Praying man let his daughter die

[Snow Crash]

A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.

The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he believed God could heal his daughter.

She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.

Neumann's wife, Leilani Neumann, was convicted earlier this year.

The couple, who were both convicted of second-degree reckless homicide, face up to 25 years in prison when they are sentenced in October.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm

I am just lost for words at the parents' fucking stupidity. That poor kid seems to have been doomed from the get go with such clowns for parents.

I wonder what their thoughts are now regarding 'God' and why he didn't save their daughter?

[pack3tg0st]

as much as I think they're morons...

I still don't think he should be charged...

The government has no fuckin' business telling me when to see a doctor...

treatable or no, its still natural causes...

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

The prosecution argued that Neumann had minimised his daughter's illness and that he had allowed her to die as a selfish act of faith.

Says it for me...


YOUR faith is YOUR business until you allow someone to die for it.

[Snow Crash]

YOUR faith is YOUR business until you allow someone to die for it.

Smite

Too right, Skipper. Faith should be a personal thing. The parents were being selfish.

[pack3tg0st]

But the government making treatment mandatory...

which is essentially what they're doing... get treatment or go to jail type of thing...

Fascism.

I don't agree with the parent's decision...

but I"ll be damned if some suits in government start dictating when treatment is mandatory...

[Snow Crash]

I can understand where you're coming from Pack, and maybe if they had done it to themselves, then fine... but this is just disgraceful. Their ignorance, stupidity, and selfishness cost someone else their life.

[WarlordZeroOne]

Blind faith is one thing and some good points,common sense says when you or any in your family are ill its the Doctor,we all know when that moment is,but praying when one of your family is ill,is another matter,nobody knows what was swimming around in that couples heads, i would say it was not done on purpose,but again its the old story Religion, well i would not die for Religion,or let any of my family either.

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

But the government making treatment mandatory...

Who, then, should protect those who cannot fend for themselves?

[Alessandra]

For fucks sake, pray while the damn kid is at the hospital.

Honestly though, I think the kid's better off.

[pack3tg0st]

But the government making treatment mandatory...

Who, then, should protect those who cannot fend for themselves?

This is the path to fascism.

shit, remember the good o'l days when natural selection was in vogue?

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

This is the path to fascism.

One step does not "the" path make. http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/icons%20pngs/sad_1.png

Again, if the primary guardians and their community won't step up to the plate and do what's proper, then who should step in to protect the innocent?

Any ideas?

It's quite clear the other "faithfull" players in this scenario dropped the ball.

Should a little girl have paid with her life?

Is this just?


shit, remember the good o'l days when natural selection was in vogue?

It's still relevant; there's one less potential cult member in the world...

[FancyFree]

Ignorance is not excusable. They deserve to be charged.

[pack3tg0st]

The little girl died of natural causes...

The causes were treatable, yes... but to hold a man criminally responsible for a death by natural causes?

Are we at the point in society where artificially prolonging life is the only acceptable thing to do?

This isn't someone who needed "protecting". She had an unfortunate disease. and she died from it...

Disease doesn't differentiate between "innocent" or not...

Yes, its tragic... but its 100% natural...

[FancyFree]

it's negligence, plain and simple

[FancyFree]

especially since it was something so treatable, she basically died due to her parents negligence.

[pack3tg0st]

Why is it negligence?

because they didn't defy nature?

I can't understand why people think that nature taking its course is a bad thing...

its not good or bad... its simply natural.

[FancyFree]

I just don't see how u can argue that what those parents did was justifiable. "natural" or not, they LET their child die. She didn't HAVE to die, they LET her die, they KILLED her by not taking her for treatment of something very curable and treatable. It's totally different then, say, a parent who's child has incurable cancer and who have tried all they can and have decided to let their child go in peace. Completely different. Anyone who would put their child's life in jeopardy because of religion like that should be jailed. Their daughter suffered needlessly and lost her life because of her ignorant, fanatical parents who were totally negligent. No sane parents would ever do that. Most parents would search and go to the ends of the earth to help their sick child get better. A parents INSTINCT is to help and protect their child no matter what, not sit by and watch them die for something that could EASILY be treated. It sickens me.

[pack3tg0st]

Nice Straw man... I didn't say It was justifiable...

I didn't say I agree with them...

I said I disagree with them being charged...

The didn't KILL their kid... Diabetes did.

[FancyFree]

No, diabetes did not kill the kid, the parents negligence killed her. If there was no cure or treatment for diabetes then yes, you would have a valid argument pack. :)

[FancyFree]

Everyone has a right to live. For children, the parents make sure that their child has that right to live. They took her right to live away by not getting her treatment. They decided her fate by not getting her treatment, therefore through their doing nothing, she died. Their fault, they did it, let them rightfully be charged with negligent homicide. Religious fanatics once again putting their children's lives at risk and letting them die. They seriously need to get a fucking clue.

[pack3tg0st]

No, diabetes did not kill the kid, the parents negligence killed her. If there was no cure or treatment for diabetes then yes, you would have a valid argument pack. :)

There is no cure for diabetes...

There is treatment... but no cure...

Diabetes killed her...

Her parents did what they believe in their mind to be the best...

Just like anyone else would have.

What they believe is the best for their kid and what you believe to be the best may be two different things...

but its not the government's place to decide these matters.

If you did what you thought was best for your kid, and it killed him/her, and the world disagreed with you... than by your logic, you'd be in jail as well...

No amount of "human interest" or sensational emotional tirade will ever give the green light for government to thumb it's nose at nature...

[pack3tg0st]

Everyone has a right to live. For children, the parents make sure that their child has that right to live. They took her right to live away by not getting her treatment. They decided her fate by not getting her treatment, therefore through their doing nothing, she died. Their fault, they did it, let them rightfully be charged with negligent homicide. Religious fanatics once again putting their children's lives at risk and letting them die. They seriously need to get a fucking clue.

She did live. no one killed her... diabetes did... No one has the right to defy nature.

you're making a nice argument for why you disagree with their decision... but I have yet to see any sort of argument that refusing to artificially prolong life should be considered criminal...

[KIWI]

a little of this in the Nuemann clan's gene-pool may have helped

[attachment=0:1bb8fen4]AP9RU2ICA7O9HIACAX7QNANCAWOFE1GCAQN32UNCA0K1WHFCA1 VY3LWCAQT1NZ2CAPCNRYOCAZO4RRXCAEHE09JCAY2O80FCAKRG FTNCANV9C4ACAX4DQSYCAACY6SZCAN07ES5CA6FU4H9CAE7R6F SCAE8QE28.jpg[/attachment:1bb8fen4]

[Bitchkoma]

I find myself agreeing with what pack is saying. The government has no right to force treatments for natural diseases. Even more so when those treatments aren't tax-supported but will probably go into the pocket of some private health insurance scumball.

[apeci]

Here in Missouri the courts have ruled in favor of the First Amendment. People have every right to place their faith in God to heal no matter how irrational their decision may appear to be.

[KIWI]

Here in Missouri the courts have ruled in favor of the First Amendment. People have every right to place their faith in God to heal no matter how irrational their decision may appear to be.


fine , cant wait to hear from his defence council, I assume God will be appearing on his behalf ?

[Cogburn]

I say we slash their wrists and allow them to pray to God to stop the bleeding.

That'd be spot on with what they did to their daughter.

Let them rot.

[WarlordZeroOne]

Doe's anybody know what their Religion was?

[KIWI]

Here in Missouri the courts have ruled in favor of the First Amendment. People have every right to place their faith in God to heal no matter how irrational their decision may appear to be.


fine , cant wait to hear from his defence council, I assume God will be appearing on his behalf ?

actually, wont God be subpeaoned by the prosecution?......hostile witness?

not looking good for him/her.........he doesnt have the greatest of track records with his own kid :roll:

[WarlordZeroOne]

Would anyone agree the First Amendment is out of date and touch in todays society,like it does not sound and feel right the 1st Amendment today,i also do not know enough about the American Constitution,but i have said it doe's not feel right in todays society,or am i totally wrong?

[KIWI]

says in the beeb link he studied as a Pentecostal minister........


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism

Pentecostalism is a renewalist religious movement within Christianity, that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[1] The term Pentecostal is derived from Pentecost, a Greek term describing the Jewish Feast of Weeks. For Christians, this event commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the followers of Jesus Christ, as described in the Book of Acts, Chapter 2,[2] and Pentecostals tend to see their movement as reflecting the same kind of spiritual power, worship styles and teachings that were found in the early church. For this reason, some Pentecostals also use the term Apostolic and/or Full Gospel to describe their movement.

Pentecostalism is an umbrella term that includes a wide range of different theological and organizational perspectives. As a result, there is no single central organization or church that directs the movement. Most Pentecostals consider themselves to be part of broader Christian groups; for example, most Pentecostals identify as Protestants. Many embrace the term Evangelical, while others prefer Restorationist. Pentecostalism is theologically and historically close to the Charismatic Movement, as it significantly influenced that movement; some Pentecostals use the two terms interchangeably. Furthermore, Pentecostals are diverse theologically with some groups being Trinitarian and others Nontrinitarian.

Within classical Pentecostalism there are three major orientations: Wesleyan-Holiness, Higher Life, and Oneness.[3] Examples of Wesleyan-Holiness denominations include the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC). The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel is an example of the Higher Life branch, while the Assemblies of God (AG) was influenced by both groups.[3][4] Some Oneness churches include the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW), and Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ (ALJC). Many Pentecostal sects are affiliated with the Pentecostal World Conference. Pentecostalism claims more than 250 million adherents worldwide.[5] When Charismatics are added with Pentecostals the number increases to nearly a quarter of the world's 2 billion Christians.[1]

[pack3tg0st]

Would anyone agree the First Amendment is out of date and touch in todays society,like it does not sound and feel right the 1st Amendment today,i also do not know enough about the American Constitution,but i have said it doe's not feel right in todays society,or am i totally wrong?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not even close... how would you suggest its "out of date?"

[pack3tg0st]

I say we slash their wrists and allow them to pray to God to stop the bleeding.

That'd be spot on with what they did to their daughter.

Let them rot.

Bah, the First Amendment doesn't apply to just the people we agree with...

But besides that, the issue isn't religion...

the issue is the government punishing someone for not getting medical treatment...

[Cogburn]

There's a part before that you skipped.

[offsite=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/:2wwzhxzp]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/offsite:2wwzhxzp]

[pack3tg0st]

Hrm?

The bill of rights isn't the Constitution...

its a separate document...

confused.

[WarlordZeroOne]

Thanx KIWI,so would you say the Father of the Dead girl, studying to be a Pentecostal Minister may have influenced his decision,about praying for the child,instaed of getting medical help? just a thought.

[WarlordZeroOne]

Cog.from what i have read thats the Preamble,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

right at the very beginning of the American constitution!!!

[WarlordZeroOne]

Thats stupid me it says its the Preamble.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/

[Cogburn]

250 years ago we decided that it was better for us to watch each others' back so that we may all share a modicum of equality, as opposed to being completely self-interested and allowing for oppression. Withholding basic medical care for punitive or religious reasons, or out of sheer ignorance, is a crime. This isn't even something like chemotherapy... this is a $5 blood test and a different shopping list at the grocery store.

If you are a child that was saved by medical procedures mandated by the state and you believe that God wanted you to die, when you turn 18, kill yourself. You'll only get in trouble if you fail.

The single greatest enemy to libertarianism is reality.

[pack3tg0st]

LOL I'm not libertarian...

I'm an Anarchist...

but that aside... Oppression could also be forcing people to recieve medical treatment...

not only that, but is the point of our prison system rehabilitation, isolation, or revenge?

The only reason to send em to jail at this point is revenge.

[Cogburn]

LOL I'm not libertarian...

