Rep. Christy Perry says it violates parents' rights if they're required to treat their sick children.
.........................
Doncha love it?
.........................
Doncha love it?
'Pro Life' GOPer Says It's Fine For Kids to Die in the Name of God
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
I have no idea if the rep's comments were taken out of context or not - my guess is if db is posting it, they were. But faith healing is completely asinine. If a child is sick, and there is a modern medical solution to the child's illness, then doing nothing is akin to child neglect and should be punishable as such.
That would be the State interfering with one's religious beliefs, though.
Actually, it would be very much a Libertarian principle - to protect the rights of the individual. In this case, the individual is the child. Freedom of religion doesn't mean I get to go out and axe a bunch of people in a shopping mall because my "god" calls for it.
Freedom of religion is to practice that religion, but only in the confines that it does not cause harm to others. It is the government responsibility (in this case the STATE government) to provide protection if religious practice harms someone else.
It could be said that radical Wahhabists who practice ultra strict Islam and cut off women's heads or gang rape them when they are not dressed appropriately are practicing "religious freedom", but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't step in and put an end to it.
No one has right to cause intentional harm to another human being - to a child most of all - unless that individual is first causing harm that had to be answered with force.
Last edited:
I agree in those examples where someone takes an action which harms another. But this is a bit different, this is non-action. Or rather, you could say it is taking the action of faith and prayer, instead of technology. We don't know up front what the outcome will be. A doctor can say the child will probably die. The believing parents can say the child will probably live, maybe die, but either way the result is God's will.
A non-action can still cause harm. The parent could decide to not feed the child. This is a non-action as well and still neglect. The parent has an obligation to take action to ensure the safety and well being of the child until the child is old enough to do that for him/herself. We define this age boundary as 18. I am not arguing that boundary.
Again, what I stated in my first post was that - if there is a medical solution to the child's illness and the parent refuses to take it because they would rather let "God choose", then this is neglect to me - pure and simple. The article provided examples like pneumonia. Stuff that is treatable for the most part.
If there is no medical solution to the problem and the parents merely keep faith that God will decide, then that isn't causing harm by neglect because there is no solution they could choose that would provide definitive help.
I feel all weird and backwards here, Ricter. I am arguing for state government intervention and you are arguing for freedom of religion? What's next? You going to tell me that Yellen is off her rocker by not raising rates when I post an article on how we should double our welfare spending?
This is pure evil. That woman needs to held accountable for murder. The government exists to protect those who can not protect themselves-- such as children. F@ those retarded parents and those who support the sickness. surf
The problem is that the child is being left out of all this. If he's mature enough to decide for himself, like that teen girl who wanted to opt out of chemo, that's one thing. But we're expected to care for children, not sacrifice them on the altar of our own beliefs.