Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-child-pa-coup ... 13837.html

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

Well, Darwin would tell you his theory worked to perfection in this case.

AZGrizFan wrote:Well, Darwin would tell you his theory worked to perfection in this case.

I don't think it did, The kids died not the dumbass parents.

polsongrizz wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Well, Darwin would tell you his theory worked to perfection in this case.

I don't think it did, The kids died not the dumbass parents.

But they aren't successfully reproducing, which would lead to their distinct stupidity trait being eliminated from the greater gene pool.

polsongrizz wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-child-pa-coup ... 13837.html

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

As long as they execute the abortion doctor 1st.

AZGrizFan wrote:

polsongrizz wrote: I don't think it did, The kids died not the dumbass parents.

But they aren't successfully reproducing, which would lead to their distinct stupidity trait being eliminated from the greater gene pool.

They have had 7 kids, the other 5 are alive.

polsongrizz wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-child-pa-coup ... 13837.html

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

Obviously prayers weren't received.

Probably b/c the parents are pretentious douchebags.

BlueHen86 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
But they aren't successfully reproducing, which would lead to their distinct stupidity trait being eliminated from the greater gene pool.

They have had 7 kids, the other 5 are alive.

Yeah, but for how long?

CitadelGrad wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
They have had 7 kids, the other 5 are alive.

Yeah, but for how long?

Catholics

polsongrizz wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-child-pa-coup ... 13837.html

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

What is the stance of The Church of PolsonGriz on this hotbutton issue?

I disagree completely. I think that the principle that parents, rather than the State, are vested with ultimate authority over decisions pertaining to the socialization and well being of children should be unambiguously established. And I think it should be maintained even though it will result in tragedies such as those reported in the article.

In fact the need for establishing that principle actually makes me think about my opposition to abortion on demand. It might be necessary to accept abortion on demand in order to maintain that principle that the State is to butt out when it comes to decisions parents make about their children.

At this point, I would say that these parents' clearly had the intent of doing what was best for their children. Whether it really was or not is not the question. If we accept the idea that the State can hold them accountable for their actions we accept the idea that the State has ultimate authority over decisions pertaining to the well being of children. And that's worse than having the occurrence of tragic instances such as this one.

JohnStOnge wrote:I disagree completely. I think that the principle that parents, rather than the State, are vested with ultimate authority over decisions pertaining to the socialization and well being of children should be unambiguously established. And I think it should be maintained even though it will result in tragedies such as those reported in the article.

In fact the need for establishing that principle actually makes me think about my opposition to abortion on demand. It might be necessary to accept abortion on demand in order to maintain that principle that the State is to butt out when it comes to decisions parents make about their children.

At this point, I would say that these parents' clearly had the intent of doing what was best for their children. Whether it really was or not is not the question. If we accept the idea that the State can hold them accountable for their actions we accept the idea that the State has ultimate authority over decisions pertaining to the well being of children. And that's worse than having the occurrence of tragic instances such as this one.

So, the state can force you to have the child, but can't force you to take care of it once it's born?

And of course, if the parents decide that prayer is better than food, well that's okay too, the state will just have to butt out.

grizzaholic wrote:

polsongrizz wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-child-pa-coup ... 13837.html

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

What is the stance of The Church of PolsonGriz on this hotbutton issue?

It is "The New Church of PolsonGriz". Did you not read my first post? I thought it was pretty clear and succinct. But just in case I say again "Kill Them".

JohnStOnge wrote:I disagree completely. I think that the principle that parents, rather than the State, are vested with ultimate authority over decisions pertaining to the socialization and well being of children should be unambiguously established. And I think it should be maintained even though it will result in tragedies such as those reported in the article.

In fact the need for establishing that principle actually makes me think about my opposition to abortion on demand. It might be necessary to accept abortion on demand in order to maintain that principle that the State is to butt out when it comes to decisions parents make about their children.