I'm an Anarchist...

but that aside... Oppression could also be forcing people to recieve medical treatment...

not only that, but is the point of our prison system rehabilitation, isolation, or revenge?

The only reason to send em to jail at this point is revenge.
We aren't talking "people"... we are talking "children". Adults don't have to go to the doctor when they are sick if they don't want to.

Our society says that children should be given proper medical care until they reach the age of majority, period. The entire point of that is to allow them to reach the age of majority so they can make "real" decisions in the world.

This also isn't forced vaccinations or forced sterilization or anything even close to that. There is a problem being addressed. The person at issue is not well. It is not even as if they went to a doctor who diagnosed the child and then they declined to have it treated. They refused diagnosis. The first reaction they had to severe illness was to ignore it... oops... I mean pray.

[pack3tg0st]

lol I don't agree with their decisions or how they arrived at them...

but I disagree more with the courts interjecting...

Diabetes is natural... it happens to lots of people...

Choosing to let life live within the bounds of natural law... natural selection included, should not be punishable with jail time...

[Cogburn]

The term "natural" is misleading. All diseases are "natural", it is the causes that are to be questioned.

Choosing to live by natural law is different than claiming to live by natural law. The former requires knowledge thereof, the latter merely the espousal of dogma.

Pentacostals have church doctors. They didn't call him? Not even a homeopathic remedy?

These people murdered their child and are wrapping themselves in Bible pages.

There's a Law and Order episode in this somewhere...

[KIWI]

The term "natural" is misleading. All diseases are "natural", it is the causes that are to be questioned.



"ding-ding" ......unanimous points decision..... :arg:

[lala]

There is no point in jailing them for there ignorance . . . Fix [strilise] them both, and get any other children in their care a health check . . . . I don't know how they could watch their daughter die, here's the wiki link on her illness . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus
I think she would of suffered quite badly . . . even if they got her diagnosed they may of been able to help with her diet . . . . Imo they have the right to do as they wish for themself, but I'm sure the child would have want to live, and they denied her access to that . . . .what is crueltry . . . suffering, denying medical attention . . . I keep getting animal cruelty popping into my head . . . . your not aloud to treat your animal certain ways and must provide medical care . . . . but kids do not have this right, thats fucked up . . .but jailing people is not going to fix it . . . . I'm sure they would of been fine in lots of other area's of their life's . . . .I wonder how their blind faith goes now!!!!

[century]

q]MgfPqUQGsvIq]

[boycotteverything]

I said this a while back and I stand by it. Chii and Lala summed it up well.
Chii speaks for me on this one.[quote:2ddqwgy9]
For fucks sake, pray while the damn kid is at the hospital. And Lala ia also correct-
There is no point in jailing them for there ignorance

It all boils down to the old saw: "Hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster." Lesson learned. The hard way.[/quote:2ddqwgy9]

[apeci]

Regardless of what some of the more collectivist bigots here seem to believe, if we are to assume that a parent has the right to make life-impacting decisions for their offspring, then we must also respect the right of the parent to make those decisions according to whatever parameters they see fit.

Ultimately pack is absolutely correct. It is not possible to murder someone by not doing something. If no treatment were available, would people still blame the parent? If the slate is wiped clean and you simply write down what led to death, the issue ends there. Diabetes killed this kid... in a sense, God did it.

[boycotteverything]

Regardless of what some of the more collectivist bigots here seem to believe... God did it.Hard to disagree with that. First among all the rights enjoyed by the American people is the Right to be Stupid.


we must also respect the right of the parent to make those decisions according to whatever parameters they see fit.
And if those parameters include microwaving the satanic banshee in possession of the child's soul? What then?

What we have here are two Rights in conflict. The child's Right to Life as opposed to the parents' Right to Abject Assholery. I vote 'Life.'

[apeci]

That would be an act of assault, much like circumcision. Which is to be tolerated by this abstract nonexistent construct called "society?" However there is no comparing action to inaction. If I witness someone shoot you and noticing some poor starving animals around, being the animal lover that I am, decide to leave you there, did I kill you, or the gunman?

[hp]

It is not possible to murder someone by not doing something.

Would locking someone in a cage, not giving food and water until they die, would not be murder?

[apeci]

Locking them in the cage is the overt act that led to death. Everything after that act is trivial.

If we're going to compare action to inaction, what about parents opting to vaccinate their children, only to have the vaccine trigger a violent and fatal reaction (such as happens with Gardasil, MMR, influenza vaccines, and many others). They put their faith in western medicine and it resulted in the death of their child. Did they murder that child?

[Alessandra]

No, diabetes did not kill the kid, the parents negligence killed her. If there was no cure or treatment for diabetes then yes, you would have a valid argument pack. :)

There is no cure for diabetes...




Sort of depends on what type...sometimes Diabetes can be prevented, by diet and not prayer.

My dad damn well near had diabetes, now he has to watch what he eats, or else he will get diabetes.

me? I have low blood sugar, so I get to eat all day (jk)

[boycotteverything]

That would be an act of assault, much like circumcision. Which is to be tolerated by this abstract nonexistent construct called "society?" However there is no comparing action to inaction. If I witness someone shoot you and noticing some poor starving animals around, being the animal lover that I am, decide to leave you there, did I kill you, or the gunman? So you say. One man's assault is another man's cure.
whatever parameters they see fit. And further- has a parent no responsibility towards the child? Is there such a thing as 'neglect' in your world?

And HP's point
not giving food and water until they dieAssault or fitting parameter for child rearing? And even if you choose to reject compassionate pro-action, still- political absolutism ought not come at the expense of reason.

[apeci]

No, but absolute freedom often does.



If we're going to compare action to inaction, what about parents opting to vaccinate their children, only to have the vaccine trigger a violent and fatal reaction (such as happens with Gardasil, MMR, influenza vaccines, and many others). They put their faith in western medicine and it resulted in the death of their child. Did they murder that child?
What if they choose not to vaccinate because of this risk and the child dies of a disease for which there is a vaccine? They can't both be murder. In fact, neither are.

[boycotteverything]

Reasonable people disagree on the efficacy and/or dangers of certain vaccinations. But in this instance the question is not about 'prevention,' but rather 'cure.' The parents' reliance on jesus or satan or whatever figment of the moment is tantamount to neglect engendered by stupidity. Stop fucking arguing for idiocy for crissakes.

[apeci]

Right to be Stupid, as you put it. ;)

[boycotteverything]

You've duly advocated for that right and I commend you for it. But now it's time for a dollop of reason in service to life.

[apeci]

A bit late for that, don' you t'ink?

[boycotteverything]

The next instance is always in the offing unfortunately...

[FancyFree]

Being "ignorant" can't be used as an excuse to justify what is right or wrong. And what about plain ol' common sense, for fucks sake?? All types of diabetes, while not curable, are manageable. Parents are supposed to help their children thrive, they did nothing to help her, and they aided in her death. Ignorance, lack of common sense or just blind fanatical faith do not make what they did to their daughter justifiable or right. What is gonna snap these people out of their idiot ways....maybe some quiet time in a jail cell to reflect upon their sheer stupidity would help.

[apeci]

The next instance is always in the offing unfortunately...
You gonna sit in the bedroom of every child with a thermometer and a shotgun waiting for that first sniffle to call 911 and fight your way to the lawn?

[Foxtrot Oscar]

hmmmmm I'm quite sure I read somewhere, why, just the other day.

"Common sense. It's not so common anymore."

If you want to live free, then you have to except that some people will live stupid. Retardism is indeed a natural process of cleansing the planet of the stupid. God loves retards, they send their children in first to mop the beautful marble floors in their new heavenly abode.

It seems that freedom to do as you please, has a very high price, infact: there is no price that can be put on the life of a child.

BUT the fat kid's mother should be locked up... disgrace that she is!

Fox

[apeci]

I think the loss of a child is punishment enough. No need to victimize everyone else for her stupidity.

[boycotteverything]

Nah. I'll always protect the the Right to be Stupid. No coercion. Just a wistful dream that reason occasionally prevails. 'No locking up.' I'm against it.

[pack3tg0st]

Being "ignorant" can't be used as an excuse to justify what is right or wrong

Therein lies the problem: You're attempting to apply your sense of right and wrong to others. No one has a right to do that. Keep your morality to yourself...

There are many situations where parents make life altering decisions for their children based on their beliefs.

The Amish around here aren't required to go to school past 6th grade. SHould they go to jail because they're denying an education to their children?

Why not?

Whether I agree with what happened or not... the government has no right to send a family to jail for an undiagnosed, but fatal case of Diabetes.

As difficult as it may be, imagine if the tables were turned...

Suppose some kid had an illness where the treatment is fatal 75% of the time. Parents opt for treatment and kid dies... then do the parents go to jail too?

why not? by deciding to treat they killed their kid...

[boycotteverything]

I said this a while back and I stand by it. Chii and Lala summed it up well.


Chii speaks for me on this one.[quote:cmvektfi]

For fucks sake, pray while the damn kid is at the hospital.
And Lala ia also correct-


There is no point in jailing them for there ignorance


It all boils down to the old saw: "Hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster." Lesson learned. The hard way.

[/quote:cmvektfi]

[apeci]

teehee



We aren't talking "people"... we are talking "children".
Children... Jews... they aren't people anyway, so fuck 'em.

[boycotteverything]

And this also stands... Quoting Fox (who is quoting some long forgotten source): "Common sense. It's not so common anymore." That is undeniably true.

It all boils down to the old saw: "Hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster." Lesson learned. The hard way.

Regardless of the prevarications of le dieux de jour.

[boycotteverything]

teehee



We aren't talking "people"... we are talking "children".
Children... Jews... they aren't people anyway, so fuck 'em.Jesus... are my eyes deceiving me? Children are somehow not 'people'?? Cog- drop the bong and screw your head back on. Gratuitous parsing has its limits. Even cheap condiments make a cogent point now and then! Teehee indeed!

[boycotteverything]

This tedious argument bugs the shit outa me and begs for a proper summation. So here it is:

I think all reasonable men and women here (including Apeci despite his stiff necked denials) would agree that the child's Right to Life supersedes the parents' Right to be Stupid. Unfortunately it's too late for the child. End of story, and we are all left to regret the results. Those insular, nasty bastards who advocate retribution against the parents, those who want them jailed or otherwise tormented- can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. Sorrow? Yes. Prison? No.


.maybe some quiet time in a jail cell to reflect upon their sheer stupidity would help.I rather think not.

[WarlordZeroOne]

Which ever side of the coin is shown,someone will not agree,this is a really sad case,the poor child should be alive today,but who will pass judgement on the parents? its bad news all-round,right or wrong, if the Parents love their daughter enough,losing her will be harsher than jail,a lifetime of regret.

[guinnessford]

as much as I think they're morons...

I still don't think he should be charged...

The government has no fuckin' business telling me when to see a doctor...

treatable or no, its still natural causes...


I feel that thought, but also feel bad for the family.

Im sure this guy died inside seconds after his daughter passed.

And if Im not mistaken, this has happened recently and the parent(s) were charged but not convicted under a freedom of religion stipulation.

Sorry if I skipped over info and re-posted something else said, but im on the way to pharmacy to get tattoo ointment....

Again, I can only imagine how absolutely useless and pain filled this guy is... unless he just doesnt show any remorse, than he is screed

[FancyFree]

So just because people are stupid or ignorant that doesn't warrant any consequences for their actions, or in this case, lack of???? Does a parent who drives impaired with children in the car, then later crashes and his children die...even though he may have loved them very much, does he not deserve jail time either, just because he loved his children and it was an accident due to his stupidity and ignorance??? That losing his children by his own stupidity is consequence enough, no jail time or some other form of reprimanding is needed or deserved??? No matter what kind of perfect and authority free utopia you'd like for society, people still need rules and some people will only learn through the consequences they face. Children need discipline, they need boundaries set.......they need to learn consequences for their actions........as do alot of adults, although, on a different level.

