Replies

people kill their children, torture them, starve them, withhold medical care and let them die, lock them up in rooms and chain them in place, have sex with them,shall I go on. I want the government to take that role. Just like I want a police presence in my city. Yes the government can overreact and be nosy, but children have to be protected or more of them will die from abuse..

Well said...Children are the most vulnerable people in our society. The abuses you have listed are all too true and add to that the brainwashing that starts from the time they can first think and speak by parents that put themselves before those children.

Those kids have every right to life just as the unborn do. Hopefully the day will come when they’ll all be protected.

people kill their children, torture them, starve them, withhold medical care and let them die, lock them up in rooms and chain them in place, have sex with them,shall I go on. I want the government to take that role.

You want the government to take that role ? You mean the role of hurting them ?

Here's a case - the illustrious dept of youth and family services of new jersey could not account for all of the children that they had placed in foster homes. children were no longer at the foster homes when checked up on.

This is not about a police presence. Police are _outside_ our homes unless they have a search warrant. they patrol public areas but they do _not_ patrol inside peoples homes.

Some things that some people do to their children are truly an abomination.

However, it is not possible to prevent them by law enforcement "predicting" them and forcing their way into families, as we are then moving towards an out-of-control big-brother state.

Crimes by parents against their own children can only be filed under "sad but true".

But then again, every terrible thing is like that, right ? Traffic accidents, armed robberies, kidnappings. None can be prevented, only prosecuted once they happen.

Now, as far as prosecuting parents, the comments here are placing the rejection of conventional "modern" medicine in the same place as rape and starvation. The intent of the parents was not to hurt their children, but to protect them, as they see the conventional "modern" medicine as contrary to their religious beliefs. They are more concerned for the soul than the body, which is what Jesus words in the Bible command, to be more concerned for one's soul than one's physical body. Now most Christians subscribe to the Biblical interpretation that we should see a doctor, not _only_ wait for God to act, taking no action ourselves. Most would believe that God acts through people, and may act through the doctor to save one's life. But though many would disagree with this particular congregation's interpretation, if we go back to the First Amendment to the Constitution, that's the crux of religious freedom, that the government we citizens created and gave over certain powers to should not have the power to choose one particular Biblical interpretation over another and force the interpretation on all, that it should not have the power to force any citizen to abandon their interpretation of the Bible.

Indeed, if one follows the money trail, it leads invariably back to "big medicine", not to the protection of children. Does one force oneself into the homes of ones siblings, telling them how to raise one's nieces and nephews ? Only if one thinks it's worth the fight. With the worst cases of torture, that's the first question I ask and never get a good answer for - where was the rest of the family ? So what gives us the right to intervene with other people's children that we are not even related to ? "Big medicine" and the left-wingers have us thinking that medical care must be forced on everyone. Big medicine sees a customer forced to pay them out of paycheck deductions, no collection problem, customer can not avoid paying them. The left wing sees it as a nice thing to get people used to, that is, submitting to government knows best. Forget your religion, forget your silly freedom, you need your medicine, now come here and open wide.

This forced medicine question also comes up with the elderly, not just children; it happens frequently amongst the Amish in middle age when they get a disease like cancer.

People always like to jump to the defense of children, not so much for the elderly, the elderly having much the same need of care and feeding, but not being so cute and fun.

If a law is passed where people have no right to deny medical care, then everyone (you and I included) will be forced to submit to this same law. You would be physically forced to accept whatever medication your doctor prescribed for you. Do you want that force applied to you ? What if you could not communicate very well, were in pain and just wanted to be allowed to die ? What if you wanted every possible effort taken so you could live ? Perhaps you just wanted to hear the available choices and then decide.

As far as deranged people who torture, starve, etc., their own children, there is no logical defense that their criminal acts were done to protect their child, so none of the above rights and freedoms discussions apply, it's just a criminal act, plain and simple. But even then, we need to remember basic common sense and basic law: no crimes can be prevented, only prosecuted, and a warrant should be needed for law enforcement to forcibly enter a home. In order to obtain a warrant from a judge, there has to be someone providing some good evidence that a crime has already happened, not that a crime may happen in the future. To even begin to prevent such heinous acts, police would practically have to have free rein to enter homes at will and half the population would have to be police. Of course, this is ludicrous, and no one wants to live in such a situation. "Protection" is impossible, as any decent government does not prosecute it's citizens for crimes yet to be committed.