At this point, I would say that these parents' clearly had the intent of doing what was best for their children. Whether it really was or not is not the question. If we accept the idea that the State can hold them accountable for their actions we accept the idea that the State has ultimate authority over decisions pertaining to the well being of children. And that's worse than having the occurrence of tragic instances such as this one.

You are such an idiot.

So...if a parent feels it's best for their kids to drink a gallon of booze a day then be injected with aids that's okay?I mean, add long as they meant well that's all that matter right? Not the actual well being of the child

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

clenz wrote:So...if a parent feels it's best for their kids to drink a gallon of booze a day then be injected with aids that's okay?I mean, add long as they meant well that's all that matter right? Not the actual well being of the child

While an example of hyperbole like this is pretty clear, they is a lot of grey area here Clenz. What about a parent that home schools their kid and doesn't even let them interact with any peers? That's probably not healthy for the development of a child. Or a parent that simply ignores their kid and lets them do whatever they want?

We probably all agree that the woman who took her small child to the tanning booth is probably a bad parent or at the very least made a bad decision, but what about all the pasty white families I see on the beach in the summer that don't put sunscreen on their kids and they turn to lobsters. Surely there's not a person in this country that doesn't know about sun damage and skin cancer, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks who have the attitude of "well I didn't wear no sunscreen growing up and I'm just fine."

89Hen wrote:

Nice photo of a family that votes for Democrats.

89Hen wrote:

clenz wrote:So...if a parent feels it's best for their kids to drink a gallon of booze a day then be injected with aids that's okay?I mean, add long as they meant well that's all that matter right? Not the actual well being of the child

While an example of hyperbole like this is pretty clear, they is a lot of grey area here Clenz. What about a parent that home schools their kid and doesn't even let them interact with any peers? That's probably not healthy for the development of a child. Or a parent that simply ignores their kid and lets them do whatever they want?

We probably all agree that the woman who took her small child to the tanning booth is probably a bad parent or at the very least made a bad decision, but what about all the pasty white families I see on the beach in the summer that don't put sunscreen on their kids and they turn to lobsters. Surely there's not a person in this country that doesn't know about sun damage and skin cancer, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks who have the attitude of "well I didn't wear no sunscreen growing up and I'm just fine."

Or the well-meaning, but ultimately clueless parents who force religion on a child. Nothing hinders their long term intellectual, social and emotional development than forcing them to believe lies and falsehoods, under the threat of severe punishment. Forcing them to believe that priest and other church authority figures are "holy men" and they should love, honor and fear them, or they will go to hell. The current massive, worldwide child rape scandal perpetrated by the catholic church is a perfect example of how dangerous this form of child abuse is. Kids were taught to do anything for a priest and Jesus.

Forcing children to eat the flesh and drink the blood of a bloody zombie god as well as participate other cult rituals is child abuse. Separating them into cult schools is child abuse.

All under the threat of eternal hell. This is child abuse.





Look at that pervert.







Most would agree this is a form of child abuse.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I disagree completely. I think that the principle that parents, rather than the State, are vested with ultimate authority over decisions pertaining to the socialization and well being of children should be unambiguously established. And I think it should be maintained even though it will result in tragedies such as those reported in the article.

In fact the need for establishing that principle actually makes me think about my opposition to abortion on demand. It might be necessary to accept abortion on demand in order to maintain that principle that the State is to butt out when it comes to decisions parents make about their children.

At this point, I would say that these parents' clearly had the intent of doing what was best for their children. Whether it really was or not is not the question. If we accept the idea that the State can hold them accountable for their actions we accept the idea that the State has ultimate authority over decisions pertaining to the well being of children. And that's worse than having the occurrence of tragic instances such as this one.

So, the state can force you to have the child, but can't force you to take care of it once it's born?

BOOM!

So, the state can force you to have the child, but can't force you to take care of it once it's born?

I would not say the issue is whether the state can force you to have a child or not. I'd say it's whether the state can prohibit you from killing your own progeny or not. And I'm not talking about not taking the best action to save them when they are ill or injured because you don't believe it's the best action such as was the case here. I'm talking about taking positive, intentional action to kill them.

