US man 'killed child by praying'

[stevebakh]

The headline is a little too sensationalist for my liking, but the article is interesting. I didn't realise parents could be prosecuted in this manner, for refusing to allow their chlildren medical care, due to their own religious beliefs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm

A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his ill 11-year-old daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.

The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he believed God could heal his daughter.

She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.

Mr Neumann's wife was convicted earlier this year.

The couple both face up to 25 years in prison when they are sentenced in October.

Thoughts?

[Paft]

Good. That's nothing less than homicide.

You can pray all you want, but take your child to a real doctor too, while you're at it.

[Humboldt]

Mixed feelings on this but I side with Paft.

There's a place for spirituality but there's a greater place for common sense.

[jeremyboycool]

face up to 25 years in prison

That's ridiculous, only 25 years? And it is up to, what's that like 7 years? For killing a child?

[YARDofSTUF]

That's ridiculous, only 25 years? And it is up to, what's that like 7 years? For killing a child?

Remember with a good lawyer you get get off in 3 to 4 years for killing someone, but possess some drugs, oh man are you getting locked up!

[jeremyboycool]

Speaking of lawyers...

If these people have so much faith in "God" then why do they have a lawyer? Shouldn't they be trusting in the lord for the outcome of the trial? I guess they can't sallow their own poison.

[jeremyboycool]

I thought this would go good here...

From all that I have attempted to say it should now be apparent that sincerity and conscientiousness in themselves are not enough. History has proven that these noble virtues may degenerate into tragic vices. Nothing in all the world is more dangerous then sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Shakespeare wrote:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse then weeds.

As the chief moral guardian of the community, the church must implore men to be good and well-intentioned and much extol the virtues of kindheartedness and conscientiousness. But somewhere along the way the church must remind men that devoid of intelligence, goodness and conscientiousness will become brutal forces leading to shameful crucifixions. Never must the church tire of reminding men that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.

Must we not admit that the church has often overlooked this moral demand for enlightenment? At times it has talked as though ignorance were a virtue and intelligence a crime. Through it obscurantism, closedmindedness, and obstinacy to new truth, the church has often unconsciously encouraged its worshipers to look askance upon intelligence. But if we are to call ourselves Christians, we had better avoid intellectual and moral blindness. - Martin Luther King Jr.

[stevebakh]

I'm curious - in the US, do the authorities have the right to ignore a parents wishes regarding medical treatment? Based on the conviction this thread is about, I would imagine doctors do have that right, if they feel it's for the benefit of the child. I would hope so, anyway.

I suppose in this situation, as the article mentions that the child had un-diagnosed diabetes, the authorities / medical practitioners were not even aware of the illness to begin with. A real shame and a real waste of a life, all due to selfish, naive and stupid beliefs.

[Leatherneck]

While I completely disagree with these parents for not seeking medical attention (as God gave most of us brains also) I find it disturbing that many of the same folks who support a Woman's right to murder a fetus is more than ready to condemn another for their decision. There is a difference IMHO as one decision is deliberate beyond doubt and the other either blind faith, hope, stupidity or whatever you decide to call it.

[Brk]

due to selfish, naive and stupid beliefs.

Steve, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking your original post was posited out of a genuine curiosity of the law behind the story, but the above quoted statement confirmed my initial gut feeling that it was purposely posted as a statement critical of faith.

[jeremyboycool]

Steve, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking your original post was posited out of a genuine curiosity of the law behind the story, but the above quoted statement confirmed my initial gut feeling that it was purposely posted as a statement critical of faith.

Are you suggesting "faith" should not be criticized here? Or is it, that you are just being critical of Steve?

[YARDofSTUF]

Are you suggesting "faith" should not be criticized here? Or is it, that you are just being critical of Steve?

Steve has a tendency as of late to find any negative press on religion and post it, to help his argument that religion is bad.

[stevebakh]

Steve, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking your original post was posited out of a genuine curiosity of the law behind the story, but the above quoted statement confirmed my initial gut feeling that it was purposely posted as a statement critical of faith.

The curiosity was genuine. I haven't turned this into a religious thread and I'm not really interested in doing so. Religious debates aren't debates at all, especially on the Internet.

With that said, I am critical of religious faith. I don't see a problem with that. In any case, do you have an opinion on the topic I posted about, or do you simply visit threads to make a fly-by judgement on the participants?

Steve has a tendency as of late to find any negative press on religion and post it, to help his argument that religion is bad.

/shrugs...

Here's a history of the threads I've created - granted, a few regarding abuse by police or political threads, but not even remotely saturated with anti-religious vitriol, in fact, they're nearly all political threads or fun posts.

http://forums.speedguide.net/search.php ... id=1437725

Here's a search of my posts too - still not seeing a great deal of anti-religious posting (which is surprising, because I genuinly do have little tolerence for it)

http://forums.speedguide.net/search.php ... id=1437731

I did have a tendency to take part in existing threads on religious topics, though I can't say I've done that here in a while and I certainly didn't go looking for stories to backup my dislike of religion - it's hardly something one needs to dig for.

I came across the article I posted, purely by chance. It interested me and I was curious to know if there was any legal precedent for authorities and medical professionals to overrule a parent on matters of healthcare and treatment. In addition to that, I wanted to see others opinions on the topic. This is a discussion forum afterall.

[YARDofSTUF]

I never said it was most of your posts, just that you are happy to engage in it when you can.

[Roody]

Are you suggesting "faith" should not be criticized here? Or is it, that you are just being critical of Steve?

No it shouldn't be criticized in this instance. The people in question should be criticized if anything.

