Be that as it may they have the right to freedom of religion in this country and they were following it.
It's a very thin line here.
FReepers what say you?
I’m a Pentecostal Christian who believes in faith healing.
I also believe in taking your child to the doctor.
I pinged you all because you seem to post a lot in the Religion forum and want your opinion on this story.
This couple?
Was their religious freedom denied or were they being neglectful in not getting their baby medical help?
I want to hear from everyone. Thank you.
Premature. So the baby can live, with care. But an abortion at the same stage would have been 100% legal and protected. So, if you kill your baby, you can just claim that you were performing an abortion.
Lock their butts away...
It can be said that God put herbs and materials on earth to heal the sick and God put the ability to gain knowledge in a person’d brain to become a doctor and heal the sick...
It can be said that God put ALL things here for humans to use and help themselves...
They don’t have any right to kill their child for their religious beliefs. The child is already a separate person, created by God, and their duty as parents is to protect that child and keep him or her alive. But flaky cults have other ideas, and power (the power of the cult) is all.
And, btw, abortion is a religion, or at any rate the sacrament of the civil religion, and pro-abortionists deny that the unborn child is a separate human being with a right to life...and increasingly, this is being used to deny born children (fragile or with defects or even possibly going to have defects) the treatment they need.
So I’d say the two extremes have met in the middle, on the pro-death side.
Tough call. My Aunt gave birth to twin boys. One was 100% healthy, the other was born with no kidneys and died a few hours after birth.
The hospital didn’t do anything heroic to save him - not sure if anyone can survive that. Is there Baby Dialysis? If so, why wasn’t it tried? Why not do a quick kidney transplant from the healthy twin to try to save the unhealthy one, risking them both?
I’m glad my Aunt and Uncle weren’t sent to prison for that.
I’m also glad these aren’t my decisions to make.
I also wish Roe v. Wade had never become bogus law. It muddies the waters in ANY case involving babies in that it’s a ‘baby’ if you want it, it’s a ‘lump of cells’ if you don’t. :(
Why do we celebrate impending Births with Baby Showers if it’s just a lump of cells and there really isn’t a Human Baby in there? Explain that one to me, Pro-Abortionists.
They send these people to prison while babies are murdered behind closed doors in hospitals and abortion mills and the abortionists, mothers and fathers are not held to account for those murders. This is proof that humans are inherently bad and we need Jesus as our savior.
JoMa
Wait, You can kill a third trimester baby with a knife it his brain but you cant refuse medication to a baby the same age? I’m lost.
The premature baby was at risk. To be responsible for a child and know that it is at risk and do nothing is to take responsibility for the results of that do nothing attitude. In this case it was death. The couple was responsible for that child and the death that followed. Religion is no excuse to kill a child. Each case should be judged on its own merits. In another instance parents should be given reasonable leeway for the care of their child. Just not this time.
The hypocrites in society will celebrate the “right to choose” to kill a baby but will screech about this instance when the lack of lifesaving care is due to Christian reasons. I guess the only difference is location.
On the other hand, if this church has their own graveyard “full of children,” as one former member says, perhaps there are other issues pointing to violence or abuse.
I have known a few Christian Scientists, who also tend to avoid using doctors. As with any faith system, some are more by the book than others. If this kind of prosecution becomes routine, any Christian Scientist essentially loses there rights when it comes to receiving health care for their children. We should be very careful as a country if we’re going to start declaring certain religious BELIEFS as illegal. Certain actions, I can see making illegal; genital mutilation, for one, disallowing blood transfusions being another.
I don’t know what to advise in reference to newborns. They are already so delicate as is, and their lives are not assured for the first few weeks, is my impression. I don’t know a lot about people that very young.
At a certain point, it could be declared that this infant is very likely to survive under the correct and most common conditions. Therefore, after this particular point, to deny them medical assistance is equal to premeditated murder.
I don’t like the idea of sending two grieving young parents to jail for six years because they were following their faith.
Their so called right to religious freedom ends at the length of their arm. They may not impose to death no less on their children.
Snake handling is outlawed. Multiple wives is out lawned. There are lots of “religious “ practises that cannot be done
And yet it would have been legal to “choose” to kill the baby moments before being born prematurely.
Luke 4:12
And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Granted, in some cases it could be a hard line to draw. That's what juries are for.
My rights (and yours) stop at the tip of our neighbor’s nose or their property line. Children however, are not property. So the question is, what are the boundary lines between parental rights, in this case the right to raise their children according to the tenets of their religious faith, and the child’s basic rights to be protected from harm, including what most reasonable people might label a form of reckless endangerment? As a general rule I lean heavily towards parental rights. But I draw the line at endangering the physical safety of your child.
In the case of a grave and/or life threatening illness or injury, failing to seek competent medical attention, or interfering in measures necessary to save a child’s life is a step too far. You do not have the right to let your child die in the name of your religious beliefs.
Not enough info. How was the baby not in the hospital in the first place? Was the birth at home?
The sentence does seem disproportionately harsh compared to what people have done to cause baby deaths outside a religious context.
I agree.
From my perspective the parents inadvertently wrongly tested G-d by limiting how G-d could answer their prayers about their child.
In other words, regardless that Romans 13:1 indicates that G-d has established all governing authority, they the ignored legal consequences established by G-d for not getting professional medical help for their child.
This has been an on going thing for years with this Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, OR.
It’s sad that this is still happening.
But according to Comey, Mrs. Bill Clinton did not intend the outright harm her country, and she got a pass.