[boycotteverything]

ah- pack the bastards off to cages. that'll teach 'em. i just love the medieval thrust of your worldview. do you ever tire of crying for revenge?

[guinnessford]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25828489-3102,00.html
Denied help from Swine-flu scare...

http://nationaldeathservice.blogspot.com/2009/07/baby-dies-after-suspected-salt-overdose.html
This happens when you take your child in...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Technology/story?id=7649610&page=1
And simple surgeries lead to death.

Sometimes its a lose/lose situation, Jessica.

I wholly understand what youre feeling about this, but along the same lines of freedoms that we are allowed, this is 100 pct a legal example.

I feel strongly about burning the flag, and dont like it.

And on the other hand, the whole symbol and purpose of that flag represents the ability to burn it.

Not sure if it makes any more sense that way, but if maybe you slipped on this parents shoe for a minute you could feel some empathy.

Its all about freedom of religion, which along with the whole greenback story, was the reasons this banana republic was invented back in the day.

Im not giving you crap, or even disagreeing with you, just trying to help smooth out the ideas and feelings between both sides of this story.

[Cogburn]

Children... Jews... they aren't people anyway, so fuck 'em.Jesus... are my eyes deceiving me? Children are somehow not 'people'?? Cog- drop the bong and screw your head back on. Gratuitous parsing has its limits. Even cheap condiments make a cogent point now and then! Teehee indeed!
Wow... so sorry folks are shocked by this, but yes, it's true.

Under the law children are not legally people. That's why they have special courts, special laws, special protections, etc.

The legal definition of "person" or "citizen" has changed several times throughout the history of our nation.

Perhaps one day it will include children, however this is not that day.

[apeci]

Under the law black people aren't legally people, either. Oh wait...

[Cogburn]

Under the law black people aren't legally people, either. Oh wait...
I didn't use any big words and you still didn't read the whole post?

Ah well. It's tough to make complex thoughts bite-sized, but I didn't realize I needed to make them moron-sized.

Noted.

[apeci]

Oh I read it. An illegitimate dictate is illegitimate at its inception, not at such time that the courts deem it as such. I didn't realize clarification was necessary, but you'll have to forgive me... I was distracted by your signature. That whole Do Not Hurt People part...

[guinnessford]

I think there may be some laws left for us Irish tools not being equal too...

[boycotteverything]

Perhaps one day it will include children, however this is not that day.Sorry, pal but I regret to inform you that children are indeed 'people.' The 14th affirms that right. No children excluded.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Snow Crash]

Being responsible is part of being a parent. If you can't (or won't) act responsibly for your child's safety, then you shouldn't be having kids. These people, even if it is down to ignorance, are responsible for the death of their child.

If I didn't know about the dangers of drink driving, hit the vodka, then ran over five people on my way home from the bar, I'd still get charged with causing death by dangerous driving, and wind up with prison time. Ignorance is no defence.

If they are human, they will already be tearing themselves to shreds over it. But remorse in hindsight does not erase actions, and I still think their decisions were born out of ignorance and a selfish indulgance in their faith. As has already been said: pray at the fucking hospital.

[Cogburn]

Oh I read it. An illegitimate dictate is illegitimate at its inception, not at such time that the courts deem it as such. I didn't realize clarification was necessary, but you'll have to forgive me... I was distracted by your signature. That whole Do Not Hurt People part...
Ok... so you read my post, now go read the Federalist Papers.

You seem to be confusing my understanding for the legal rights of children with approval of such a situation.

My argument is exactly the same as BEs: in American society, the "right to life" trumps the "right to stupid". Reason being is that if you are alive you may, at some future date, grow to no longer be stupid.

I'm simply focusing on the exact legal justifications for it in this particular instance.

I believe the term you're searching for is "depraved indifference to suffering". There's also that little caveat of "available, known resources".

Stop arguing for a situation you would never actually want to become a legal reality.

[apeci]

I hope you bear the full wrath of what you advocate and have your own child stolen from you before your actions, or inaction, allows harm to come to her, again.

[boycotteverything]

I think there may be some laws left for us Irish tools not being equal too...Paragraph 2:

Nothing heretofore stated shall be deemed as applying to Irish scum.

[boycotteverything]

I hope you bear the full wrath of what you advocate and have your own child stolen from you before your actions, or inaction, allows harm to come to her, again.Well hells bells- she's only property.

[FancyFree]

ah- pack the bastards off to cages. that'll teach 'em. i just love the medieval thrust of your worldview. do you ever tire of crying for revenge?


Ok all you've done, BE, is argue for sake of arguing against any points i've made, especially in response to any kind of punishment for these people. So why don't you put your typing to good use and actually share a useful thought as to how you would handle this or what YOU think should be done, or even if nothing should be done and WHY. And please feel free to be as indepth in your explanation as you'd like, (while trying very hard not to be condescending to anyone, let's just talk facts) just for a nice, clear and concise, valid argument from you.

[Cogburn]

I hope you bear the full wrath of what you advocate and have your own child stolen from you before your actions, or inaction, allows harm to come to her, again.Well hells bells- she's only property.
We'll see. I'll keep you posted. (http://www.amkon.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=7657)

[boycotteverything]

Ok all you've done, BE, is argue for sake of arguing against any points i've made, especially in response to any kind of punishment for these people.That's because our positions are in ineluctable opposition. No 'punishment' will ever be advocated by me- that's your domain. I don't hold with punishment- I hold with enlightenment. You can have your stocks and chains. Not my style.

Throughout this thread I've made my position clear- common sense should prevail. No retribution, but rather discourse and compassion. Sorry if you've missed it. But fortunately it's recorded and you can re-read it at your leisure.

[FancyFree]

Not sure if it makes any more sense that way, but if maybe you slipped on this parents shoe for a minute you could feel some empathy.

Its all about freedom of religion, which along with the whole greenback story, was the reasons this banana republic was invented back in the day.

Im not giving you crap, or even disagreeing with you, just trying to help smooth out the ideas and feelings between both sides of this story.

Fuck freedom of religion, i'm all for people practicing whatever religion they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the well being of another person, especially a child. As for slipping on their shoes............I am a parent and there is nothing i wouldn't do to ensure the well being of my children. These people would have known that lack of treatment could kill their child and they consciously decided to play russian roulette with her life and basically not provide the best care that they could for their child. How is that being a responsible parent? How is not providing the essential basic things a child needs, such as medical care for something so very treatable, ok??? A child depends on their parents for many things, especially for protection and nurturing and the opportunity for a healthy, happy life. They denied her this. Religion should never supersede what's best for the welfare or safety or right to live of a child. And in my opinion, anyone who takes that right away from a child, ignorantly or not, should be open to criminal charges. Not providing for your child, in the best way possible to ensure their survival, not only goes against parental instinct (hence why more people just wouldn't do this) but morally, i feel that it's wrong. Do you really think that whatever "God" they were praying to would condone this type of behavior??? Come on now. Obviously i can't speak for God, but sometimes people should just listen to their own "moral compass" a little more and get off the "stupid" wagon and grab a clue and some common sense.

[boycotteverything]

I hope you bear the full wrath of what you advocate and have your own child stolen from you before your actions, or inaction, allows harm to come to her, again.Well hells bells- she's only property.
We'll see. I'll keep you posted. (http://www.amkon.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=7657)Your narrow points aside- I'm with you on this. Because I believe in the essential humanity of the father and the child. No strings, no Federal-Paperist concerns- just the truth of it- two humans up against the Borg.

[FancyFree]

Ok all you've done, BE, is argue for sake of arguing against any points i've made, especially in response to any kind of punishment for these people.That's because our positions are in ineluctable opposition. No 'punishment' will ever be advocated by me- that's your domain. I don't hold with punishment- I hold with enlightenment. You can have your stocks and chains. Not my style.

Throughout this thread I've made my position clear- common sense should prevail. No retribution, but rather discourse and compassion. Sorry if you've missed it. But fortunately it's recorded and you can re-read it at your leisure.


Ok well please "enlighten" me and explain how we can "enlighten" people like this??? "no retribution, but rather discourse and compassion", well who the hell had compassion for their child as they sat by and prayed and LET her die? Where was compassion for her? Does a parent who thinks this world sucks and can't stand to watch his children living in such a shitty world have the right to shoot them, because he thinks they would be better off in "heaven" then in this world??? To him, he thought he was doing the best thing for his children. Does that make it right, should there be no consequences for his actions???

[apeci]

Fuck freedom of religion
Well that says it all now doesn't it? You're just another bigoted authoritarian cunt.

[FancyFree]

Yep fuck religion when it interfere's with another person's well being. I said i have no problem with people practicing whatever "religion" they want as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's well being, dickhead. Did your eyes just inadvertently pass over that particular sentence of mine, it must have since you decided not to quote what i was saying in it's entirety.

[Lexion]

Fuck freedom of religion, i'm all for people practicing whatever religion they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the well being of another person, especially a child. As for slipping on their shoes............I am a parent and there is nothing i wouldn't do to ensure the well being of my children. These people would have known that lack of treatment could kill their child and they consciously decided to play russian roulette with her life and basically not provide the best care that they could for their child. How is that being a responsible parent? How is not providing the essential basic things a child needs, such as medical care for something so very treatable, ok??? A child depends on their parents for many things, especially for protection and nurturing and the opportunity for a healthy, happy life. They denied her this. Religion should never supersede what's best for the welfare or safety or right to live of a child. And in my opinion, anyone who takes that right away from a child, ignorantly or not, should be open to criminal charges. Not providing for your child, in the best way possible to ensure their survival, not only goes against parental instinct (hence why more people just wouldn't do this) but morally, i feel that it's wrong. Do you really think that whatever "God" they were praying to would condone this type of behavior??? Come on now. Obviously i can't speak for God, but sometimes people should just listen to their own "moral compass" a little more and get off the "stupid" wagon and grab a clue and some common sense.

Smite for the biggest post I've
ever seen Jess make.

I'm staying out of the convo, though.

Lex

[Jackinthebox]

The prosecution argued that Neumann had minimised his daughter's illness and that he had allowed her to die as a selfish act of faith.

Says it for me...


YOUR faith is YOUR business until you allow someone to die for it.

It's his daughter. Your point would only hold water in my book if he were taking care of someone elses's kid.

[Jackinthebox]

And just wanted to throw this out there too. What if it were not a question of "faith" but instead a matter of being unable to pay for such treatment? Or should the government lock up the doctor that sent me out of the ER a few hours after I had a stroke because I have no insurance, or the hospital that fails to get someone the organ transplant that they need, etc?

[apeci]

Yep fuck religion when it interfere's with another person's well being. I said i have no problem with people practicing whatever "religion" they want as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's well being, dickhead. Did your eyes just inadvertently pass over that particular sentence of mine, it must have since you decided not to quote what i was saying in it's entirety.
Man... it must be contagious.

Circumcision is an infringement on a person's well being. Fuck the Jews though?

Alcohol is a leading cause of early death. Fuck parents who have their kids take communion?

Starvation can cause serious bodily injury. Fuck every religion that has its followers practice fasting?

If a family would rather place their faith in God than in western medicine, that's their right and their decision, not yours, you bigoted authoritarian cunt.

[lala]

cunt.

That the second time you cockhead . . . . try and be an adult I know it can be hard but playground name calling is not called for . . .and anyway I bet you wish you had a cunt . . . :D . . . at least then you may have a use. . . by the way Jess, how many internet sites have you crash lately? :D . . . o happy day . . . . :D

[FancyFree]

Yep fuck religion when it interfere's with another person's well being. I said i have no problem with people practicing whatever "religion" they want as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's well being, dickhead. Did your eyes just inadvertently pass over that particular sentence of mine, it must have since you decided not to quote what i was saying in it's entirety.
Man... it must be contagious.

