I have my faith, but this sends me up the wall. What do you guys think?

Parents pick prayer over docs; girl dies - Yahoo! News

Ah, so now some people's religion are wacky? Hmm, lets make the government decide which religions are "wacky". that sounds like a good idea.

Hey, you yourself have called people's beliefs stupid in this thread. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Wow. Just wow.

I can't imagine such a scenario, so I can't logically answer the question. What a doctor does to a child can't damn a child to hell.

Exactly. You never had to make that decision. And yes, for alot of people they will never have to. But if you had to choose what would it be? Save you child's life or defy your religion?

Are you going to arrest jehovas witness parents when their children die due to no blood transfusions?

I'm going to have to cite Wheetsin here in that that's a bit more like a DNR than standard medical treatment. For want of simple medical procedures, these children died.

Hey, you yourself have called people's beliefs stupid in this thread. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Yes I did. Almost all religions are wacky. However, unlike you folks arguing against me, I ain't trying to press my beliefs on someone else.

Exactly. You never had to make that decision. And yes, for alot of people they will never have to. But if you had to choose what would it be? Save you child's life or defy your religion?

It's an unanswerable question. My religious belief is that if one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and lives their life for Him, they will go to heaven. There's nothing a medical procedure could do to negate that. What one person (e.g. a doctor) does to another person can't interfere with the second person's salvation.

I liked Lauren's analogy as well - For me, I think this is a punnishment issue, because clearly it's neglect. I don't think this set of parents will get a jury to convict so extreme on one end VS another...They will be made an example of - and they're will be some form of punnishment. What that actually is , is VERY intriguing to me.

BJean, I have a Sister In Law like your ex Beau the Judge. Her Government interferrence into her childrens well being was in the form of her Mother In Law ... My Mom. My mom use to show up daily / camera in hand ready to pounce. SIL is now on board w/the rest of the family or she had the Right to leave - but leave her kids. Now that may have been an extreme, but My parents would have stopped at nothing & fought Church , Gov't, or the Law & acted in the best interest of their Grand Kids...

Ah, so now some people's religion are wacky? Hmm, lets make the government decide which religions are "wacky". that sounds like a good idea.

No, I don't believe the government should decide which religions are wacky. People have the right to practice whatever kind of wacky beliefs they subscribe to. Except when the practice of those beliefs kill people.

Yes I did. Almost all religions are wacky. However, unlike you folks arguing against me, I ain't trying to press my beliefs on someone else.

Wow while typing - so much other stuff took place. Arguing is "work", debate is free flowing & should be w/out effort.....Shouldn't it???

I may also need a good nights rest:)

The analogy fails. The reason people are required by law to have insurance is to protect other drivers and their children on the road. Not the driver and his passengers.

I don't see how it fails. The insurance law is in place to protect other people, including the driver's passengers, as the driver is legally responsible for his passengers once they enter his car. The medical intervention law would not protect the parent, it would protect the other person in the situation, the child.

Yes I did. Almost all religions are wacky. However, unlike you folks arguing against me, I ain't trying to press my beliefs on someone else.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You can denigrate someone's beliefs, but it's okay because you aren't telling them what to do? By the simple fact that you called their beliefs "stupid," you are basically pressing your beliefs on them.

The analogy fails. The reason people are required by law to have insurance is to protect other drivers and their children on the road. Not the driver and his passengers.

Actually, insurance protects both. If you don't like the analogy, what about seat belt laws?

No, I don't believe the government should decide which religions are wacky. People have the right to practice whatever kind of wacky beliefs they subscribe to. Except when the practice of those beliefs kill people.

Their beliefs didn't kill the girl. Diabetes did.

By the simple fact that you called their beliefs "stupid," you are basically pressing your beliefs on them.

No, calling someone stupid or what they do stupid is not the kind of "pressing" i mean. Government coming in and taking your children away is what "pressing" means to me.

Their beliefs didn't kill the girl. Diabetes did.

What I said was:

Except when the practice of those beliefs kill people. (emphasis added)

The PRACTICE of their beliefs killed her. Just as the PRACTICE of the beliefs of the parents who were just indicted for the death of their 15-month old killed that child.

Their beliefs didn't kill the girl. Diabetes did.

Except diabetes wouldn't have killed the girl if their beliefs hadn't interfered. It's like debating results of an autopsy. Yes, all people die because of coronary failure. Their hearts stop. Why did their hearts stop, though? Did they get shot or did they die of old age? Yes, diabetes was the tool that caused this girl's death. But her death could have been prevented if the parents had taken action. Their belief didn't kill the girl. Their LACK OF ACTION killed her.

Actually, insurance protects both. If you don't like the analogy, what about seat belt laws?

Insurance does protect both. However the law was put in place to protect other drivers on the street, why should otehr drivers pay anything or their insurance if it wasn't their fault?