over antibiotics for an inner ear infection?
Sixteen-year-old Shannon Nixon died of treatable diabetes complications. Five years before, her younger brother Clayton died of an inner-ear infection. Their parents, Lori and Dennis Nixon, were members of the Faith tabernacle Church and refused to let their children have medical attention (Blair, Jeffroy "Faith-Healing Convictions Upheld" Deloit Daily News Apr. 30, 1997).
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9074.htm
Is homicide OK simply because some JW doesn't want his newborn sextuplets to receive blood transfusions?
Medical opinion, the government's duty to protect children, parental rights and freedom of religion clashed in a B.C. courtroom Friday over the seizure of three premature sextuplets.
Three of the four surviving sextuplets were taken from their home last year and given blood transfusions, contrary to the beliefs of their Jehovah's Witness parents.
Religion and Child Abuse News: endangerment
Is child sex abuse OK simply because some Mormon thinks a 14 year old makes a fine bride?
The recent conviction of Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on two felony counts of rape by accomplice in the arranged marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin hopefully drove home to the U.S. public that child marriage is a crime.
Building Awareness of Child Marriage - Rewire News Group
Is genital mutilation OK simply because some fundie wants to circumcise at home?
Now the self-admitted polygamist father faces allegations that he used a utility knife to circumcise two of his sons.
Investigators in Caldwell County plan to serve Johnny Marlowe, 32, felony child abuse warrants. The alleged circumcisions occurred in 2005 and 2006 when Marlowe lived in Lenoir.
Religion and Child Abuse News: endangerment
Is child labor OK simply because some fundie thinks so?
Up to 40 House of Yahweh children allegedly spent their days working in the religious sect's fields, canning operation, cafeteria and butter-making process, according to a new charge filed against Yisrayl Bill Hawkins, the group's leader.
Religion and Child Abuse News: child labour
Is incest OK simply because god told some wingnut it is?
David Berg, deceased founder and prophetic leader of The Family International, practiced and condoned incest, seeing "man's laws" as a nuisance. Following are excerpts from a number of Family publications where Berg dealt specifically with incest.
Berg on Incest - XFamily - Children of God
I could go on. There's plenty of sexual/physical/emotional abuse in the name of religion.
I'll let you get started with these.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2008 1:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2008 7:45 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 187 of 286 (462323)
04-02-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
04-02-2008 9:08 AM


The right to life is an overarching principle that overwhelms almost all others.
Thank you, Percy.
Your argument is simple and to-the-point. As always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 04-02-2008 9:08 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 2:37 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 235 of 286 (462433)
04-03-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2008 10:13 AM


If there was enough people that believed this to warrant a law in 44 of 50 states, then yeah, I would want the government to let this religious community continue to practice their religious ceremonies unharassed.
Miscegenation laws were on the books in a majority of the states (30/50) before Loving v. Virginia.
44/50 is no excuse for reprehensible behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:28 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 241 of 286 (462449)
04-03-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2008 10:28 AM


Sure it is. It makes it not reprehensibile.
Using that line of "reasoning", slavery is not reprehensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 10:28 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 2:06 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 260 of 286 (462512)
04-04-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by FliesOnly
04-04-2008 8:20 AM


Just to clarify...your definition of "reprehensible" rests on whether something is considered illegal or not illegal?
Obviously.
Which is kind of funny.
According to Merriam-Webster and American Heritage ...
Reprehensible:
(MW) Deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy.
(AH) Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy. See synonyms at blameworthy.
For a guy who wants to get the government out of our lives, CS sure likes to rely on governmental definitions of what is "deserving of rebuke".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by FliesOnly, posted 04-04-2008 8:20 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 261 of 286 (462513)
04-04-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by New Cat's Eye
04-04-2008 10:10 AM


I think the government should be able to interfere with some religious practices but I don’t think they should be interfering with this one in particular.
Bingo.
And you haven't any rational way of deciding which is which.
If religious justification is sufficient for avoiding negligent homicide in this case, then why isn't it sufficient for all other crimes (physical child abuse/incest/home surgery/etc.)?
And no more "cause I say so" type answers, CS.
Let's hear a hard-and-fast rule how one distinguishes between the two: the criminal and the not-criminal.
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2008 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 263 of 286 (464787)
04-29-2008 10:23 AM


Oh thank goodness.
Madeline's parents have been charged with second degree murder!
Journal Sentinel

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Taz, posted 04-29-2008 11:03 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 265 by FliesOnly, posted 04-29-2008 3:35 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 266 by Stile, posted 04-29-2008 8:52 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2672 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 267 of 286 (464839)
04-29-2008 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Stile
04-29-2008 8:52 PM


Re: Oh thank goodness.
Or is it like "the state" prosecuting?
Yup. It will be Wisconsin v. the Neumanns.
I don't see either side changing their stance, but at least it will give an insight to the current state (and maybe future position) of the law.
Unless they plead out.
Here's another charming tidbit:
One relative told police that the girl’s mother believed she “died because the devil is trying to stop Leilani from starting her own ministry,” the complaint said.
Object not found!
Good news, tho.
These idjits were charged too.
In March, an Oregon couple who belong to a church that preaches against medical care and believes in treating illness with prayer were charged with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in the death of their 15-month-old daughter. The toddler died March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection that could have been treated with antibiotics, the state medical examiner's office said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Stile, posted 04-29-2008 8:52 PM Stile has seen this message but 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