• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pa. couple face prison after sons' prayer deaths

Top Cat said:
Pa. couple face prison after sons' prayer deaths

If only we could pray away the stupidity?
Click to expand...

You sit here and ridicule others faith yet if I called you a bitch terrorist everyone would be up in arms....

So what is the difference between your bias and mine against you?

Sometimes faith healing is the only solution and in some sects of Christianity are all natural - from life to death.

You may as well persecute the Amish for living a different lifestyle too...

News to you buddy, not everyone needs to live, eat, breath, drink, or hold the same religion or politics as you.

My cousin died of cancer and you know what? in the end all she had was faith and faith healing.

Now I'm not a proponent, but I do believe in individual liberties and separation between Church and State (in this case)...

How dare you - you may as well said the parents didn't love their child.

Beyond all this "faith healing" has been proven to work so it's certainly a viable medical alternative.

Of course you got the uber progressive countries in the EU allowing people to basically commit suicide (which is a different thread all together)...
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
You sit here and ridicule others faith yet
Click to expand...
To ridicule one's faith is uncalled for, but to endorse bad decisions that cost lives because one believes something is another matter. People should be able to believe anything they wish, act accordingly and suffer the consequences, but they are not allowed to do so with other's lives. The child may have been "their" child, but was not their property or slave where they held life and death decisions.

Sometimes faith healing is the only solution and in some sects of Christianity are all natural - from life to death.
Click to expand...
But that is not the case here, we are neither in the stone age or some remote area like the backside of the moon.

You may as well persecute the Amish for living a different lifestyle too...
Click to expand...
But that is their life style individually chosen not the life of another.

How dare you - you may as well said the parents didn't love their child.
Click to expand...
Loved the child to death.

Beyond all this "faith healing" has been proven to work so it's certainly a viable medical alternative.
Click to expand...
BS. If it was so it would be documented.
 

If your cousin was old enough to decide for herself then that was her right. Though I find it strange that you'd ridicule the EU for allowing 'people to basically commit suicide' and not see an inconsistency with your cousin refusing medical care in favor of prayer. I'm obviously not privy to the details of her case but if her prognosis called for a medical regimen that might have been successful it's pretty arguable that she essentially opted for suicide. Delayed suicide perhaps, but still suicide.
 

Negligent homicide of a child in your custody is not ****ing covered by the first amendment and I see absolutely no reason to humor such a thing.

Tell me, Mr. Nick, does your open support for religious diversity include Islamic "honor killings?"
 
Last edited:

An adult JW? No. And eating pork is not of a life saving or abusive nature.
 


Hello...is this thing on?


Herbert and Catherine Schaible are being sentenced Wednesday in the death last year of their 8-month-old son, Brandon. At the time, they were under court orders to seek medical care for their children after their 2-year-old son, Kent, died of untreated pneumonia in 2009.



Pa. couple face prison after sons' prayer deaths
 
Peter Grimm said:
They weren't doing "anything they wanted," they were complying with their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

They took their religion to the extreme and ultimately killed two of their own in the name of their religion. People are free to practice whatever religion or belief they chose...but its not a legal or protected right to do harm in the name of a relgion, not even to your own kids.

Religious individuals are still subject to the same criminal laws as everyone else.
 

The problem with this argument is that it privileges the Government's viewpoint over the JW or Jews or CS viewpoint. In a sense it sounds like this - "OK, we're going to let you adults do whatever stupid thing it is that you believe you should do, but when it comes to your own children, then you can't do your stupid thing, you have to do the smart thing that WE believe."

I get that it's really hard not to view Praying for Salvation as a stupid thing and it's very easy to see medical intervention as a smart thing to do, but try to see the underlying principles here. The government's viewpoint is not privileged, it's equal. The government doesn't grant people the right to believe what they wish, that right is inherent. The government doesn't humor people in such situations. The government's position is no better, no more privileged, that the individual's position.