Circumcision is an infringement on a person's well being. Fuck the Jews though?

Alcohol is a leading cause of early death. Fuck parents who have their kids take communion?

Starvation can cause serious bodily injury. Fuck every religion that has its followers practice fasting?

If a family would rather place their faith in God than in western medicine, that's their right and their decision, not yours, you bigoted authoritarian cunt.

k. i'm done

[apeci]

That the second time you cockhead . . . . try and be an adult I know it can be hard but playground name calling is not called for
Nah, but it works great to get fat ugly cows like her all in a tissy.



k. i'm done
See yah you blood soaked puss dripping disease infested cunt.

[guinnessford]

"These people would have known that lack of treatment could kill their child"

But thats the whole thing, they dont believe that.

Im a parent, too, and I would give organs and limbs to my kid.... but thats above and beyond what some would do... its about what that couple feels is right.

I dont agree with it, like it, condone it, and most certainly would piss on them if I met them.

But legally, I think its their right.

I take your side 98pct in this one, its the legal end of it that I dont agree with.

[guinnessford]

And just wanted to throw this out there too. What if it were not a question of "faith" but instead a matter of being unable to pay for such treatment? Or should the government lock up the doctor that sent me out of the ER a few hours after I had a stroke because I have no insurance, or the hospital that fails to get someone the organ transplant that they need, etc?


That there is a pretty valid point, also.

I could really see a hospital/doctor dismissing something becvause of improper insurance.

And nothing getting done about it.

I had a conversation with a doctor once, I asked how is it, that I come to doctor with a sore elbow, pay, ins co. pays, and Im still in pain?

If you bring your car to me, and I dont fix it, are you going to pay me?

[lala]

That the second time you cockhead . . . . try and be an adult I know it can be hard but playground name calling is not called for
Nah, but it works great to get fat ugly cows like her all in a tissy.



k. i'm done
See yah you blood soaked puss dripping disease infested cunt.


Did your root walk out on you last night . . . . ran out of med's . . . .stress of moving . . .no one to play with . . . .to much :pound: . . . :lol:

[apeci]

I just have little tolerance for bigotry, and less for overt authoritarian bigotry. Bitch can eat a bullet.



I had a conversation with a doctor once, I asked how is it, that I come to doctor with a sore elbow, pay, ins co. pays, and Im still in pain?

If you bring your car to me, and I dont fix it, are you going to pay me?
Generally with doctors you're paying for their time, not a diagnosis. And even if you get a diagnosis, you don't actually know what's wrong with you. You know what the doctor thinks might be wrong with you. Half the time they're dead wrong.

[guinnessford]

I just have little tolerance for bigotry, and less for overt authoritarian bigotry. Bitch can eat a bullet.



I had a conversation with a doctor once, I asked how is it, that I come to doctor with a sore elbow, pay, ins co. pays, and Im still in pain?

If you bring your car to me, and I dont fix it, are you going to pay me?
Generally with doctors you're paying for their time, not a diagnosis. And even if you get a diagnosis, you don't actually know what's wrong with you. You know what the doctor thinks might be wrong with you. Half the time they're dead wrong.


If I diagnose a docs car and dont fix it, I dont get paid...

I think its the only one besides weather men paid for being wrong.

[apeci]

No doubt. One of the books I'm reading right now is by a couple very experienced MDs that are basically ripping western doctors up one side and down the other. Between the attempt to apply acute care methodology to chronic conditions, the pharmaceutical industry, and government interference and manipulation, western medicine is fucked, and the Obama is just making it worse.

[Foxtrot Oscar]

True, but it's never lupus.

Fox

[KIWI]

High-octane thread this fucker, time ta chill and share a cone? :smokin:

[attachment=0:1cj02ixf]capine1c.jpg[/attachment:1cj02ixf]

[boycotteverything]

Holy shit Batman. Did this thread ever hit some raw nerves. hahahahaha You have to admit- brother Apeci doesn't mince words!

[KIWI]

Holy shit Batman. Did this thread ever hit some raw nerves. hahahahaha You have to admit- brother Apeci doesn't mince words!

....even mincing has its place........ :arg:

[attachment=0:1gd56itm]HeadTilt_Fullpic_1.gif[/attachment:1gd56itm]

[apeci]

All in the name of entertainment. Glad to be of service. :)

[boycotteverything]

you blood soaked puss dripping disease infested cunt.Succinct and to the point.

[Jackinthebox]

And just wanted to throw this out there too. What if it were not a question of "faith" but instead a matter of being unable to pay for such treatment? Or should the government lock up the doctor that sent me out of the ER a few hours after I had a stroke because I have no insurance, or the hospital that fails to get someone the organ transplant that they need, etc?


That there is a pretty valid point, also.

I could really see a hospital/doctor dismissing something becvause of improper insurance.

And nothing getting done about it.

I had a conversation with a doctor once, I asked how is it, that I come to doctor with a sore elbow, pay, ins co. pays, and Im still in pain?

If you bring your car to me, and I dont fix it, are you going to pay me?

I had a tooth that needed to be ripped out, and went to the emergency clinic to have it removed. Even though it was a clinic, they still expected some sort of payment or shitty insuracne like the welfare shit or something. Well, I had nothing and knew that I would not be able to come back. The dentist refused to do the extraction and proceeded with a root canal, and refused to fill it!

About a year later I almost died when I wound up with a severe abscess in the upper jaw where some hambureger meat had packed up into the sinus area through the hole created by the root canal. The tooth had long since disintegrated by the way in a bunch of pieces. I was also turned away from the ER with that abscess with some antibiotics and instructions to rinse with warm saltwater. DUh.

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

Well................ I once got a big splinter shoved so far up under the middle fingernail on my right hand the tip was buried beyond the cuticle... and I've got big hands/fingers.

I was so far out in the sticks, I had to operate on my own finger right then and there with dull cuticle nippers, a rusty hacksaw blade and a Phillips head screwdriver...



http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/icons%20pngs/ew.png



Fuck guys, I was eating!

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/barf22_1020_.gifhttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/barf22_1040_.gifhttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/barf22_1060_.gifhttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/barf22_1080_.gif

[Jackinthebox]

Well................ I once got a big splinter shoved so far up under the middle fingernail on my right hand the tip was buried beyond the cuticle... and I've got big hands/fingers.

I was so far out in the sticks, I had to operate on my own finger right then and there with dull cuticle nippers, a rusty hacksaw blade and a Phillips head screwdriver...



http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/icons%20pngs/ew.png



Fuck guys, I was eating!

I have become accustomed to field medicine myself. Cheers.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/barf22_1020_.gifhttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/barf22_1040_.gifhttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/barf22_1060_.gifhttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/barf22_1080_.gif

[ApolloRising]

If a family would rather place their faith in God than in western medicine, that's their right and their decision, not yours, you bigoted authoritarian cunt.


She believes that an individual has the right to medical care... You believe that if someone wants to put someone else in danger because they're adhearing to an organised religious authority that's their right.

Yet she's authoritarian?

What's authoritation about assuming the right over your own destiny? While the child wasn't old enough or in a position to make a choice, that doesn't give religious beliefs, a system (authority) the right to make the choice for her. Especially when billions of people pray to God every day begging for food, or water, praying 'hey, we did what you said, we didn't use protection, can you make the HIV go away at all or...?', praying not to be killed in violence, or from disease.

And guess fucking what.

Every single one of those poor bastards dies. Dies slowly from starvation, or AIDs, or any number of other ailments or issues.

OK, I'm jumping the gun, I don't know that no one is saved, but I know the vast majority who ask to be aren't. So facing those odds, I'd say the father was nothing short of insane (betting his childs life against one in a billion odds, or if we take his word for it, just his child's wellbeing at that time), and you're defending his insanity.... Oh it's ok, he was following his beliefs, that's cool, that's his right.

Sure, his right. If he wants to die in bed begging, hoping that God gives a shit about him but not those other billion people then that's cool. One less idiot in the world. But putting his daughter in that situation? Nah, that's not his right. And that's just not right.

There's a reason those who are mentally unstable usually only get to see their kids at weekends.

[apeci]

Bigoted authoritarian, to be precise.

If we are to assume a parent has the right to make decisions for their child, and we are also to assume a family has the right to practice a religion, how can we also assume that these are mutually exclusive concepts?

Once you cross that line, where does it end? Sugared cereal rots teeth. Raid every home where the parents buy Lucky Charms?

If you want to be free, you have to let other people be free too, no matter how much you might not like what they do to themselves.

[Ducky]

Bigoted authoritarian, to be precise.

If we are to assume a parent has the right to make decisions for their child, and we are also to assume a family has the right to practice a religion, how can we also assume that these are mutually exclusive concepts?

Once you cross that line, where does it end? Sugared cereal rots teeth. Raid every home where the parents buy Lucky Charms?

If you want to be free, you have to let other people be free too, no matter how much you might not like what they do to themselves.

Precisely.

6 and 1, and a 1/2 dozen of the other.

I have two thoughts about this, that are going around in a loop.

1. Freedom
2. What's best for ourselves and others

Are we our brother's keeper?

If we say NO, then there goes the 'compassion' part of the equation to a large extent.
If we say YES, then we are obliged by all that's good and decent to help our fellow human beings to the best of our abilities.

Only the latter statement may or may not infringe on personal rights and liberties.

Therefore, 'Freedom' and 'What's best for ourselves and others' will always be in conflict, as one person's ideals will never totally satisfy everyone's ideals.

[Foxtrot Oscar]

6 and 1... would be 7.

Must be Canastani dozen???

Fox

[Ducky]

6 and 1... would be 7.

Must be Canastani dozen???

Fox

crap...forgot ratio sign. :P

[ApolloRising]

Bigoted authoritarian, to be precise.

If we are to assume a parent has the right to make decisions for their child, and we are also to assume a family has the right to practice a religion, how can we also assume that these are mutually exclusive concepts?

Once you cross that line, where does it end? Sugared cereal rots teeth. Raid every home where the parents buy Lucky Charms?

If you want to be free, you have to let other people be free too, no matter how much you might not like what they do to themselves.

I get what you're saying Apeci. But I don't see how freedom to act on behalf of the church is freedom. I suspect his belief in God and the Church is down to cultural programming, thus his actions aren't that of a free man, just a man that's been brought up to believe in the Bible.

Regarding a parent having the right to make choices for their child. Sure, they have that right unless something proves otherwise, unfortunately something had to happen to prove this parent was unfit, and in this case it was the death of his child. But the man was insane, as far as I can figure, for playing the odds I mentioned in my last post. He didn't have the right, it's just no one realised that until it was too late.

And having rotten teeth doesn't cause death - furthermore, by the age of 6, most kids know what cereals they will and won't it.

[apeci]

Or he actually believes in the power of prayer like a majority of the people living on this planet. Call them all programmed or insane if you wish, but you're just letting your own bigotry show. Prayer is, in my opinion, a practice in the Law of Attraction, which I contend is very real. Regardless, prayer much like chanting has been demonstrated to bring about a physiological response which in turn can promote healing. Would I place my faith in God to mend a broken leg instead of getting a cast? Not likely. But that's not a decision I or anyone can make for someone else. If an Amish family chose to pray for a sick child instead of taking them to a western doctor, and the child died of a treatable illness, should the Amish community have been raided to force the child into a hospital? What about a native tribe, locked away on a reservation, placed in a similar situation? How would you even know about it in the first place? You going to send in government agents to monitor every household at gunpoint?

And rotting teeth most certainly can cause death. Ask JITB.

[boycotteverything]

chanting has been demonstrated to bring about a physiological response which in turn can promote healing.yah- but can it cure a blood soaked puss dripping disease infested cunt? That's the larger question, Mister Apeci.

