A church in Oregon has the infamous reputation of killing children in the name of faith. Now, two parents — Jeff and Marci Beagley — have been found guilty of negligent homicide. Their case was discussed in this prior column. It is a welcomed charge (often religious parents are given lesser charges in the death of their children due to faith-healing), but the likely sentence is likely to be relatively low given the history of this church and the loss of life.
They will face only 16-18 months in the death of their sixteen-year-old Neil who died from a urinary tract blockage that could have been easily addressed by doctors. I have argued that faith-healing parents are being given special and lenient treatment over other neglectful parents, here.
The Followers of Christ church rejects conventional medicine in favor of faith-healing.
Mespo Waynebro was before my time but I’ll second it anyway.
Is it proper for a party that has a chicken in the fryer to second. If so, I do. If not, I am sure one will be by sometime today.
On a side note, man that was exhausting. It was like dealing with a Judge with an attitude. Even when you have conceded the point, the point still has to be proven.
Thank you.
AY:
I nominate 30%’er for our “Waynebro: Most Consecutive Comment/Least Consecutive Thought” award. Do I hear a second?
Nice suggestion, 30.
Take it yourself.
30%er,
You are something else. I go to bed and you are still focused on this. Try house work. Not your neighbors but your own. You’ll have the cleanest house in town.
Now, so that AY is not distracted by your attempts to distract, I’ll bring the discussion back on point. Once again I’m sure more well meaning trolls like Jake will magically pop up to try to divert me with their personal attacks on my character, and no doubt I’ll respond, then drive the point right back on topic.
AY.
You made the claim that the Constitution permits people to deny their children medical treatment if they are doing it for religious reasons.
You based this claim on the fact that the Constitution doesn’t say I have to give my kids medical treatment.
I challenged that by asking you whether based on your reasoning I could also withhold food.
You skirted around that issue for a day, finally capitulating to the correct answer.
No.
It does not.
You admitted the Constitutional protections of religious worship do not permit someone to withhold food from their children.
And you were right.
So now we’re left with two conflicting statements from you.
On the one hand you rightfully admit that constitutional religious protections do not permit us to deny our kids food.
But on the other hand you claim that constitutional religious protections DO permit us to deny our kids medical treatment.
So you are left with two conflicting opinions on the same principle.
Both food and medical treatment, particularly emergency medical treatment like treating a blocked urinary tract, are essential for survival.
Both are required to live.
You can no more live without a functioning urinary tract (or an artificial one) than you can live without food.
Period.
So on what grounds do you claim that I can deny my kids medical treatment while at the same time admitting I cannot deny them food?
Your positions are in direct opposition to each other. So rather than return with more sock puppets tomorrow, and more personal attacks or laments regarding my mental stability, how about just for once you explain yourself?
You demanded I do so, and I did.
Repeatedly. Because you repeatedly demanded I do so.
So its your turn.
Your positions are in conflict to each other.
You said “no”, that I cannot withhold food from my kids.
So please explain why I can withhold basic medical care.
On what possible grounds do you make such a baseless claim?
Jake 1, February 5, 2010 at 2:37 am
OMG, 30, you need to stop being an ass. No one is impressed by your obsessive compulsion to play king of the damn political hill and to drop your one line “zingers.”
And as for the one line zingers “jake”, you’re obviously as stupid as the rest.
You clearly cannot read. Because it’s not my name next to the laundry list above of one line “zingers”.
That would be you morons.
I’ve been steadily focused on staying on topic throughout the debate, regardless of how many brain dead bobble heads crawl in to try to drag me off into defending against their juvenile insults.
My debate is with AY. He claims its a constitutionally protected right to deny my kids basic medical care, but not food.
I’m waiting for an explanation on these two conflicting statements.
If your comments aren’t on that, then take your personal attacks and bite me.
You’re just another insult troll trying to muddy the facts.
You mean like the enmity and vitriol you’re sharing by coming into someone elses debate and pretending to be impartial while launching your own tirade of personal attacks?
Do you mean like that?
Because you’ve done it a few times now.
If you have something to say regarding my position I’m listening.
If however all you have is more personal attacks and nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic then crawl back into your troll hole.
OMG, 30, you need to stop being an ass. No one is impressed by your obsessive compulsion to play king of the damn political hill and to drop your one line “zingers.”
At this point, I might completely agree with you but would want to torch your ass myself because your bedside manner is appalling. Here are a couple of articles you may want to bone up on:
http://faultline.org/index.php/site/item/incendiary/
http://basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2010/1/17/how-to-tell-someone-that-they-are-wrong.html
A blog should promote discussion and the sharing of knowledge, not enmity and vitriol.
