Replies

I didn't pay $18 for the transcript of this segment so I can't post it in its entirety, but I heard it this morning and was absolutely stunned.

Apparently, the couple in question is part of a religious organization that doesn't believe in medical intervention for health problems. They have had at least one child die of suffocation immediately after birth when a simple medical procedure could have saved the child's life. But the procedure would have been against their religion.

Well, a judge didn't think it was right that the child be denied basic medical care because of the parent's religious beliefs so when she was 8 months pregnant with another child he had her incarcerated so he could ensure a doctor would be available during her next labor. The report didn't make this clear, but I think that child was delivered alive and is OK today.

This story had to do with a miscarriage. It seems she got pregnant again, but isn't pregnant now. The judge wants to know what happened to the baby. She says she miscarried, but the judge wants more detail. She's claiming her right to privacy.

Friends, this story has it all. Can we decide some religions are valid and others aren't given the requirement that the Fed can not make any laws considering the establishment of religion or its free expression. What about the right of the child (in this case fetus, in the previous case child) to receive medical care when the parents don't want it to? And, for goodness sake, why would it have been A-OK for this woman to have had an abortion, but the judge wants to grill her to make sure she didn't miscarry because she didn't receive proper prenatal care? Can anyone explain the logic of this one to me?

In fact, the report quoted a legal scholar as saying something like, "I'm very pro Roe v Wade, but I think this is carrying her right to privacy too far. Can she really say, unless you catch me in the act of killing my born baby it's a privacy issue?"

Let's not even bring up partial birth abortion.

My mind is still boggled. Pray for the nation.

SASU stands for Straight Americans Speaking Up. If you're tired of moral relativism being used as an excuse to destroy our American culture, which has moral standards as its foundation, then you are a SASU. Bookmark this link to keep up with moral relativism eroding our culture.

ping

Does anyone have a graphic to depict a mind being boggled?

Note that I've created a SASU ping list to replace BRAAD. I'll use both for a little while, then retire BRAAD.

Shalom.

Apparently, the couple in question is part of a religious organization that doesn't believe in medical intervention for health problems. They have had at least one child die of suffocation immediately after birth when a simple medical procedure could have saved the child's life. But the procedure would have been against their religion.

A second child--one of a relative--was starved to death by other members of the sect. Both babies were buried in Acadia National Park, I do believe. Members of this sect were jailed for a substantial length of time until they told the authorities where the babies were buried. It wasn't until they got lawyers (they had been refusing counsel) that they told the authorities where they put the children.

Four of their children are in foster care. The woman was visibly pregnant, but now she's claiming she miscarried, but nothing else. I'd like to know what happened to this baby.

Friends, this story has it all. Can we decide some religions are valid and others aren't given the requirement that the Fed can not make any laws considering the establishment of religion or its free expression.

No the Feds Constitutionally cannot make any laws that conflict the establishment of religion. But the States can. The extermination order given by Governor Boggs against the Mormons was not overturned by President Polk for that very reason.

What about the right of the child (in this case fetus, in the previous case child) to receive medical care when the parents don't want it to?

It all depends on two things. Who is the legal guardian of our children, the state or parents? If parents, how much liberty do we trust them with?

And, for goodness sake, why would it have been A-OK for this woman to have had an abortion, but the judge wants to grill her to make sure she didn't miscarry because she didn't receive proper prenatal care? Can anyone explain the logic of this one to me?

Simple. The state knows far better how to raise children. It is more a discipline of control, done of course for the chillldren.

Meanwhile the swinging parents in California that were too busy swapping sex with neighbors to notice an intruder taking their daughter still have the "boys"

Amazing !

BTTT

Oddly, it sounds more like Child Sacrifice than anything. Child Sacrifice was used to control people.