[apeci]

Prayer, a thousand Hail Marys, and three weeks of flagellation.

[FancyFree]

chanting has been demonstrated to bring about a physiological response which in turn can promote healing.yah- but can it cure a blood soaked puss dripping disease infested cunt? That's the larger question, Mister Apeci.


Fuck you, and your little butt buddy, apeci. I thought this was an place where people could come to discuss their views on whatever subject is at hand in a free thinking and open forum. I've always been respectful and nice to everyone here, but you two assholes have single handedly made me realize that this a basically just a playground for idiot little boys who have no respect for others views or their opinions and who have to resort to name calling just to get some attention in a feeble attempt to be funny. I feel geniunely sorry for the rest of the good people on here that have to put up with the idiots on here. Grow the fuck up, little boys, before you wreck the place even more then you already have.

[apeci]

Need a rag? :lol:

[Cogburn]

Need a rag? :lol:
Holy crap are menstruation jokes and gratuitous use of the word "cunt" the best you could come up with?

I'm not sure what's worse... your abject lack of a coherent argument or the fact that your attempts at comedy never rise above a 6th grade level.

[lala]

Need a rag? :lol:

I bet mummy has had this on her mind a few times in your life time . . . . :D

[attachment=0:326oe62l]hmrqkran.jpg[/attachment:326oe62l]

[ApolloRising]

Or he actually believes in the power of prayer like a majority of the people living on this planet. Call them all programmed or insane if you wish, but you're just letting your own bigotry show.

No, they are insane. The odds I demonstrated, betting with your child's life against them... insane. Now, lets say you're playing a game of poker... And there's enough money on the table to make the family for life, but he's got nothing left to bet. I guess it's okay he bets his daughter yeah? Come on, don't be fucking ridiculous.


Regardless, prayer much like chanting has been demonstrated to bring about a physiological response which in turn can promote healing. Would I place my faith in God to mend a broken leg instead of getting a cast? Not likely. But that's not a decision I or anyone can make for someone else.

'promote healing', as in, bring about the process of healing. As in, not healing the issue itself.

Sure, I can't make that decision for you, do what you want with your leg. But this is entirely different, we're talking about a small child, who has now become another victim of religion. And that is unacceptable. God Claims another life, yay!


If an Amish family chose to pray for a sick child instead of taking them to a western doctor, and the child died of a treatable illness, should the Amish community have been raided to force the child into a hospital?

If an entire family is THAT stupid, THAT stupid to let a child die for their beliefs which are based on nothing, literally nothing. And THAT stupid to let it happen again, and again and again. Then they shouldn't even be allowed to reproduce.


What about a native tribe, locked away on a reservation, placed in a similar situation? How would you even know about it in the first place? You going to send in government agents to monitor every household at gunpoint?


Entirely different circumstances, seeing as bringing in a child from some sort of untouched by western civilisation reservation would be very damaging to their culture.

In the same way cargo cults now worship airplanes in remote islands.

[apeci]

Holy crap are menstruation jokes and gratuitous use of the word "cunt" the best you could come up with?

Bigots aren't worth the effort.

[lala]

This is the thing with these religious groups, they use power, telephones, oven, electric equipment, cars, tractors . . . and I'm sure a lot would have there own doctors . . . . if you want to live in a 3rd world country there's heaps of vacancy. . . I'm sure someone would swap . . . .but they don't, they just want the best of both worlds which is fine, but if your living some where help can be offered . . . and they have the means to improve there standard of living . . . I'll just have this and that . . . if they break a leg do they wrap it and tend to it, or do they just pray that it heals right . . . .where is there line? :D

[Cogburn]

Some folks still know how to make it work, lala.

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/20080620/amish-kids.jpg

The rest are disingenuous fucktards.

[apeci]

where is there line? :D
Wherever they want it. It's their decision and theirs alone.

[Snow Crash]

Holy crap are menstruation jokes and gratuitous use of the word "cunt" the best you could come up with?

Bigots aren't worth the effort.

Neither are narrow-minded militants.

[apeci]

Sorry if I have a problem expressing tolerance when it comes to bigotry or compromise with freedom.

[Cogburn]

http://gallonchallenge.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/puke.jpg.w300h225.jpg

[Ducky]

http://gallonchallenge.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/puke.jpg.w300h225.jpg

fuckin hell?!!? lololol

:lol:

You're as bad as me when it comes to the puke pics/vids eh?

No qualms...post away :D

[Snow Crash]

Sorry if I have a problem expressing tolerance when it comes to bigotry or compromise with freedom.

What about the child's right to be free from being subject to religious fundementalism and the dangers that accompany it?

[Ducky]

Sorry if I have a problem expressing tolerance when it comes to bigotry or compromise with freedom.

What about the child's right to be free from being subject to religious fundementalism and the dangers that accompany it?

Probably nullified when the kids under the parents roof, and it's up to his/her folks to speak for them until they reach the age of consent?

[Snow Crash]

Sorry if I have a problem expressing tolerance when it comes to bigotry or compromise with freedom.

What about the child's right to be free from being subject to religious fundementalism and the dangers that accompany it?

Probably nullified when the kids under the parents roof, and it's up to his/her folks to speak for them until they reach the age of consent?

So say for example, a child is being molested, is it the parent's right to subject the child to their lusts, because the chiold has no rights when living with the parents?

[Cogburn]

Sorry if I have a problem expressing tolerance when it comes to bigotry or compromise with freedom.

What about the child's right to be free from being subject to religious fundementalism and the dangers that accompany it?
Apeci-approved bigotry only.

[apeci]

I am your lord and master, after all.



So say for example, a child is being molested, is it the parent's right to subject the child to their lusts, because the chiold has no rights when living with the parents?
Again comparing action to inaction. Invalid. Being molested is not a natural state. If a person is diabetic, that is their natural state (assuming type 1, of course).

The family did not simply "do nothing." They followed their beliefs and behaved accordingly. They held their faith in God instead of placing their faith in doctors that often think they're gods. Stupid, insane, negligent, these are all subjective judgments not for us to decide.

[Ducky]

What about the child's right to be free from being subject to religious fundementalism and the dangers that accompany it?

Probably nullified when the kids under the parents roof, and it's up to his/her folks to speak for them until they reach the age of consent?[/quote]


So say for example, a child is being molested, is it the parent's right to subject the child to their lusts, because the chiold has no rights when living with the parents?

You're bringing another factor into the equation.

First of all, children have rights. And plenty of them. Until they reach the legal age of consent, their parents speek for them.

(Now onto the new factor you just brought up)

Secondly, where sex is concerned, and as far as the law allows...it is illegal and immoral (incest) in most of the world. (I'm not talking about societies whereby mother and son, and father and daughter have their 'rites of passage' - entirely different story)

Remember Waco? Koresh had a nifty little harem going.
Another recent example is the Mormom cult out west. Over 700 people involved. Kids having sex underage. Families split up. Later on they were allowed to go back to their community.

All in the name of religion.

[ApolloRising]

The family did not simply "do nothing."


No....... They literally did nothing. They made themselves comfy, put their hands together, and started talking to an invisible man in th sky. In relation to his daughter's condition he did nothing.

Furthermore, you act like it's free will that chooses what religious path we follow. It's not, we're born into them, almost always. So, this talk about 'freedom', it's nonsense. In fact, the idea of freedom within organised religion is ridiculous. So your argument is painfully retarded.


They held their faith in God instead of placing their faith in doctors that often think they're gods. Stupid, insane, negligent, these are all subjective judgments not for us to decide.

Or, to put it another way: They held their faith in an invisible man, who, may or may not exist, and who, even if he does exist, allows millions of people to die everyday as opposed to putting their faith in doctors who we know do in fact exist at least.

A good start, I hear you say, but it gets better, not only do they exist. They save people too, they save millions of people and there's documented evidence of that.

And listing all those things as subjective is ridiculous. Logical reasoning answers this entire issue with beautiful ease. And as far as I can see, reality itself is subjective so we gotta do the best with what we got. That's no excuse.

[Snow Crash]

Again comparing action to inaction. Invalid.

Your argument is irrelevant, as you are choosing not to focus on my point. I am talking specifically about subjecting another human to whims, being action, inaction, whatever, and excusing it under the parental rights argument.

And as I have said before, if these people are so fucking irresponsible and so selfish in indulging their faith over the wellbeing of their child, then they shouldn't be having kids, as, as this case has neatly demonstrated, they are a danger to their kids.

By the way, if a mental patient who just so happened to be religious believed the streets were filled with evildoers, and he believed God told him to kill them, would you want him stopped if he grabbed an AK47 and began shooting people?

Or would it be bigotry, as I am infringing on his religious beliefs?

[FancyFree]

Excellent points, Apollo

[apeci]

You assume the child wished her parents to abandon their faith. Unfortunately she is not here to testify on her behalf, and in this system you hold so dear, the parent's decision rules.



No....... They literally did nothing. They made themselves comfy, put their hands together, and started talking to an invisible man in th sky. In relation to his daughter's condition he did nothing.

You're a stereotypical arrogant atheist, and a bigot. I get it. Keep your beliefs, or lack thereof, and let everyone else do the same.

[FancyFree]

And even more excellent points from Snow.

[apeci]

Bigoted birds of a feather.

[Cogburn]

Bigoted birds of a feather.
You exemplify the tolerance you espouse.

[FancyFree]

He sure does, Cog.

[Snow Crash]

You're a stereotypical arrogant atheist, and a bigot. I get it. Keep your beliefs, or lack thereof, and let everyone else do the same.

And thus, you admit that you argue simply because you percieve Atheists being anti-religious. Is it perhaps your own bigoted perspective of Atheists that leads you to that? Are they evil, godless beings who need to be taught? Do they need to stop bringing up common sense and common rights, as it is an affront to 'God'?

[ApolloRising]

You assume the child wished her parents to abandon their faith. Unfortunately she is not here to testify on her behalf, and in this system you hold so dear, the parent's decision rules.

I suspect had she been given the option.... She would've asked for a doctor before, you know.

DYING.



You're a stereotypical arrogant atheist, and a bigot. I get it. Keep your beliefs, or lack thereof, and let everyone else do the same.

Nope, not bigotted, not arrogant, and not an atheist. So the final points you make... well, they're all wrong too.

I will happily keep my beliefs, and you know what? Mine would've saved a human being's life. They would've allowed another intelligent, sentinent being on this planet to live a more full life and to enjoy the best it had to offer. Or at least, she would've had the opportunity.

Now if you wanna go making accusations, then ok. That's cool. You're a stereotypical fucking idiot who can't formulate a decent argument that makes coherent sense, you're probably a red neck shit who sleeps with a rifle under the bed, hunts dears and goes to church just because 'that's the way I was raised'.

Do you still call black people jigaboos, Apeci? Or do you save your bullshit for women?

It's people like you that slow the progress of the human race. You're the reason we've come up with the word for 'civilisation' but just can't quite get there yet, the reason we're not on Mars, the reason millions, hundreds of millions have died throughout history.

Because it's their right to believe and follow their beliefs. And if their beliefs tell them to go invade another country and 'share' those beliefs, and kill anyone who's not cool with that. Well, that's their right.


Excellent points, Apollo

Thanks.

[boycotteverything]

Your argument is irrelevant,I wouldn't go quite so far. In effect, Apeci is arguing for that long cherished and most basic of human rights- the Right to Be Stupid. In this case that right comes into conflict with another long cherished right- the Right of the child to Life. The only question to be resolved then is: which of these two rights shall be considered Superior? It's a difficult judgement as evidenced by the vitriol that the question has provoked right here in this thread.

