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.
Then BASED ON YOUR POSITION is it also ok to deny them food?
Only if they are obese and that obesity will effect their health at which point you should get them medical care.
“Anonymously Yours 1, February 4, 2010 at 5:58 pm
30%er,
You know what the current state of the law is. I would not. You are free to do as you wish. Period. Feed your children. Take them to the hospital.
Make sure that your dishes are done right after each and every meal. I have seen children taken away from familys for having dirty houses. Yes.
It is also a law that is on the books if you are caught growing marijuana they can terminate your rights to your children and adopt them out. That is true to this day. Yes, for possession of weed.”
So here we see that AY cannot answer the question.
Instead he rambles on with random babble, having nothing to do with the simple question posed to him.
Thus its clear that AY is fully aware that his position is WRONG.
Because if it were not, it wouldn’t crumble and wither in the face of a single, solitary question.
“So based on that, is it ok to deny my kids food too?”
The answer is NO. One cannot live without food. Of this, there is no debate.
Medicine is not an exact science. We choose treatment because the benefit outweighs the risk.
To think that depriving a child of food could be considered a choice is assinine.
Remember AY.
“I would not” is not an answer.
You made a strong case.
You say the Constitution gives me the right to deny my kids medical treatment.
Point established. Point understood.
Now, based on THAT POINT, does it also give me the right to deny them food?
Yes or no?
30%er,
You know what the current state of the law is. I would not. You are free to do as you wish. Period. Feed your children. Take them to the hospital.
Make sure that your dishes are done right after each and every meal. I have seen children taken away from familys for having dirty houses. Yes.
It is also a law that is on the books if you are caught growing marijuana they can terminate your rights to your children and adopt them out. That is true to this day. Yes, for possession of weed.
My position is clear.
So is yours AY.
You say the Constitution gives me the right to deny my kids medical treatment for religious reasons.
Fine.
Then BASED ON YOUR POSITION is it also ok to deny them food?
YES?
OR NO?
“neither outcome (death and/or religious practice limitations) are on their face desirable outcomes.”
– Pardon. My cold has escalated and the meds are a mixed bag at this point.
This is great, Go 30%er go.
I thought I was the only bigot troll. Now we find out that Mespo is one too. Welcome to the club Mespo, glad to have you in our focus group.
“As a mater of judicial practicality, there is only one answer and it is mespo’s answer. Protect the child.” Budda
Why is it Mespos answer?
I thought I was the one who has been arguing that point for the past day.
The question mister super Attorney scholarly dude, ….is this.
Based on your position that the Constitution permits me to deny my kids medical treatment, does it also permit me to deny them food too?
“I would not” is not an answer to this question.
“do so at your own peril” is not an answer to this question.
The answer to this question is either yes, or no.
The matter is one of simple treage.
There are two competing sets of Constitutional rights here: free exercise and the right to live.
These rights apply to adults and children.
So the scenario is thus: one Constitutional right has to “lose” in this scenario. Either the child’s right to live is prime or the right to free exercise is prime.
As a mater of judicial practicality, there is only one answer and it is mespo’s answer. Protect the child.
The reasoning is simply this: The offense of the parent or the child at limiting their free practice is a harm that can be survived. Upholding any religious practice that causes another harm, especially in the context of children who may or may not (the presumption is not) be able to give valid consent to either the procedure/treatment or the religious practice in question would be a more grievous social harm as it leads to death – a harm that by definition is not survivable – of a possibly/presumably non-consensual party.
When weighing this kind of question, the only point to the treage is minimization of damage as neither outcome (death and/or religious practice limitations. Limiting free exercise to save a life is self-evident ethical calculus. Otherwise? Headlines would soon read “Resurgent Aztec Cult Sacrifices Mayor of San Antonio”. No religious practice should extend to allowing, through either action or inaction, the death of another under legal sanction or color of authority.
Ok.
So now you know, after being told 1000 times, that no one is asking anything at all about what you’d do. So we’re clear on that, right?
Once more mister attorney, and listen good.
“I WOULD NOT” is not an answer.
No one asked you a question about what you would do.
Got it?
Brain capable of containing that much?
Clearly you are no attorney.
Clearly you’re a troll pretending to be one, fooling these people and selling your neoconservative religious doctrine that is so untenable as to crumble in the presence of a single, solitary question.
You’ve dodged the question for a day now.
Everyone can see you answering like a child to a question that has nothing to do with the question posed to you.
I ask you what 2 plus 2 is and you respond with “the War of 1812”.
Your refusal to address the question simply shows that you know your position is garbage, but you’re too ignorant or too proud to own up to it.
30%er,
You can if you are willing to pay the consequences.
30%er
I would not. But who knows you may. And if you are willing to pay the consequences then do so at your own risk.
Stop answering questions that were never posed to you, and answer the question.
I’ve answered yours now answer mine.
I didn’t ask what the SCOTUS would do.
I didn’t ask what you would do.
I didn’t ask what I should do.
😐
I asked you whether your position that says I can deny my kids medical care based on religion, also says I can deny them food?
YES?
OR NO?
Knowing the current state of the law in that area the answer is as follows:
I would not. But who knows you may. And if you are willing to pay the consequences then do so at your own risk.
“I would not. But who knows you may. And if you are willing to pay the consequences then do so at your own risk.” – Anonymously Yours
Once again Doctor Diversion, I didn’t ask you what “you’d do”.
I didn’t ask you what you’d do.
I asked you whether based on your position that the Constitution permits me to deny my kids medical treatment, does it also permit me to deny them food too?
That is a YES or NO question.
“The answer is obvious about the medical. Your inaneness of the second makes it hard for you to see the answer to the first.” -Anonymously Yours
Once again Doctor Diversion.
Don’t tell me the answer is obvious.
Don’t whine about how inane I am.
We all know you’re a big smart lawyer with a big fat brain and I’m just a little know nothing.
We got it.
Now answer the question.
You claim the Constitution gives me the right to deny my kids medical treatment based on religion.
Fine.
So based on that, is it ok to deny my kids food too?
Yes or no?