Posted on 04/30/2008 6:26:47 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
Is your right to privacy a stronger right than your child's right not to die at your hand or because of your neglect? Could you answer that question directly, please?
Do your "standards of tending them" include allowing them to die?
Allowing a child to die when she did not have to die is abuse and it is a crime. I am surprised that you seem to want to argue otherwise.
Having a dead child that didn't have to be dead isn't meeting even a minimal standard of tending them", it is?
This isn't a tough case. The child is dead. She is dead today rather than having her whole life ahead of her, when a trip to the doctor for some insulin would have easily prevented her death.
Where does it end?? Once we let the do-gooders, social workers and “Mrs Grundy’s” into our homes, we will NOT be able to get them out again.
There is no right to pray your child into the grave.
Where does this overriding right to abuse children at will without government interference stem from, in your opinion?
“Is God an unindicted co-conspirator?”
No, the presiding judge and these two are getting an introduction to reality.
There is sound legal precedence for this case as a couple named the Twitchell’s had a similar thing happen and lost custody of their children. It may very well happen here as well.
WI law specifically excludes a parental decision to not seek medical treatment on religious grounds from neglect. The specific charges require that the parents be aware of the risks involved, which they clearly were not. This prosecution is simply an attempt to have the legislature overruled by the courts, to enable state agencies to control every aspect of family life.
I read in another article on this case that the mother believed her daughter was under spiritual attack to prevent the mother from pursuing her ministry (didn’t specify what that was).
The mother appears to be a bit self-focused. Her daughter’s illness is really an attack on her! It really all about ME!
What of the girl? Do her parents have a “right” to watch her die and prevent her from receiving medical attention? Does her right to life disappear because she’s a minor? Kids aren’t property.
That depends. Define neglect. Is it neglect if I choose to not have my child immunized for whooping cough, but my child dies of whooping cough?? Its a simple procedure to immunize. but do I, as a parent have the right not get the immunization because of my fear of side effects??
And, if I do not immunize my children, and they die from a disease they could have had protection from, am I deficient, (in your world) of my standards for tending them??? Am I to be hounded by the PTB because I have “Allowed them to die” when all it would have taken has a simple little shot to prevent it??
If that is not a direct enough answer for you, then I'm sorry. But I do not see what the parents did as "neglect" By all accounts, they loved their child very much and did for all they felt was right to do.. Their error is in that they chose a treatment (i.e. prayer and a belief in divine healing) that was unsuccessful when other treatment methods were available. At what point do we take away the parental responsibility? Faith healing? Non-immunization? Herbal or homeopathic medicine? Perhaps allowing experimental or unproven procedures? At what point do we remove a parents right to chose?? Or do require that parents must be held to a standard that allows them to only be right? No error allowed?? Sorry, but the world is NOT a risk free place, and sometimes mistakes are made, and children suffer. (as do their parents.) I only wonder what has happened to the faith of the child's parents now. “””There is no right to pray your child into the grave.”””
If that is the parents choice of therapy, then yes it is, for they did NOT believe they were praying their child into the grave. Now, the question becomes, should the parents be punished for making the wrong choice of treatment??
“””Where does this overriding right to abuse children at will without government interference stem from, in your opinion?”””
This is abuse by your definition, not mine. Wrong-headed? Yes. Not effective? Yes. But abusive? No. In a free society, we are free to make the choices we feel are right and justified. And we are also expected to accept the consequences of those choices.
If we wish to be protected from having to face the results of our freely made choices, are we truly free?
Who decides what method of treatment the parents can use for their daughter?? The state? The Community?? The Medical establishment?? Do we abrogate the rights of the parents simply because we disagree with their chosen method of treatment??( i.e prayer and a belief in divine intervention)
Do not forget, it is not the parents who took their daughter's life. it was the disease. The parents error was in the method of treatment. A method they believed was the one that they hoped would work.
It didn't, and its truly a pity. But if we condone the seizure of our children because we as parents do not follow the accepted path in all things, when will they come for our kids because we choose to not have them take what we believe to be a risky inoculation??, Or choose to school them in what is believed to be a harmful home-school environment?? Or raise them in substandard house in which lead paint, or asbestos, or even (GASP!!) smokers lives.
We have a right, and a duty to do our best to raise and protect our children. From hazard, as well as from complacency, and over bearing government intrusion among other things. Would that we could protect them from all things. But, alas, parents are not perfect, and sometimes bad things happen, and (in retrospect) wrong choices are made.
I disagree. That's like tossing your toddler in front of a moving vehicle and then claiming innocence because it was the car, not your actions that killed the child.
Sorry, I'm not buying that gross and disgusting cop out.
Sorry, I'm not buying that gross and disgusting cop out”””
Pity you did not look at the entire post. For the point was not that the girl died. (she did, and its a shame, but such is life in an imperfect world). But the question is about who decides when a parent loses their rights to their own offspring.
Would you consider it “throwing a toddler in front of a moving vehicle” if the parents choose to not have him/her inoculated for say MMR (measles, mumps, rubella)? Would you consider it “throwing an ‘adolescent’ in front of a moving vehicle” if a parent chose to forgo the “benefits” gov’t school socialization and home schooled their children?? There are those in many parts of society who do, and would be willing to hoist the battle flag.
Are you ready to have your children taken away because you wish to home school, or because you have serious reservations about side effects of some “mandatory” inoculations?? Or will you feel that you must adhere to there policies promulgated by the powers that be in order that you not “lose” you children.
The only free society in which that would happen, is only “free” in an Orwellian sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.