[apeci]

And thus, you admit that you argue simply because you percieve Atheists being anti-religious. Is it perhaps your own bigoted perspective of Atheists that leads you to that?
I made no such admission. Many atheists I know fully embrace freedom to practice religion however one sees fit.

Bigoted fucks, the lot of you. Enjoy your due fate.

(except that geezer up there)

[ApolloRising]

Bigoted fucks, the lot of you. Enjoy your due fate.

Oh no... Is God sending us to...... hell?!

[Snow Crash]

Your argument is irrelevant,I wouldn't go quite so far. In effect, Apeci is arguing for that long cherished and most basic of human rights- the Right to Be Stupid. In this case that right comes into conflict with another long cherished right- the Right of the child to Life. The only question to be resolved then is: which of these two rights shall be considered Superior? It's a difficult judgement as evidenced by the vitriol that the question has provoked right here in this thread.

BE, I can respect the Right to be Stupid. But not at the expense of another human being, be they child, adult, pensioner, black, white, religious, atheist, sheep shagger, stamp collecter, vegetarian, communist, or baseball fan.

[apeci]

Oh no... Is God sending us to...... hell?!
Spewing such hatred, I think you're already there.

[ApolloRising]

I wouldn't go quite so far. In effect, Apeci is arguing for that long cherished and most basic of human rights- the Right to Be Stupid.

He's also making liberal use of his right to be stupid, unfortunately.

[Snow Crash]

I made no such admission.

You don't need to directly say it to admit to it.


Many atheists I know fully embrace freedom to practice religion however one sees fit.

So answer me this straight, if you can: Should someone's religious rights supercede the right to life of a child?

Yes or no will be sufficient.

[ApolloRising]

Oh no... Is God sending us to...... hell?!
Spewing such hatred, I think you're already there.

Spewing hatred? What was that about a 'puss filled cunt' or something?

At least my hatred isn't reserved for women. But then again, my beliefs don't call women second class citizens fit only for housework, child baring, and cooking.

But already in hell? You think? As in the metaphorical type of hell? Godlessness? Nahhhhh, I have Green Day and that's all I really need, I think.

For the record, we know that Green Day exist too.

Why do you think I'm filled with hatred? Because I don't put up with bullshit? Honestly, I want to know why you think I'm filled with hate, please enlighten me.

[boycotteverything]

I agree with you, Snow- and i imagine that Apeci does as well. But the fact remains that the parents of the girl do not. What I'm saying is that their argument is cogent and cohesive and was quite probably made with the best of intentions. Conflicting rights is a very basic issue in matters of ethics.

[Snow Crash]

Why do you think I'm filled with hatred?

Probably because you placed the value of a human life over someone else's ignorance and religious fundementalism.

Sure way to piss of The Christian Taleban, amigo. You best watch out, lest they issue a fatwa against you and all other Green Day fans.

[ApolloRising]

I understand what you're saying, Boycott, and I can have a decent conversation with you, seeing as you can put together a coherent discussion without reverting to calling anyone a shit-livered-cock-faced-festering-fecal-cunt or whatever other pleasentries Apeci has in his box of sick bullshit for women.

Onto the point though. Sure, there is something of a conflict of rights here, but if the father was say... A Nazi, and DID take his daughter to the hospital but upon realising the doctor was Jewish removed the girl and then she died. Would we have the same sympathies? The same clash of rights?

And whilst there are admittedly conflicting rights here, one cancels out the other easily in this case. So as far as I can see...case closed, seeing as you can't exercise your right to stupidity without first being alive....

[boycotteverything]

I want to know why you think I'm filled with hate,The only 'hatred spewed' here had to do with the retributive punishment of the parents for advocating their religious parameters. That sort of ugliness is not only 'hateful' but lacking in critical thought.

[pack3tg0st]

are we still arguing about this?

has anyone made a decent argument for the government telling the individual what's best for them?

Or are we still arguing religion and ethics by tossing out sensationalized examples and decreeing whats right and wrong by fiat?

[ApolloRising]

I want to know why you think I'm filled with hate,The only 'hatred spewed' here had to do with the retributive punishment of the parents for advocating their religious parameters. That sort of ugliness is not only 'hateful' but lacking in critical thought.

Not the only; Apeci has spewed plenty of hatred. But whatever his beliefs call for is cool.

[Snow Crash]

Or are we still arguing religion and ethics by tossing out sensationalized examples and decreeing whats right and wrong by fiat?

Fiat make shit cars. Leave them out of it.

[FancyFree]

That sort of ugliness is not only 'hateful' but lacking in critical thought.


Funny and how ironic you should say that, BE, since you and Apeci are the ones spewing the hate here in this thread.

[apeci]

So answer me this straight, if you can: Should someone's religious rights supercede the right to life of a child?

No. But can we assume that the child also practiced this religion? Nobody violated this child's right to life. The child was sick. Nobody made her sick. Her genes did. All that happened here was the family chose to place their faith in one system over another to try and help her. If they had instead placed their faith in a medical doctor and the doctor failed to cure her, would you condemn them still? You believe that was their best option. They believe differently.

[boycotteverything]

Anyone who's had the 'Apeci experience' understands that he is not hateful. He's just colorful- and committed to a purist interpretation.

[pack3tg0st]

lol by fiat of course, I mean an arbitrary decree... :P

holy crap... I'm gonna duck out for a while again...

Way too much ad hominem ad nauseum

[apeci]

Anyone who's had the 'Apeci experience' understands that he is not hateful.
An experience anyone can enjoy for two quarters and a bottle of vodka.

[boycotteverything]

... and a strong stomach

[apeci]

Very.

[Cogburn]

are we still arguing about this?

has anyone made a decent argument for the government telling the individual what's best for them?

Or are we still arguing religion and ethics by tossing out sensationalized examples and decreeing whats right and wrong by fiat?
Plenty have been offered, except you've chosen to ignore them all.

The elevation of the "right to life" over "right to free speech" is, in it's logical conclusion, the reason why both the death penalty and unregulated abortion are still in argument in this country... they are the two portions of the law completely at odds with the rest of American juris prudence.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

... and in that order.

[boycotteverything]

Apeci does not easily suffer the drivel of shallow thinkers, not do I- nor ought anyone who argues in good faith.

[pack3tg0st]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Its a little known fact, but these are not rights.

Nowhere in our countries governing documents are you afforded those rights...

[Snow Crash]

Nobody violated this child's right to life.

Through selfishness and inaction, they did.


If they had instead placed their faith in a medical doctor and the doctor failed to cure her, would you condemn them still?

Amount of lives saved in the past two hundred years by medical science, compared to those saved by praying? Hint: God not healing people is why the Pope, yes, The Big G's ambassador on Earth (as far as Catholics are concerned), takes heart medication following strokes he has suffered. And then of course, there was Pope John Paul II.... did God heal him when he got shot by that Turkish guy? Did God stop any bullets?

[boycotteverything]

Its a little known fact, but these are not rights.wrong. while it may be a political slogan, it's a good one and it states further that these Rights are not subject to debate- being as they are- a priori.

[apeci]

Amount of lives saved in the past two hundred years by medical science, compared to those saved by praying?
And how many killed by medical science vs those killed by prayer?

You place your faith in those whom you believe just.

[Cogburn]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Its a little known fact, but these are not rights.

Nowhere in our countries governing documents are you afforded those rights...
See... now we're back to the post I made 8 pages ago.

The Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

All of the reasons for the Constitution are provided in logical order for the establishment of a free society. The former must be accomplished before the latter may be gained.

Promotion of the general welfare comes before the blessings of liberty, for without the general welfare of the citizens, there can be no exercise of liberty.

... and yes, the preamble is indeed interpreted by the Supreme Court as being a part of the law of the land, which was also in the link I posted pages ago.

[apeci]

Promotion and subjugation are a tad different. When you pursue the latter in the name of the former all you are is a dictator.

[Snow Crash]

And how many killed by medical science vs those killed by prayer?

You place your faith in those whom you believe just.

So I take it then from this playground tactic that you have no answer for my question? Is the only answer you can give too hard to admit?

[apeci]

Now you can't read, either?

[Ocean]

Couldn't their god have JUST as easily saved their daughter - even if she WAS treated by a doctor? Sounds to me like a classic case of 'tempting god'. Flying in the face of common sense hoping god will swoop-down with a miracle.

I don't pray for god to fix my car. I take it to a mechanic.

I don't think god needs our grandiose gestures. As if god would really say, "Gee. I could have saved your daughter, but you took her to a doctor and now I can't help you!" Allrighty then.

[Snow Crash]

Now you can't read, either?

Ironic you should say that, otherwise maybe you would have read my response properly. Or maybe it's not a case of you not being able to read, but rather, not being able to understand my comments.

[Cogburn]

Promotion and subjugation are a tad different. When you pursue the latter in the name of the former all you are is a dictator.
Were that your true belief you wouldn't be on the internet posting about it because you'd actually be plotting to do something in response to such dictatorship.

You, sir, are either full of bullshit or a complete coward.

[apeci]

I need do nothing. The gutless bigots such as yourself will wallow in the retched vomit that is your life, and the persecuted shall dance on your grave.

[Snow Crash]

and the persecuted shall dance on your grave.

LMFAO

What, pray tell, do YOU know of persecution? And furthermore, what do you think you know of me to make you feel I would warrant/be in reciept of such action upon my demise?

You are talking out of your arse, Apeci.

[FancyFree]

I need do nothing. The gutless bigots such as yourself will wallow in the retched vomit that is your life, and the persecuted shall dance on your grave.


Not surprising since you relish the belief of "do nothing". Just make sure you don't become another authoritarian, bigoted cunt like those u criticize so harshly.

[ApolloRising]

And how many killed by medical science vs those killed by prayer?
.

No, the question is: How many saved by medical science compared to prayer and how many killed by medical science in comparision to religious persecution and fundamentalism?

Debating this is pointless though. You can't beat a position that was reached without reason by using reason against it.

Cog, Snow, Jess, just put your fingers in your ears and scream until Apeci fades away, maybe throw a few insults and say how our God beat up his God and how our Messiah is going to piss on his grave and stuff like that. Then we might get somewhere.

[FancyFree]

best idea i've heard in a long time :)

[boycotteverything]

No, the question is: How many saved by medical science compared to prayer and how many killed by medical science in comparision to religious persecution and fundamentalism?
Does eugenics theory count as contributing to 'medical science?' If so I'd have to say that the tally is about even.

[ApolloRising]

Well, if you're gonna raise eugenics then I suppose you're refering to various holocausts and such that were undertaken to 'improve' the race.

Many of which were based on religious beliefs.

They're not mutually exclusive.

[boycotteverything]

If they're not mutually exclusive then your argument is not furthered in reference to them. The basic elements of the disagreement remain- the Right to Stupidity or the Right to Life. And as is always the case in attempting to establish the superiority of Rights in conflict the argument devolves, in the end, to a leap of faith. Don't allow Apeci's appeal to emotion and sardonic humor to obscure the essential truth of that proposition.

[ApolloRising]

My argument is furthered in that eugenics becomes a non-issue seeing as there's more religious nonsense related to it than there is science as far as mass murder due to eugenics goes.

And regarding the question of which 'right' over-rides the other. Well, it's simple, like I said, if you're dead you can't exercise your right to be stupid, thus the right to life is first and foremost.

Like Cog said, Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. I'd say I agree with that, at least roughly.

[Cogburn]

I need do nothing. The gutless bigots such as yourself will wallow in the retched vomit that is your life, and the persecuted shall dance on your grave.
Trollbait.

[pack3tg0st]

Its a little known fact, but these are not rights.wrong. while it may be a political slogan, it's a good one and it states further that these Rights are not subject to debate- being as they are- a priori.

Sorry BE...

You might think those are rights... but alas, they aren't in our constitution...

Instead, for some reason, people don't do their homework and THINK it is part of the constitution...

