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

An Idaho Republican said a proposed ban on faith-healing could violate the religious rights of her constituents – many of whom eschew medical care for themselves and their families.

“They have a clear understanding of what the role of government should be – (and it) isn’t how to tell me how to live my life,” said state Rep. Christy Perry (R-Nampa).

Legislation limiting a faith exemption for medical care in the state’s child neglect law was proposed after a string of preventable child deaths in Marsing among members of the Followers of Christ Church.

State Rep. John Gannon (D-Boise) wants to narrow the loophole to permit prosecution of parents who rely on faith-healing “whenever a child’s medical condition may cause death or permanent disability.”…….

“Children do die,” Perry said. “I’m not trying to sound callous, but (reformers) want to act as if death is an anomaly. But it’s not — it’s a way of life.”…….

Perry said faith healers are caring parents who simply trust in God’s will.

“They are comforted by the fact that they know their child is in heaven,” Perry said. “If I want to let my child be with God, why is that wrong?”

The lawmaker questioned the motives of faith-healing reformers.

“Is it really because these children are dying more so than other children, or is this really about an attack on a religion you don’t agree with?” Perry said.

Chizzang wrote:I say:
Any government that legislates itself in the middle of this is wrong headed about it...
and has over stepped its bounds


BUT 100% of the Pro Abortion People on this board MUST by default be in the side of the Federal Govermnet FORCING these parents to SAVE THE LIVES of their children PERIOD

You can't be on both sides boys
Who's going to save the children..?

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I say:
Any government that legislates itself in the middle of this is wrong headed about it...
and has over stepped its bounds


BUT 100% of the Pro Abortion People on this board MUST by default be in the side of the Federal Govermnet FORCING these parents to SAVE THE LIVES of their children PERIOD

You can't be on both sides boys
Who's going to save the children..?

Really? Think again Cleetus.

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote: Really? Think again Cleetus.

Now you are a Child Killer Hen - the hypocrisy is delicious
Why is my argument about citizens rights so consistent and your so all over the map ???

Chizzang wrote:here comes the Christian Spin Machine... Stand by this will get windy

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Now you are a Child Killer Hen - the hypocrisy is delicious
Why is my argument about citizens rights so consistent and your so all over the map ???

I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Now you are a Child Killer Hen - the hypocrisy is delicious
Why is my argument about citizens rights so consistent and your so all over the map ???

I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

Purposefully terminating a life or negligently terminating a life. I'm failing to see a meaningful difference there.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

Purposefully terminating a life or negligently terminating a life. I'm failing to see a meaningful difference there.

ASUG8 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Purposefully terminating a life or negligently terminating a life. I'm failing to see a meaningful difference there.

Reluctantly, I agree with the gentleman from MT.

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Purposefully terminating a life or negligently terminating a life. I'm failing to see a meaningful difference there.

Neglegence is a VERY gray area GATW and it seems this propsed legislation would have a far reaching impact that goes well beyond caring for children whose life may be in danger. What if a parent decided to not put their child on antibiotics because they believe that too much exposure to antibiotics can create other problems later in life and that child becomes very sick but doesn't die? Can they be prosecuted for child neglect?

Chizzang wrote:I say:
Any government that legislates itself in the middle of this is wrong headed about it...
and has over stepped its bounds


BUT 100% of the Pro Abortion People on this board
MUST by default be on the side of the Federal Government FORCING these parents to SAVE THE LIVES of their children PERIOD

You can't be on both sides boys
Who's going to save the children..?

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

That case where:
The family watched their helpless child die - who simply needed a shot and a saline iv drip

God manipulates all outcomes that happen on earth
So the child died
even though anybody with "the free will" to save him could have



Yikes, too many loop holes

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: Neglegence is a VERY gray area GATW and it seems this propsed legislation would have a far reaching impact that goes well beyond caring for children whose life may be in danger. What if a parent decided to not put their child on antibiotics because they believe that too much exposure to antibiotics can create other problems later in life and that child becomes very sick but doesn't die? Can they be prosecuted for child neglect?

Oh, so you're okay with gray areas on this issue but not on abortion?

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I say:
Any government that legislates itself in the middle of this is wrong headed about it...
and has over stepped its bounds


BUT 100% of the Pro Abortion People on this board
MUST by default be on the side of the Federal Government FORCING these parents to SAVE THE LIVES of their children PERIOD

You can't be on both sides boys
Who's going to save the children..?

Wouldn't the anti-abortion people (those who oppose killing fetuses) be on the side of the government forcing parents to save the lives of the kids?

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Oh, so you're okay with gray areas on this issue but not on abortion?

What grey area exactly? I believe abortion is taking a life, purposefully. IMO the rights belong to the one being terminated, not the one carrying the life.

89Hen wrote:

Cluck U wrote:


Wouldn't the anti-abortion people (those who oppose killing fetuses) be on the side of the government forcing parents to save the lives of the kids?

I thought that's what Cleets was saying.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: What grey area exactly? I believe abortion is taking a life, purposefully. IMO the rights belong to the one being terminated, not the one carrying the life.

But living, breathing children don't have the same right to life, and should be be at the mercy of their parents' superstitions?

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Now you are a Child Killer Hen - the hypocrisy is delicious
Why is my argument about citizens rights so consistent and your so all over the map ???

I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: What grey area exactly? I believe abortion is taking a life, purposefully. IMO the rights belong to the one being terminated, not the one carrying the life.

But living, breathing children don't have the same right to life, and should be be at the mercy of their parents' superstitions?

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Purposefully terminating a life or negligently terminating a life. I'm failing to see a meaningful difference there.

Neglegence is a VERY gray area GATW and it seems this propsed legislation would have a far reaching impact that goes well beyond caring for children whose life may be in danger. What if a parent decided to not put their child on antibiotics because they believe that too much exposure to antibiotics can create other problems later in life and that child becomes very sick but doesn't die? Can they be prosecuted for child neglect?

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'm not even entering a position on faith healing, but you honestly can't see how you could be pro-life and pro-faith healing without being inconsistent? What exactly is the inconsistency in your mind? Purposefully terminating a life is a FAR cry from faith healing Cleets.

I would say "faith-healing" is negligence. If faith-healing worked, it'd be more popular. Less people would die. And for someone to say it's God's plan, is full of shit. The loving, merciful God that is preached just also happens to be a callous monster that gives a child cancer and kills it? It isn't God's plan to kill people. That's a piss poor excuse to make light of a situation.