As I said in the Abortion Doctor thread, abortion involves killing a living member of our species. There is no suggestion that anyone would ever be forced by government to "have a child" in the sense of being forced to become pregnant.

And let's be real: In the overwhelming majority of cases abortion occurs because a woman spreads here legs for her own purposes, becomes pregnant as a result, then wants to escape responsibility for the predictable potential outcome of what she did.

However, the argument you're making is why I wrote what I did about my position on abortion. I do have to consider whether or not it would be, on balance, better to take the position that government should stay out of the situation even in situations where parents engage in direct, fatal attacks upon their own progeny (such as is the case in abortion) so that a clear line can be drawn.

clenz wrote:So...if a parent feels it's best for their kids to drink a gallon of booze a day then be injected with aids that's okay?I mean, add long as they meant well that's all that matter right? Not the actual well being of the child.

Think of it this way:

If we say parents are the ultimate authority with respect to the well being of their children and some parents make the wrong decision, their children are affected.

But if we say government is the ultimate authority with respect to the well being of all children and government makes the wrong decision, all children are affected.

But the bigger point is that if you want a free society to persist you do not want to accept the principle that government is the ultimate authority with respect to the well being of children. All you have to do is look at posts by D1B ("D" for short) and you can see that interpretations with respect to what might constitute parental action contrary to the well being of children can get pretty interesting.

It is important, I think, to reject the idea that government is the ultimate authority in this area. And if that means accepting individual instances in which the best interests of certain children is not served; so be it.

JohnStOnge wrote:

clenz wrote:So...if a parent feels it's best for their kids to drink a gallon of booze a day then be injected with aids that's okay?I mean, add long as they meant well that's all that matter right? Not the actual well being of the child.

Think of it this way:

If we say parents are the ultimate authority with respect to the well being of their children and some parents make the wrong decision, their children are affected.

But if we say government is the ultimate authority with respect to the well being of all children and government makes the wrong decision, all children are affected.

But the bigger point is that if you want a free society to persist you do not want to accept the principle that government is the ultimate authority with respect to the well being of children. All you have to do is look at posts by D1B ("D" for short) and you can see that interpretations with respect to what might constitute parental action contrary to the well being of children can get pretty interesting.

It is important, I think, to reject the idea that government is the ultimate authority in this area. And if that means accepting individual instances in which the best interests of certain children is not served; so be it.

Who is government? What gives them the right to make any laws?

[/quote]Who is government? What gives them the right to make any laws?[/quote]

Ultimately the People decide what power the government has. Of course they'd have to be awfully unified and determined with respect to what the Judiciary does in order to have an effect. The Judiciary is pretty close to being a totalitarian aspect. But if the People were to be sufficiently offended they could do something about it.

What I'm saying is that the People ought not to allow their government ultimate authority over the well being of children because if they do, and they have, government is in better position to manipulate the People. Government is in better position to make sure that children are indoctrinated in certain ways, etc.

Me, I don't see how any person who seriously thinks about it wants government to be the final authority on children.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Who is government? What gives them the right to make any laws?[/quote]

Ultimately the People decide what power the government has. Of course they'd have to be awfully unified and determined with respect to what the Judiciary does in order to have an effect. The Judiciary is pretty close to being a totalitarian aspect. But if the People were to be sufficiently offended they could do something about it.

What I'm saying is that the People ought not to allow their government ultimate authority over the well being of children because if they do, and they have, government is in better position to manipulate the People. Government is in better position to make sure that children are indoctrinated in certain ways, etc.

Me, I don't see how any person who seriously thinks about it wants government to be the final authority on children.[/quote]

I don't think many people do, but if you are going to say no abortions and force people to carry the pregnancy to term, then you don't get to stop telling people what to do once the baby is born. You can't let the unwanted baby go home to parents who might decide that prayer is the best way to get the baby to stop crying. The baby has rights too, it's not a pet/property of the parents.