Where is your proof of this? Maybe you should be the one to learn about things like innocent until proven guilty and due process of law.
And of course your assumptions are absolutely ridiculous.
OK, we get it, you hate all religious people, most likely because you're an ex-Christian who is pissed off because you were so fooled for so long. But other atheists such as myself are more tolerant of religious folks. We were never fooled in the first place.
Are there other beliefs that others have that you decided were dangerous? Should a welfare mother be allowed to have more children even though she cannot support them? Help me where the line is in society pushing its views on the individual.
Do you have a list of who qualifies in being "decent folks"?
Murderers ought to be high on that list.
The line is right around the point where ones grossly negligent actions (or inaction, in cases where one owes a duty to act) results in the death of another. It ain't rocket science, but it is the law. Conflating that with wellfare policy is ****ing stupid.
Good for you in being an Atheist. I don't care.
I'm more impacted by a welfare mother having another child than she can afford than these parents and their choice which didn't work as they hoped. I'm trying to find out where the line is of what society can force someone to do. Plenty of people have mocked their beliefs. I don't agree with them, but I don't see where it is my place to go against them. Weep all you want for the children but will that solve anything by putting the parents in jail? The other dude wants a bullet in the back of their heads, is that your solution too?
I'm more impacted by a welfare mother having another child than she can afford than these parents and their choice
I don't support the death penalty.
Again: comparing wellfare to criminal law is just plain stupid. There is no "line" on which those two things both exist. Having too many children is not a criminal act. It's stupid and irresponsible, but it's not a criminal act. By contrast, engaging in negligence rising to the level of reckless endangerment of a child in your care - thus causing the death of that child - is at least manslaughter, and possibly 2nd degree murder. What will be solved by putting the parents in jail? The same set of things that're solved by punishing anyone convicted of violating a criminal law.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. They've had two children die because they refused to provide medical care for them. What is it you don't understand about that?
These folks are about to find out about statutes regarding 'criminal negligence', 'negligent homicide', and 'depraved indifference'. I continue to be amused at the spirited defense put forward for people who allowed their second child to die because of their archaic and dangerous beliefs.
Why couldn't it be a criminal act for a welfare mom to have another child.
I don't see it as a criminal act but you want it to be because of your values, etc. The parents aren't happy their children died and I understand they have others at home. They acted as they saw fit and you disagree that they didn't do anything because that's what you believe. Fine, I just don't want you to have the force of law to do it. Face it, you just want revenge and suck their living children into public welfare.
Should the parents be allowed to discipline a child in a way you don't agree?
Should a mother be able to abort a child at any point? (isn't that taking an extreme view of worrying about the interests of others).
I'm still waiting for your proof, as I earlier requested, and tire having to repeat myself.
your exact post:
Now prove it or shut the hell up.
Proof of what? They denied their children simple medical care which inaction caused their death. They were already on probation after pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter in 2011 in the death of their 2-year-old son, Kent, from pneumonia.
I don't understand what his ranting about proof is all about. I think he just ran out of things to say. They've already been proven guilty of one death. I think they'll find another set of charges on the second.
Don't you find it strange the number of posters who are so concerned about what might happen to these 'poor parents', yet approach the deaths of the children as if this was just another parental right. Bizarre.
I disagree with their belief against medical treatment, but it isn't my place to tell them what to believe.
The argument on whether to allow them to deny medical treatement to their child is a more sticky problem. I have some sympathy for them, but a child dying from something that could probably have been readily cured by modern medicine is pretty appalling. If the child was old enough to articulate whether he wished to adhere to his parent's beliefs of be treated, that would be a bit different, but in both cases they were too young to do so.
While I am very reluctant to let the State intervene in the parent-child relationship, it can be argued that this amounts to negligence at least.
I feel the same way about people who avoid doctors due to a belief that herbs, "holistic" medicine and/or shamanistic practices, acupuncture, whatever... are their preferred treatment... if that's what they want to do as an adult fine, but I have deep reservations about letting a child die for their parent's seemingly irrational beliefs.
It seems a little odd, even suspicious, that they managed to lose TWO small children in four years time, even WITHOUT a doctor... I mean in my family we don't run to the doc for every little thing but losing two in four years seems like either mighty bad luck or suspiciously bad luck...
Because having a child is not and has never been considered to intentionally or recklessly result in harm to another. Withholding needed medical care does.
Yes. It's all part of my evil plan to put children on welfare. You've found me out. Oh wait... no, that's ridiculous. These people deserve to be punished because their actions are consitent with the definition of murder. So, just like every other murderer, they're going to be prosecuted and hopefully sent to prison.
There are probably plenty of ways that parents discipline children with which I wouldn't agree that also aren't criminal. If their actions vis-a-vis their children result in that child's death (this would include not just refraining from seeking life saving medical attention, but also starving a child, etc), they've committed a crime. These aren't my rules. They're well-established legal standards.
The fact that you're bringing up abortion in a debate about criminal liability suggests to me that you don't understand either issue very well. If you'd like to see the current standards for abortion under the law, and the reasoning that went into them, I suggest reading Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey.
I reject the standards of discussion you want me to follow on this thread.
You mean the law? Okay.
I wrote a complete sentence, but perhaps English isn't your primary language.
They have 7 other children.
And of course your assumptions are absolutely ridiculous.
OK, we get it, you hate all religious people, most likely because you're an ex-Christian who is pissed off because you were so fooled for so long. But other atheists such as myself are more tolerant of religious folks. We were never fooled in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?