Jury gives "faith healing" mother prison time in 9 year old son's diabetes-related death

[JohnR! 5,495]

1338476704[/url]' post='5410370']

See there you go again, one tries to have a cogent discussion with you and you veer of into silly as a defense.

Yes, I responded in kind. Glad you noticed. Have a great day!

Edited May 31, 2012 by Gegel

[james&olya 1,121]

You are just wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are basing those thoughts on news reports.

If this same lady had cancer and trusted God to heal her rather than have the spots removed from her skin.... do you think we would hear about it?

It's only a story when something like this happens.

I saw a story today about a Snake-handler who was bit during a church service and died.

YOU are "just wrong, wrong, wrong."

I base my observations on multiple actual encounters I have had with religious whack-job parents. My occupation puts me in a unique position to see this type of situation. It is disgusting to see the very same parents who were ready to throw their own children under their religious bus suddenly have serious doubts about their faith when they, themselves need that transfusion or that insulin! Not only that, but the lady with cancer actually has a chance to survive doing nothing as those cancers are not 100% fatal. Untreated juvenile onset, insulin dependent (type I) diabetes mellitus is fatal without treatment. It is very easily treated with insulin. He should have been able to go on to lead a long and productive life!

[james&olya 1,121]

eh it was her kid. She chose to raise it how she did and failed miserably.

The rest of us should butt out of her and her family's business. But nooooo here come the moral police! How DARE you believe in what you believe and how DARE you practice it in your own home! For shame! ** the first amendment you dirty filthy #######!!!!!!!

You are so incredibly wrong, so totally clueless!! Read this carefully and try to absorb it. CHILDREN ARE NOT POSSESSIONS!

This child had a right to live and that right is guaranteed by society through the laws and government of this country! This woman committed a horrible crime against her son and against the people of this country. That is why the prosecutor will charge her as 'the people of... vs xxxxx xxxxxx!

Yes, it was morally wrong for her to do this. If that was all it was it would just be a matter for this woman to deal with with her conscience. Since it was also LEGALLY wrong, a crime, for her to do this is what gives the prosecutor not only the right but the duty to charge her and prosecute her.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I base my observations on multiple actual encounters I have had with religious whack-job parents. My occupation puts me in a unique position to see this type of situation. It is disgusting to see the very same parents who were ready to throw their own children under their religious bus suddenly have serious doubts about their faith when they, themselves need that transfusion or that insulin! Not only that, but the lady with cancer actually has a chance to survive doing nothing as those cancers are not 100% fatal. Untreated juvenile onset, insulin dependent (type I) diabetes mellitus is fatal without treatment. It is very easily treated with insulin. He should have been able to go on to lead a long and productive life!

That's up to the mother, you see, as long as he is born which, if it was up to the same religious nut jobs, is not up to her. They cherish life only to the point of birth. After that, they don't give a **.

[james&olya 1,121]

Just because you can 'treat' something to delay the inevitable and you don't, doesn't make you a murderer. If anything she showed the kid mercy.

So it is OK if I come and show you some 'mercy'! You are going to die someday anyway so why delay the inevitable!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So it is OK if I come and show you some 'mercy'! You are going to die someday anyway so why delay the inevitable!

Yep, just make it look like some religious ritual and that'll be alright in Paul's book.

[james&olya 1,121]

And of course all these kind hearted Libs would have been just fine with her having the RIGHT to destroy that same human being, up until the minute prior to being born...... thats whats so laughable.

You RWNJ's will never figure it out but I will try here again anyway. The law is there to protect the rights of 'persons' as defined by that law. When a fertilized egg transitions from potential life to being a person is defined many different ways. You do not have the right to impose your religious views on everyone else! Unless the law is changed regarding when 'personhood' occurs, a woman will continue having the right to make decisions about what she does with her body even while pregnant. I share your belief that abortion is morally wrong but I do not assume I have the right to try and force others to comply with my moral beliefs.

Many religious right-wingers make obvious that their real motive is not preventing abortions when they also do everything they can to deprive poor women having access to birth control!

The #1 law in this country is the first amendment and it supercedes all other laws. Oh wait, that's except when it's convenient for it not to. That's right. It seems to only be a tool that the left-wing goons use to their benefit, but don't let anyone else use when they actually want to practice religion. I forgot.