It is, instead, part of the Declaration of Independence...

Life, liberty and the persuit of happieness are not as "inalienable" as people think...

[pack3tg0st]

The Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

All of the reasons for the Constitution are provided in logical order for the establishment of a free society. The former must be accomplished before the latter may be gained.

Promotion of the general welfare comes before the blessings of liberty, for without the general welfare of the citizens, there can be no exercise of liberty.

... and yes, the preamble is indeed interpreted by the Supreme Court as being a part of the law of the land, which was also in the link I posted pages ago.

Thats all fine and dandy... now, define "promote general welfare" and I'll find a legal opinion completely opposite the one you post.

Subjectivity is a bitch...

and the preamble doesn't say diddly about the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

Since when does "Welfare" mean "life?"

From what I can see, the courts consider "promoting general welfare" to include the death penalty...

[lala]

Maybe they picked the wrong one . . . .

[attachment=0:27k97679]mygodhasahammer.jpg[/attachment:27k97679]

[boycotteverything]

eugenics becomes a non-issue seeing as there's more religious nonsense related to it than there is science as far as mass murder due to eugenics goes.Disagree. I fail to see the religious implications you've ascribed to the science of eugenics. Its on-going central theses are based in Darwin.
and

You might think those are rights... but alas, they aren't in our constitution... The Bill of Rights does nothing but describe their function in the New Polity. The Spirit of the Declaration is assumed and contained within the Bill of Rights. I'm not wrong. Those were poetically idealistic times.

[Cogburn]

Thats all fine and dandy... now, define "promote general welfare" and I'll find a legal opinion completely opposite the one you post.

Subjectivity is a bitch...

and the preamble doesn't say diddly about the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

Since when does "Welfare" mean "life?"

From what I can see, the courts consider "promoting general welfare" to include the death penalty...
By your own statements, the state may indeed have an argument for their actions.

... and upon a preponderance of the facts the pendulum swung one way instead of the other.

This case would say that yes, "protect the general welfare" does equate to not having your life denied to you as a result of religious intolerance to science.

[ApolloRising]

Disagree. I fail to see the religious implications you've ascribed to the science of eugenics.

You're talking about eugenics as in breeding out or otherwise removing the 'bad' of the race, or encouraging the growth of the 'good?

In which case religions are always trying to kill those who don't believe in what they do - the 'bad' people. My point being, given that fact, masacres of that sort as far as I can see apply the 'general theory of eugenics', if, somewhat contradictorarily not on a genetic level. I would say though, that in that case, it's not entirely irrelivant because the focus and purpose of the idea is the same.

Therefore, most the eugenics related deaths are still religious.

[KIWI]

If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," he said. "I am not believing what he said he would do."



...this cant be the first time this has happened? does anyone know what particular faiths have this approach? is there a level of illness that when reached where the church would abandon the prayer in favour of the doctors? if it were a road accident with all the associated obvious life threatening trauma would mr Nuemann start to prey or call an ambulance?


"He also said he thought his daughter had had flu or a fever, and that he had not realised how ill she was."



in light of the above comment, it looks like the symptoms showing were the same for both a common ailment and a life threatening one. To really see this in all its light you would need to know the time frame involved, I wonder how many parents have sat over their sick children and said a prayer?


They said the girl should have been taken to Hospital because she was unable to walk, talk or eat

still a condition of a bad cold, flu.............again the time spent in that state isnt mentioned in the link


Instead an ambulance was only called when she stopped breathing

so that kinda asnswers my question above?, God scored a fail, so now I'll call the ambulance.Its all turned out a tradgedy,But if I was the judge, before a decision was given, I would ask mr Neumann what he would do in the future should the situation arise again.And it doesnt hurt to stop and remember that the same healthcare system we are all now in full support of ,relating to this incident, is the same system that will force its poisonous vaccines into the children of our world





The prosecution argued that Neumann had minimised his daughter's illness and that he had allowed her to die as a selfish act of faith.

They said the girl should have been taken to hospital because she was unable to walk, talk, eat or drink.

Instead, an ambulance was only called once the girl had stopped
[/quote]

[boycotteverything]

The prosecution argued that Neumann had minimised his daughter's illness and that he had allowed her to die as a selfish act of faith.I'm not trying to be cute here but the word 'selfish' in that charge is a gratuitous betrayal of prejudice regarding 'faith.' (I recognize it because I share it.) And so the charge itself is rendered meaningless in terms of rational argument. And while it's not necessary that Apeci be supported in his thesis (he's more than capable of making his own points) I support it nonetheless. The State has determined what is reasonable and responsible behavior by relying on an irrational and unresponsive analysis. Apeci, being a purist in regards to governmental coercion, rightly objects to a prejudicial decision. That's really all there is to the argument. But to that has been added the element of the 'people's retribution' and the punishment to be meted out to the party whom the State has concluded acted out of 'selfish disregard' for the well-being of the child. Stupidly, the usual blood-thirsty vendettistas here cry out for their usual revenge. Cage the bastard! To that I say, loud and clear, Fuck You! What is done is done and can not be undone. May the girl and her family be in peace.

[FancyFree]

BE, if you want to call me a vendettist because I think he deserves criminal charges laid against him, that's fine. According to you and ape-shit, people should have no consequences for their actions as long as they are doing it in the name of stupidity, ignorance or fanatical religious beliefs. But being the PETA prick you are, should you happen to see a starving, dying, dog tied up to a pole in someone's backyard, you'd be all over that, calling the humane society etc, and wanting the owners reprimanded. You are so hardcore for animal rights but in light of your recent arguments in this thread i have to ask u this...... animals need protection because they can't protect themselves from unscrupulous owners but when it comes to people, the same fact doesn't hold true????

[boycotteverything]

Cage the bastard! To that I say, loud and clear, Fuck You! What is done is done and can not be undone. May the girl and her family be in peace.

[Foxtrot Oscar]

I'm not trying to be cute

HOLY SHIT... I think I just peed myself!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fox

[boycotteverything]

oh well... maybe just a little.

[guinnessford]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[lala]

More on the case . . .
http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/article/20090802/CWS0101/908020662/1982
[offsite:17ug82vd]Dale and Leilani Neumann share a life together, a family, a strong love of God and a belief that all things can be healed by prayer.


Now, they also have in common convictions on charges of second-degree reckless homicide.
But how will Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Vincent Howard view the couple when he sentences them Oct. 6? Are they the negligent and uncaring parents that prosecutors portrayed during Dale Neumann's weeklong trial on reckless homicide charges? Or are they devout Christians who were faithful to their convictions and already have been punished by the loss of their child, 11-year-old Madeline Kara Neumann, as defense attorneys contended?
Shawn Francis Peters, author of "When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law," who tracks faith-healing cases across the country, thinks Howard will tend toward the latter. He said Howard, if he proceeds as other jurists have, likely will order a short jail stay followed by extended supervision.
"The judge has to decide what is in the best interest of the surviving children," Peters said. The Neumanns' three surviving children are ages 18, 16, and 14.
Whatever the sentence, the case is not over. Following Leilani Neumann's conviction May 22, her attorney, Gene Linehan, said he will appeal the case to a higher court. Dale Neumann's attorney, Jay Kronenwetter, made just one comment Saturday as he left the courtroom: He, too, will appeal.
The law also remains unclear, with legislators still pledging to act to close the holes that allowed this case to be tried in the first place. Kronenwetter told jurors in his closing argument that they could contact legislators to share their views.
The certain appeals notwithstanding, Howard will base his sentence on the testimony he heard during both trials. It will be left to him to determine how culpable the Neumanns are in the death of their child.
The family
The Neumanns moved to Wisconsin from California and opened the Monkey Mo's Coffee Shop in Weston in January 2007. They were known as a happy family who held Bible study sessions and served up coffee and other tasty treats[/offsite:17ug82vd]

[lala]

http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/article/20090802/CWS0101/908020662/1982
[offsite:wty66xje]On March 23, 2008, paramedics and police rushed to the Neumanns' town of Weston home after receiving a series of phone calls. A persistent California teenage family member called the Marathon County Sheriff's Department three times to get an ambulance sent to the Neumann home where a child reportedly was in a coma. Minutes later, a frantic 911 call was made from the Neumann home reporting that a child was not breathing.


In the coming days, the community, and soon the nation, learned what happened inside the Neumann home. In the two days before her death, Kara, as the girl was known, grew increasingly tired and thirsty. Her appetite disappeared and she soon lost the ability to walk or talk. Prosecutors say her parents noticed the changes but didn't do what most parents would do under such circumstances.
Instead of calling a doctor when Kara lapsed into unconsciousness in her final hours of life, they prayed. They called family members and friends, asking for more prayers and even e-mailed a faith-healing minister asking for emergency prayers.
Kara died on Easter 2008 of diabetes -- a disease that had ravaged her body but with which she hadn't been diagnosed.
Marathon County Assistant District Attorney LaMont Jacobson told jurors during his closing arguments that Dale Neumann failed in his duty as a parent and knew that his inaction would cause great bodily harm or death to Kara.
Dale Neumann "had to prove to himself he was strong in his faith," Jacobson said. "He neglected Kara's suffering and allowed her to languish for 22 hours."
A deep faith
Unlike Leilani Neumann's trial, in which neither she nor her husband testified, both took the stand in this trial.
For the first time, the depth of the Neumanns' faith was revealed. With his Bible in his hand, Dale Neumann took jurors on a four-hour description of his journey from life as a young man who partied and drank hard to a family man who sought to walk in the steps of Jesus. Quoting scripture and speaking with great conviction, Neumann made it obvious that he had no regrets about his decision.
(3 of 3)
"If I in a moment of crisis and in a moment of time, I went to anyone else but the Lord, it would not have been favorable to God," Neumann said.


Kronenwetter told jurors during closing arguments that Dale Neumann's devout faith all but requiredhim to trust God to heal Kara.
"The idea that Dale Neumann was aware that choosing faith healing instead of taking his daughter to the doctor was causing a risk of great bodily harm or death is just preposterous," Kronenwetter said.
A wrenching decisionJurors spent 15 hours confined to a small room in the courthouse, apparently agonizing over the verdict.
They clearly struggled with conflicting Wisconsin statutes. On one hand, state law says parents such as the Neumanns, whose neglect leads to a child's death, are guilty of reckless homicide. Another statute, however, recognizes a parent's right to practice faith healing.
The jurors in the Dale Neumann case twice sent the judge notes asking questions about definitions or the law. They asked three times for evidence and twice the jurors said they were deadlocked -- at a stalemate and unable to reach a unanimous decision.
There were reports from courthouse staff of loud arguments among jurors. When Howard called them back into the courtroom to discuss their progress, some jurors were red-faced, as if they had been in heated discussions. Other hung their heads and sighed. When allowed outside for fresh air or cigarette breaks Saturday, jurors split into two distinct groups, eight in one crowd and four in the other, suggesting that was the division inside the jury chambers.
After they returned the verdict, jurors left the courthouse without speaking to the media. Howard said they all were stressed and exhausted, perhaps understandable in a case involving such emotional issues -- religion, a parent's responsibility toward a child and a conflicting set of laws.
The verdict was being followed across the nation by child advocates and the faith community.
Now followers will wait for Howard's decision, scheduled for Oct. 6: What will be the Neumanns' punishment?[/offsite:wty66xje]
http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/article/20090802/CWS0101/908020662/1982
[offsite:wty66xje]"If I in a moment of crisis and in a moment of time, I went to anyone else but the Lord, it would not have been favorable to God," Neumann said.