Jake
And now that the Ringling brothers have quieted down for the night, I’ll bring the discussion back on point. No doubt tomorrow you’ll attempt to once more shift it back to a barrage of personal attacks and diversions, but at least I made the effort.
You made the claim that the Constitution permits people to deny their children medical treatment if they are doing it for religious reasons.
You based this claim on the fact that the Constitution doesn’t say I have to give my kids medical treatment.
I challenged that by asking you whether based on your reasoning I could also withhold food.
You skirted around that issue for a day, finally capitulating to the correct answer.
No.
It does not.
You admitted the Constitutional protections of religious worship do not permit someone to withhold food from their children.
And you were right.
So now we’re left with two conflicting statements from you.
On the one hand you rightfully admit that constitutional religious protections do not permit us to deny our kids food.
But on the other hand you claim that constitutional religious protections DO permit us to deny our kids medical treatment.
So you are left with two conflicting opinions on the same principle.
Both food and medical treatment, particularly emergency medical treatment like treating a blocked urinary tract, are essential for survival.
Both are required to live.
You can no more live without a functioning urinary tract (or an artificial one) than you can live without food.
Period.
So on what grounds do you claim that I can deny my kids medical treatment while at the same time admitting I cannot deny them food?
Your positions are in direct opposition to each other. So rather than return with more sock puppets tomorrow, and more personal attacks or laments regarding my mental stability, how about just for once you explain yourself?
You demanded I do so, and I did.
Repeatedly. Because you repeatedly demanded I do so.
So its your turn.
Your positions are in conflict to each other.
You said “no”, that I cannot withhold food from my kids.
So please explain why I can withhold basic medical care.
On what possible grounds do you make such a baseless claim?
No one said it was imminent. It was clearly your pathetic attempt to derail my focus on the issue and you went over the top.
The intent was designed to alarm, and rest assured I, as any normal person do sit up and take note when someone threatens to “take me out”.
Unless that someone is a large breasted Norwegian woman with a box of chocolates and a purse full of condemns, then the meaning of that phrase is apparent to anyone not living under a rock for the past 150 years. Its a common expression meaning to kill someones.
And it was designed to cause distress. Of course that distress is designed to derail my focus of the topic, as I indicated, rather than actually murder me. Of course on the internet, who knows?
Which is why we don’t make death threats whether thinly veiled, whether serious or not. The very act of making one is a serious matter.
Hommie 1, February 4, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Hey Thirty you are dirty and I am going to take you out you filthy lying sack of septic stuff.
************************************************
Anonymously Yours 1, February 4, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Bdaman,
I don’t see where the death threat is, or what is immanent about one if one could be considered to have been made.
“Hey Thirty you are dirty- sounds like you need a bath.
“and I am going to take you out” Always good to clean up, nothing immanent here either1
“you filthy lying sack of septic stuff.” well what do you find in the septic tank?
I don’t see where anyone’s life has been threatened. Do you?
*****************************
What did you remove on your end of it bdaman? I am sure you did something.
So why did you threaten me 30%er, I am scared.
I am back, I moved to the Bedroom. So Bdaman, you know that all of them are you at one time or another.
There was a threat on another thread. I think you were there to. That time it was directed at me. Humm.
Well no matter. I forwarded the threat on to Doctor Turley’s email. I don’t think death threats are funny and any normal person would take one seriously.
AY makes jokes and defends it which to me implies complicity.
So whether he’s involved or not, he’s complicit with his support.
“Anonymously Yours 1, February 4, 2010 at 9:29 pm
““you filthy lying sack of septic stuff.” well what do you find in the septic tank?
I don’t see where anyone’s life has been threatened. Do you?”
Notice how AY not only defends the threat, but in quoting it he REMOVES the threatening portion then pretends that it isn’t there.
Once more AY you are proved to be a liar with an agenda.
AY you know, I know your in trouble, wait til the professor finds out that all these nom de plumes are you.
speaking of cards watch this, this is the best
Please Bdaman, wayne, troll non de plume,
Tell him the truth. You have scared him.
Anonymously Yours 1, February 4, 2010 at 9:29 pm
““you filthy lying sack of septic stuff.” well what do you find in the septic tank?
I don’t see where anyone’s life has been threatened. Do you?”
That’s it squirm. Suddenly you’re trying to defend an obvious death threat.
But I’ll tell you what.
I’ll email Doctor Turely this threat right now, and we’ll see what he thinks it is.
How’s that?