Totally and completely wrong yet again!

[Danno 1,228]

You RWNJ's will never figure it out but I will try here again anyway. The law is there to protect the rights of 'persons' as defined by that law. When a fertilized egg transitions from potential life to being a person is defined many different ways. You do not have the right to impose your religious views on everyone else! Unless the law is changed regarding when 'personhood' occurs, a woman will continue having the right to make decisions about what she does with her body even while pregnant. I share your belief that abortion is morally wrong but I do not assume I have the right to try and force others to comply with my moral beliefs.

Wow you did some fancy footwork there with all that typing now just answer a simple question, your answer will speak clearly enough.

Q: At what point before birth did that mother have no right to destroy that same child?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So it is OK if I come and show you some 'mercy'! You are going to die someday anyway so why delay the inevitable!

am I your own child? No.

[james&olya 1,121]

Wow you did some fancy footwork there with all that typing now just answer a simple question, your answer will speak clearly enough.

Q: At what point before birth did that mother have no right to destroy that same child?

Your use of the word 'right' implies a legal basis. If that is the case the answer can be found in what your state laws and the US Supreme Court have decided!

If you somehow want to twist that word into a moral/religious point of view than the answer depends on that individuals own moral viewpoint!

If you are asking me my own moral viewpoint (not religious, I have no need for that!) I would tell you that life is the most precious thing there is and every possible alternative option must be explored! It is not 'OK' in my book to end that potential human life. But that is my own viewpoint and I would never seek to force it on someone else!

am I your own child? No.

Thank God!!!

That helps make it easier!

jk

Edited June 1, 2012 by james&olya

[Danno 1,228]

Your use of the word 'right' implies a legal basis. If that is the case the answer can be found in what your state laws and the US Supreme Court have decided!

If you somehow want to twist that word into a moral/religious point of view than the answer depends on that individuals own moral viewpoint!

If you are asking me my own moral viewpoint (not religious, I have no need for that!) I would tell you that life is the most precious thing there is and every possible alternative option must be explored! It is not 'OK' in my book to end that potential human life. But that is my own viewpoint and I would never seek to force it on someone else!

So bottom line you would never ... but if this lady wanted to kill this same child a week before delivery.... it's not up to you to.

Thanx.

[james&olya 1,121]

So bottom line you would never ... but if this lady wanted to kill this same child a week before delivery.... it's not up to you to.

Thanx.

Since a pregnancy has reached viability well before 39 weeks I don't believe it would be legal in most jurisdictions to abort the pregnancy! If you are referring to a week before 'viability' and it was a woman within my sphere of influence I would use the power of my influence to try to talk her into a different option. As to public policy I would like to see affordable contraception and education regarding contraception available to all women (and men) of child-bearing age. I also would like to see quality and affordable health-care for all, decent maternal leave benefits, child-care options, etc. to help make it easier for these women to choose life.

I recently saw a bumper sticker on a car parked in front of our local catholic church that said simply, CHOOSE LIFE. That sums up my philosophy well. Leave women with the right to control their own bodies and make their own choices, but also do everything possible short of legal coercion to get them to choose life!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So bottom line you would never ... but if this lady wanted to kill this same child a week before delivery.... it's not up to you to.

Thanx.

Except in the event of imminent loss of the mothers life, where exactly is it legal to get an abortion at 8 months 3 weeks??? That's right nowhere, which is pretty much where responding to your silly nonsense gets us.

The woman in the OP was grotesquely negligent in caring for her child. Abortion is irrelevant completely to the topic at hand.

[Dakine10 5,452]

eh it was her kid. She chose to raise it how she did and failed miserably.

The rest of us should butt out of her and her family's business. But nooooo here come the moral police! How DARE you believe in what you believe and how DARE you practice it in your own home! For shame! ** the first amendment you dirty filthy #######!!!!!!!

I saw where this post was going when you referred to the child as "it". Kids are not pets and they are not property. Diabetes is a treatable condition. They failed to obtain that treatment and let the child die. By definition, that's negligent homicide. The only way out of this is an insanity defense.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1338520960[/url]' post='5411804']

Q: At what point before birth did that mother have no right to destroy that same child?

A: Up to the point where the law of the land allows for it. Check Roe v. Wade for further info.