Kronenwetter told jurors during closing arguments that Dale Neumann's devout faith all but requiredhim to trust God to heal Kara.
"The idea that Dale Neumann was aware that choosing faith healing instead of taking his daughter to the doctor was causing a risk of great bodily harm or death is just preposterous," Kronenwetter said.
A wrenching decision
Jurors spent 15 hours confined to a small room in the courthouse, apparently agonizing over the verdict.
They clearly struggled with conflicting Wisconsin statutes. On one hand, state law says parents such as the Neumanns, whose neglect leads to a child's death, are guilty of reckless homicide. Another statute, however, recognizes a parent's right to practice faith healing.
The jurors in the Dale Neumann case twice sent the judge notes asking questions about definitions or the law. They asked three times for evidence and twice the jurors said they were deadlocked -- at a stalemate and unable to reach a unanimous decision.
There were reports from courthouse staff of loud arguments among jurors. When Howard called them back into the courtroom to discuss their progress, some jurors were red-faced, as if they had been in heated discussions. Other hung their heads and sighed. When allowed outside for fresh air or cigarette breaks Saturday, jurors split into two distinct groups, eight in one crowd and four in the other, suggesting that was the division inside the jury chambers.
After they returned the verdict, jurors left the courthouse without speaking to the media. Howard said they all were stressed and exhausted, perhaps understandable in a case involving such emotional issues -- religion, a parent's responsibility toward a child and a conflicting set of laws.
The verdict was being followed across the nation by child advocates and the faith community.
Now followers will wait for Howard's decision, scheduled for Oct. 6: What will be the Neumanns' punishment?[/offsite:wty66xje]

[Snow Crash]

[offsite:qoiackll]The Neumanns moved to Wisconsin from California and opened the Monkey Mo's Coffee Shop in Weston in January 2007. They were known as a happy family who held Bible study sessions and served up coffee and other tasty treats[/offsite:qoiackll]

Tasty treats ftw.

[hp]

...people should have no consequences for their actions as long as they are doing it in the name of stupidity, ignorance or fanatical religious beliefs.

In a similar light, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

[pack3tg0st]

http://davidszondy.com/ephemeral/ingsoc.gif

[Ducky]

3 times previous, 911 was called. The child was thirsty and tired and lost her appetite; drew into a coma thereafter.

WTF is wrong with this picture? Even one of the teenagers KNEW there was something wrong, enough to dial 911.

If they were true Christians, they wouldn't have sat on their lazy arses and stuck to just prayer alone. Isn't sloth a deadly sin?

James 2: (14) My brothers, what [is] the gain if anyone says he has faith, but he does not have works? Is the faith able to save him?

"The Lord helps those who help themselves"

Reminds me of a story:

(paraphrased)

A flood surged through a town. A devout Christian got on his knees and prayed for the Lord to make the rain recede. He thought the Lord would save him and him alone. However, the rain came down harder. A passerby drove by on a wagon and asked the man if he would come with him to safety. The Christian replied: "No thanks, the Lord will take care of me."

As time went by, the rains were flooding the town almost to the roof tops. The Christian got on his knees and asked the Lord to save him. Just as he got up from his prayer, an old man in a small boat drifted over to his home and asked if he needed a lift. The Christian replied: "No thanks, the Lord will take care of me."

The flood got worse, and the Christian found himself on top of his roof. His feet were getting wet as the water was slowly making it's way up to him. Soon after, a helicopter flew next to him and offered to take him to safety. The Christian replied: "No thanks, the Lord will take care of me."

It was too long before the flood reached the poor Christian and he drowned. He met the Lord in heaven and asked Him why he didn't save him personally."

To which the Lord replied: "My Dear child...I did try to help you. I sent a wagon, a boat, and a helicopter, but you refused."

[Cogburn]

Smite.

[pack3tg0st]

Why is everyone focusing on the finer details...

The question at hand is if the government has aright to force an individual to go to the doctor...

Would the story be different if this was a 70 yr old man with alzheimers?

it shouldn't be.

[FancyFree]

No, the gov't doesn't have a right to force someone to go to the dr. But, i think the guy and his wife deserve charges laid against them in the case of neglecting the needs of their child.

[pack3tg0st]

No, the gov't doesn't have a right to force someone to go to the dr. But, i think the guy and his wife deserve charges laid against them in the case of neglecting the needs of their child.

Than it boils down to "go to the doctor or we'll bring charges"...

Contradictory statements ya know...

If they should have charges brought against them, then we're looking at the government telling you when to go to the doctor...

[lala]

One thing that has not been made clear is weather they had ever used a doctor in the past! Did the mother give birth in a hospital or did she have a doctor present at home . . . and one thing I didn't like is ask if situation came about again how would he react . . . answer the same . . . wtf . . . :D

[pack3tg0st]

can't piss off "god" ya know...

Then he'd have to start a crusade to the middle east and wage useless war against muslims...

o wait

[KIWI]

Why is everyone focusing on the finer details...

shit Pac, thats where the "Debble" hangs out :twisted: ....you know that!

and he usually comes out on top, all the best lawyers are on his side of the fence

[pack3tg0st]

Now now kiwi...

We all know the debble has no interest in lawyers...

Its a well known fact he likes Souls...

[KIWI]

Now now kiwi...

We all know the debble has no interest in lawyers...

Its a well known fact he likes Souls...

.......so dead lawyers go where?

[Hesiod]

lawyers never die, they just lose their appeal

[KIWI]

lawyers never die, they just lose their appeal

he he....true 8)

[attachment=0:1wscvtmp]godvsdevil.png[/attachment:1wscvtmp]

[Cogburn]

Which is why I've always maintained the Bible tells the story from the point of view of the bad guy instead of the other way around.

Weren't Adam and Eve enslaved in ignorance until the Serpent set them free...

The winner gets to tell the tale, I suppose.

[KIWI]

Im a "cat" person.....the bible's not for me ......:bounce:

[boycotteverything]

animals need protection because they can't protect themselves from unscrupulous owners but when it comes to people, the same fact doesn't hold true????It all distills down to whom you may consider to be 'unscrupulous owners,' doesn't it? Dogs have them- and so do people. Apparently you've learned your rational processes from the propagandists of the mob.

________________

I was exposed as humorless flotsam by Ape-Shit and his boytoy, BE........2009

[Gunter]

Trollbait.
Bump. This is Apeci at his most challenging. The most in your face. Like I say- imo, brilliant. And also poetic and to the point. It's for this attitude that his ideas- and by logical extension, himself- were despised by many. Apeci was never shy about calling a spade a spade out of a high sense of Catholic inspired individualism.

[Jackinthebox]

...
I wonder what their thoughts are now regarding 'God' and why he didn't save their daughter?

Maybe she wasn't meant to be "saved" here, and instead belonged with God in the kingodom of heaven.

Freedom of religion.

There are many people who don't believe in doctors, hospitals, modern medicine. (The Quakers are going to be exempt from participating in nationalised healthcare even.)

So they will lynch this couple, meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of people dieing each year in this country of treatable diseases simplky because they don't have medical insurance.

[pack3tg0st]

Hahahaha BE...

I remember this thread...



Ultimately pack is absolutely correct

He argued in favor of not criminally charging the parents...

I must be 'despised by many'

Jesus BE... did someone piss in your metamucil or something this morning?

[boycotteverything]

context, please. this argument was one that dealt with ethos- not morality.

[boycotteverything]

So they will lynch this couple, meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of people dieing each year in this country of treatable diseases simplky because they don't have medical insurance. That is also apt. Good point.

[pack3tg0st]

context, please. this argument was one that dealt with ethos- not morality.

Here's your context:


Regardless of what some of the more collectivist bigots here seem to believe, if we are to assume that a parent has the right to make life-impacting decisions for their offspring, then we must also respect the right of the parent to make those decisions according to whatever parameters they see fit.

Ultimately pack is absolutely correct. It is not possible to murder someone by not doing something. If no treatment were available, would people still blame the parent? If the slate is wiped clean and you simply write down what led to death, the issue ends there. Diabetes killed this kid... in a sense, God did it.

[boycotteverything]

we must also respect the right of the parent to make those decisions according to whatever parameters they see fit.Yep- that was Apeci's argument alright. Many disagreed and felt that the decisions in those cases ought to be left to science. I never have been able to decide on that matter.

[Jackinthebox]

Where does one draw the line? Is it murder if a parent doesn't spend every last dime, lose the house, and drive the entire family into insurmountable debt to get the kid the latest treatment?

[boycotteverything]

That's partly the issue. But the larger issue that Apeci broached is- who is sovereign, man or state?

[pack3tg0st]

Yep- that was Apeci's argument alright. Many disagreed and felt that the decisions in those cases ought to be left to science. I never have been able to decide on that matter.

I still think that refusing treatment for something that has natural causes does not constitute murder or suicide.

Its not a gunshot wound for christs sake... its a naturally ocurring genetic disease.

Natural causes vs un-natural causes makes the difference in my argument.

[pack3tg0st]

Where does one draw the line? Is it murder if a parent doesn't spend every last dime, lose the house, and drive the entire family into insurmountable debt to get the kid the latest treatment?

Healthcare IMHO should be a right.

BUT, one should also reserve the right to refuse healthcare.

If we're going to base our laws on a 200+ yr old document, then it goes with the right to 'life'. and the right to refuse is the right to 'liberty'.

Granted, the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. But if I remember right... everyone in this thread thinks it is... so... when in rome...

[boycotteverything]

I agree with Apeci on this issue.

[anarch]

Granted, the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. But if I remember right... everyone in this thread thinks it is... so... when in rome...

Bill of rights... Constitution... If universal healthcare is to be .....And I know it is.... I would prefer it to be a constitutional amendment... Rather than how it is being enacted now.

As it is... Nobody seems to think the constitution is a valid legal document. This case is proof of that. Freedom of worship..In this case I do wonder....Diabetes being a VERY treatable disease...*Were they feeding their child DING DONGS with their prayers?* ....

But yeah... I total agree.. If I cant refuse treatment... I aint free... OH WAIT! ITS A NO REFUSAL SUPERBOWL WEEKEND! ! ! If your driving around in a major city expect to get a DUI test! IF you refuse you will go to jail where they will take your blood.

I guess the constitution isn't a legal document after all.... Sucks that.

[anarch]

For the record as an Anarchist I oppose state provided universal health care. The responsibility to take care of your health is on you and those whom you would choose to include and not that state. In fact the state should have nothing to do with it.

As A US citizen if health care is to be...and it will affect all of us.. It should be a constitutional amendment.

[lala]

Healthcare IMHO should be a right.

BUT, one should also reserve the right to refuse healthcare.

If we're going to base our laws on a 200+ yr old document, then it goes with the right to 'life'. and the right to refuse is the right to 'liberty'.

Granted, the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. But if I remember right... everyone in this thread thinks it is... so... when in rome...


Which is all good and fine if you are old enough to understand the consequences of your action. But when your a kid, if your parents decide it their way and yes you will die from a illness that has a cure . . . it is murder . . . it not 200yrs ago, it today, with todays knowledge . . . :D

[Pam]

Government run health care (which is what we have in Canada) is the best solution. When you hear about long waits etc., that is for elective surgury.

If someone has a medical emergency, car accident, heart attack etc., you jump straight to the front of the line.

It costs me about $1,400 a year for a family of four. All doctor visits covered, all emergency visits covered, not a penny more.

That being said, I never personally use it, except for one emergency years ago. That is how it works, it costs me very little, it does not get abused and everyone has the right to be treated if they so wish.

No one can force anyone into a hospital, it is a choice, if I choose not to seek medical help, I can.

I don't understand why US Citizen's don't see the big picture, look at other Countries that have great success with this system, it has been proven to work.

I just don't get it?

[Pam]

Which is all good and fine if you are old enough to understand the consequences of your action. But when your a kid, if your parents decide it their way and yes you will die from a illness that has a cure . . . it is murder . . . it not 200yrs ago, it today, with todays knowledge . . . :D

I agree with you whole heartedly lala.