[Gixxer]

While I completely disagree with these parents for not seeking medical attention (as God gave most of us brains also) I find it disturbing that many of the same folks who support a Woman's right to murder a fetus is more than ready to condemn another for their decision. There is a difference IMHO as one decision is deliberate beyond doubt and the other either blind faith, hope, stupidity or whatever you decide to call it.

nice.

[Paft]

While I completely disagree with these parents for not seeking medical attention (as God gave most of us brains also) I find it disturbing that many of the same folks who support a Woman's right to murder a fetus is more than ready to condemn another for their decision. There is a difference IMHO as one decision is deliberate beyond doubt and the other either blind faith, hope, stupidity or whatever you decide to call it.

There's a fundimental difference between this situation and a woman getting an abortion. Mainly: The child in this case was an established life, whereas a fetus is not an established life. A fetus can arguably be described as "alive," sure, but not a life - there's no awareness, whereas in a born child, there is.

It's like comparing a circle to a square - sure, they're both shapes, but they're too different to actually compare in any meaningful way.

[jeremyboycool]

No it shouldn't be criticized in this instance. The people in question should be criticized if anything.

Do you believe in gun control?

If there is error in the gun control laws we cry for rectification; yet, it is the common mantra to separate the church from the individual. This is done so in an attempt to absolve the church of blame, but this denial of correlation is a fleet from responsibility. If it is the responsibility of the church to provide moral and spiritual guidance, then instead of trying to distance itself from the problem, like some politician at election time, the church should, by creed of it purpose, assume responsibility and accept all that that implies. Only by doing so will the church have the power needed to correct the problems. However, since the church is a social network then its burden falls on our shoulders; you and me. Its failures are our failures and like the government the church will wither and decay under denial and apathy. It is a dark day when faith brings despair but even darker if we turn our heads and pretend it didn't happen.

The very hand of God uplifting the whole of humanity; you theist scarcely know what it is you have; basking in its glory, sometimes I think its radiance blinds you.

[jeremyboycool]

Steve has a tendency as of late to find any negative press on religion and post it, to help his argument that religion is bad.

So? Burke prolifically post to advocate his own POV how can he fault Steve for doing the same?

[Gixxer]

There's a fundimental difference between this situation and a woman getting an abortion. Mainly: The child in this case was an established life, whereas a fetus is not an established life. A fetus can arguably be described as "alive," sure, but not a life - there's no awareness, whereas in a born child, there is.

It's like comparing a circle to a square - sure, they're both shapes, but they're too different to actually compare in any meaningful way.

the difference is that the government has say so and is able to enforce what they believe to be lawful murder, but put others in jail for what they can dictate as unlawful murder.

freedom of religion and what these people, i think, is a very fine line.

[Gixxer]

There's a fundimental difference between this situation and a woman getting an abortion. Mainly: The child in this case was an established life, whereas a fetus is not an established life. A fetus can arguably be described as "alive," sure, but not a life - there's no awareness, whereas in a born child, there is.

It's like comparing a circle to a square - sure, they're both shapes, but they're too different to actually compare in any meaningful way.

i see your point about an established life.

if there is a heartbeat, is it alive? is it life?

[Dan]

No it shouldn't be criticized in this instance. The people in question should be criticized if anything.

why not ? if that's a members opinion,,,,

faith has everything to do with this topic.

[Dan]

Speaking of lawyers...

If these people have so much faith in "God" then why do they have a lawyer? Shouldn't they be trusting in the lord for the outcome of the trial? I guess they can't sallow their own poison.

[Debbie]

i see your point about an established life.

if there is a heartbeat, is it alive? is it life?

Even though it is another thread topic, I believe life begins at conception.

[Paft]

i see your point about an established life.

if there is a heartbeat, is it alive? is it life?

That's one of the issues with the pro-choice/anti-choice (pro-life/anti-life, whatever terms you use) debate. It's almost impossible to come to a consensus on when an established life begins, because everyone has different markers. Some people (like Debbie) say it's at conception. Some people (like me) say it's when you can read an EEG monitor and see responses to external stimulus that's a product of a living creature rather than random firings of a clump of cells. Some people say it's not until birth.

[jeremyboycool]

i see your point about an established life.

if there is a heartbeat, is it alive? is it life?

A slug has a heartbeat. I am not arguing for or against abortion but a heartbeat does not denote "life" as in the sense of human life; unless you want to call yourself a cannibal. Life, that is human life, is much, much, much grander then a mere heartbeat.

A lump of unfeeling, unthinking, unaware of flesh is not life. If you want to advocate against abortion then, in my mind, the best argument would be potentiality for life and moral questions involved when snuffing that potentiality. When people start proclaiming the mundane as life itself they negate the soul.

Although, when potentiality is called in question we have to ask ourselves..

Is suicide ever the right action?

Is capital punishment ever the right action?


All in all though, I think you'll find most people are hypocrites when it comes to this issue. They would protect life that is not yet but murder that which is already.

[jeremyboycool]

That's one of the issues with the pro-choice/anti-choice (pro-life/anti-life, whatever terms you use) debate. It's almost impossible to come to a consensus on when an established life begins, because everyone has different markers. Some people (like Debbie) say it's at conception. Some people (like me) say it's when you can read an EEG monitor and see responses to external stimulus that's a product of a living creature rather than random firings of a clump of cells. Some people say it's not until birth.

"Some people say it's not until birth."

Then there are those like Bill Hicks that say, "Your not a human being until you're in my phone book."

[Debbie]

A lump of unfeeling, unthinking, unaware of flesh is not life.

A thought just came to my mind with the above statement. "Unaware flesh"...becomes a human being. How "unaware" do you think it really is. It is a different form, yet still life. Just a thought.