Faith healer parents let son die of treatable illness. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Faith healer parents let son die of treatable illness.


Gunhaver
07-13-2012, 08:08
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/worst-parent-week-faith-healer-parents-let-son-203600649.html

High-Gear
07-13-2012, 08:50
So, if I let my kid die because I am a lazy, piece of crap I'm a criminal.

However

If I let my kid die because I'm a religious lazy piece of crap, I'm OK?
Makes perfect sense!

Officer its alright, I screamed "Hallelujah!" at the brake pedal over and over, god must have wanted me to run over that child. Don't argue with gods will!

Woofie
07-13-2012, 11:30
The parents are facing manslaughter charges, at least.

High-Gear
07-13-2012, 11:57
The parents are facing manslaughter charges, at least.

In my state there is an express exemption for religious reasons for witholding medical care.

Woofie
07-13-2012, 12:06
I'm just going by what the article said.

Gunhaver
07-13-2012, 12:25
In my state there is an express exemption for religious reasons for witholding medical care.

Leave it to Kansas, the same state where the creationists invade the public school curriculum every few years.

High-Gear
07-13-2012, 12:50
I'm just going by what the article said.

I wasnt questioning you, just pointing out how they would get by with it in my state.

AlexHassin
07-13-2012, 18:24
glad i dont live in Kansas

High-Gear
07-13-2012, 18:40
Statute 21-3608: Endangering a child. (a) Endangering a child is intentionally and unreasonably causing or permitting a child under the age of 18 years to be placed in a situation in which the child's life, body or health may be injured or endangered.
* * * (b) * Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean a child is endangered for the sole reason the child's parent or guardian, in good faith, selects and depends upon spiritual means alone through prayer, in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination, for the treatment or cure of disease or remedial care of such child.


Similar language appears in the neglect statute.

steveksux
07-13-2012, 19:09
So, if I let my kid die because I am a lazy, piece of crap I'm a criminal.

However

If I let my kid die because I'm a religious lazy piece of crap, I'm OK?
Makes perfect sense!

Officer its alright, I screamed "Hallelujah!" at the brake pedal over and over, god must have wanted me to run over that child. Don't argue with gods will!

I always say: "Trust in Jesus. But TRY the brakes."

You either have religious freedom or you don't. You don't have to like their religious obligations. But if it doesn't affect you, it's none of your business.

The problem is what to do with the kids.... Do they get doomed by virtue of their parents religion before they're old enough to decide for themselves? Or do you step in and save them.

Its not unlike the debate over abortion, if you ask me.

Randy

Geko45
07-14-2012, 10:58
You either have religious freedom or you don't. You don't have to like their religious obligations. But if it doesn't affect you, it's none of your business.

That's not exactly correct. We have rights that we are free to exercise as we see fit as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another. In this case, the parent's right to religous freedom infringed upon their child's right to live. They had exceeded the limits of their rights and had crossed over into the realm of victimizing another.

It doesn't have to be my personal rights being violated in order for it to be my business. For instance, if I see someone robbing a convience store, I am well within my authority to act to subdue the perpetrator. Same with situations such as this. We have the authority to protect children from their parents should the need arise.

steveksux
07-14-2012, 12:58
That's not exactly correct. We have rights that we are free to exercise as we see fit as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another. In this case, the parent's right to religous freedom infringed upon their child's right to live. They had exceeded the limits of their rights and had crossed over into the realm of victimizing another.

It doesn't have to be my personal rights being violated in order for it to be my business. For instance, if I see someone robbing a convience store, I am well within my authority to act to subdue the perpetrator. Same with situations such as this. We have the authority to protect children from their parents should the need arise.
Poor choice of words on my part, my intent was as long as it doesn't affect others, not just the generic "you".

Randy