It's not the government's position to damn the eternal soul of the child by forcing him to receive medical treatment against the dictates of the religion he believes in. We're dealing with issues of faith here, so believing in souls and eternal damnation doesn't require proof. There is no Constitutional mandate which declares that in contests between faith and verifiable facts, that verifiable facts shall always trump faith and can be imposed on the faithful against their will.
 
prometeus said:
The test is: "what would a reasonable person do?" It is reasonable for children to go swimming but it is not reasonable to do so without supervision. The vast majority of people, by far, would NOT allow a child to die.
Click to expand...

This amounts to a Heckler's veto. Let's see how that plays out. The vast majority of people oppose Woman A having an abortion, so the will of the people must win out.
 
Cephus said:
But they also have the explicit RESPONSIBILITY to make good decisions and care for their children as well. Nobody seems to remember that part.
Click to expand...

re making good decisions on behalf of their children:
and as parents, they believe they have done so
they subscribe to a faith which believes in the healing power of prayer
and while they are in the distinct minority (fortunately) who believe that, because their religious credo is different than others of us does not mean they are not entitled to practice their own faith. it's established by the bill of rights
these parents appear to genuinely to believe in the medicinal power of prayer
and in these two instances that approach failed
but medical approaches fail, too
and who among us can establish with 100% accuracy that the power of prayer does not work
 

In terms of public policy, verifiable facts should always trump faith. There is not a court in the nation that would agree with your argument. A child cannot consent to denial of life saving treatment just like they cannot consent to starvation. That is the question here, its consent. Your kids are not your property, thus you cannot condemn them to death based on your religious beliefs. It is as simple as that.
 
I do think this is a bit of an overreach by the state. If your family keeps dying because of your religion, well maybe you might want to re-think your religion. But it is their right, and it's not the right of the state to step in and tell someone their religion is wrong.

That said, I think trying to pray the stupid away in this case is a justifiable course of action. Obviously, after their religion keeps killing their kids, intelligence should tell you something.
 

So if it was my deeply held religious belief that food was unnecessary so long as one's faith was strong and I prayed, could I then be permitted to starve my children to death so long my reason for doing so was my deeply held religious belief that food was unnecessary and my prayer was all the nourishment they needed?
 

How do you argue for both the government and anarchy.
 
Deuce said:
Negligent homicide of a child in your custody is not ****ing covered by the first amendment and I see absolutely no reason to humor such a thing.
Click to expand...
there was no homicide committed
the right to one's own religious belief is very much covered by the first amendment
and they practice a faith that calls on prayer instead of medicine for healing powers

Tell me, Mr. Nick, does your open support for religious diversity include Islamic "honor killings?"
Click to expand...
absolutely not
there is a difference between inflicting harm upon another and failing to obtain medical help because your religion decrees prayer instead of medical attention
 
RiverDad said:
This amounts to a Heckler's veto.
Click to expand...
It does not. "What would a reasonable person do?" is an often used tool and it is a valid application in this case.

The vast majority of people oppose Woman A having an abortion, so the will of the people must win out.
Click to expand...
That is not true either.
 
This is a BS argument, it is not about religion.....in the death of their first child they did not even use a religious freedom argument.

This is completely about neglect, criminal neglect. And as other keep trying to emphasize, you cannot use religion as a cover for neglect, murder....or any other criminal act.
 

notice how the court violated their first amendment right with that order
it compelled the parents to ignore their personal religious beliefs and instead seek medical attention instead of prayer
the state should have sought to seek custody of the kids if their welfare was a concern
the court cannot compel someone to not practice the teachings of their faith
 
They were though, in fact, found guilty by a jury of " involuntary manslaughter, child endangerment and conspiracy charges " in the death of their child in 2009, Kent.
 
they did NO harm
the simply followed the teachings of their faith

Religious individuals are still subject to the same criminal laws as everyone else.
Click to expand...
true. what crime did the parents commit?
 
BS...you cannot shield yourself with religious freedom from CRIMINAL ACTIONS.
 
do you believe that parents who fast, consistent with their religious beliefs, also do not compel their children to also fast?
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
do you believe that parents who fast, consistent with their religious beliefs, also do not compel their children to also fast?
Click to expand...
Of course they do, well depending on age and particular denominations, but lets call it yes. The thing is that there is a huge difference between fasting and the discomfort that can cause temporarily with no long term effects and death which tends to be permanent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…