Faith Healing

[kalm]

Are the parents protected by the first amendment here? Is this the government's business?

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]

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..?

[89Hen]

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]

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.

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 ???

[kalm]

"I think my zygote belongs with God"

[Chizzang]

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

[89Hen]

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 ???

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]

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

And here comes somebody trying to turn a logic debate into a religious one. I've never once inserted religion into anything I've debated here Cleets. I wish you would do the same.

[Grizalltheway]

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.

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

[Chizzang]

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.

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

[ASUG8]

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.

Reluctantly, I agree with the gentleman from MT.

[89Hen]

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.

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]

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.

I do too... ^
But I still think the Federal Government (and frankly the State and Local buys too) need to stay out of Family decisions in matters such as these

Faith Based or not

As soon as somebody says the word GOD the government flinches
But the situation is the same - same - same
We're actively inserting the government into peoples lives and right far beyond its scope

[Grizalltheway]

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?

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

[YoUDeeMan]

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]

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

Agreed, too many loop holes. What about the the child who needed a lot more than a shot and saline iv drip?

However, your tying this to the abortion question and saying there is no other way to think is to what I take umbrage.

[89Hen]

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?

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]

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?

I thought that's what Cleets was saying.

[Grizalltheway]

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.

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

[YoUDeeMan]

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.

To be accurate, I never really know what Cleets is saying...but neither does he. Poetic license, I suppose.

But this time he was posting that 100% of the Pro-abortion people must be on the side of the Feds forcing the parents to save the lives of the child.

That doesn't make sense. Pro abortion people allow the killing of fetuses, so why would they not allow the killing of sick children? Anti-abortion people want the Feds to intervene to save fetuses...so theoretically they'd also want the Feds to intervene and save the sick children. I don't necessarily believe that link to be true, but I think that is what he was trying to say.

Either way, Cleets is wrong again, or he is simply wrong, again.

[Chizzang]

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?

This ^ has been the crux of this age old debate between the two sides
The very same Government that the Pro-Life side demands intervene is now asked to step aside

[Ibanez]

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.

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.

[dbackjon]

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?

Yes, and beatings. Don't forget, the Bible gives parents permission to kill their children:

If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/stone-rebel ... z3SmG6eA5C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

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?

That isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about inaction because of faith. I agree that too much exposure to antibiotics is a bad thing. But if necessary, i'll give my kid antibiotics (and i'll take them). If a parent is refusing antibiotics b/c he or she believes Jesus will intercede and save them, well that's different.

[89Hen]

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.

So faith healing is only an issue for you if a child dies?