If this is how they want to live, then more power to them. One fewer religious fundamentalist loon, as far as I can tell.
I can't grasp how a parent can stand themselves after letting a child die like that... being able to save your child but refusing to do so for any reason is utterly incomprehensible to me.
I lost a child, I held him in my arms to comfort him as he slowly died in the hospital. There was nothing anyone could do for him, but if there was I would have done anything to have saved him... To then read about parents who let their children die when they could have been saved or hear about parents who kill their own children just infuriates and saddens me beyond anything I can express.
Now, I'm not necessarily trying to take it out on the messenger, but it does worry me sometimes that maybe sometimes these stories are being posted with, um, too much lightheartedness because of the point that is trying to be made against us 'breeders'?
i would have preferred some symmetry in the death count. 5 years, 5000 dead. catchier headlines are harder to ignore.
Posted by max solomon | March 24, 2008 9:41 AM
This is first-degree, premeditated murder, just as much as if they had held a gun to that kid's head and pulled the trigger, and should be punished accordingly.
tom, i would agree if we were talking about an adult here, but this was a baby. the parents were supposed to watch out for the kid, that was their responsibility, morally and legally. if you can't put your child's welfare above your own personal opinion on things then you shouldn't have kids. and yes they should be prosecuted.
Let us be clear: Denying a child any medical services because the parent(s) have religious objections to medicine is CHILD ABUSE. Any parent who has a problem with providing medical care to their children SHOULD HAVE THEIR CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM.
It is one thing for an adult to decline medical care - even if it would save his life. That is his/her right. They can choose to die if they want. But to project those beliefs on one's children is abhorrent. Any parent who denies care to their child, and then as a result the child dies, should be charged with FIRST DEGREE MURDER and their church should be held responsibile as an accessory to the crime.
People can scream "religious freedom" all they want, but when it comes to the rights of children who happen to have stupid parents, one should put the child's interests first and the parents' second. The child's right to healthcare outranks the parents' religious beliefs.
I don't get the theology behind refusing modern medical services. Do these people also live without electricity, eating food they grew themselves with the help of oxen, and wearing clothing they wove themselves out of their own fibers? If they're refusing modern medicine because it isn't mentioned in the Bible, someone's going to have to show me where flush toilets and electric lighting are in the Gospels. No, they're cherry-picking the Bible and assuming that only the progress they approve of is Biblical.
It's the same problem I have with the Amish and the Mennonites; the point at which they reject further societal or technological advances is so arbitrary.
Interestingly enough, from my own dealings with people who have worked as drivers for Amish families, I believe the Amish and the Mennonites have no issues with allowing themselves to be treated in modern medical facilities; they just aren't allowed to practice modern medicine themselves. It's much the same premise as their practice of hiring 'an English' to drive them around in a van so long as they don't operate a mechanical vehicle themselves. (they pay well and offer full medical insurance as a matter of fact).
This is an odd contradiction to such evangelical sects as this one that refuse modern medical treatments but allow themselves the use of electricity and other modern conveniences.
I should mention that I don't offer this as a defense of any religious belief or practice, especially not one that would have a family watch as their child slowly died from a treatable illness. But thought it was an interesting and sad contradiction.
@2 Packratt "point that is trying to be made against us 'breeders'"
No, no, no. This is not a point being made against breeders.
When people talk about marriage being between one man and one woman, implicit (sometimes explicit) in their argument is that this is the most important criterion. Merely the having of a mother and father will lead to a happy, healthy family where children can grow and prosper. Implicit in that argument is that the worst straight couple based family is better than the best homosexual couple family.
The reality that these posts of Dan's show is that parents, even the straight ones, being human, can be as despicable and murderous as any other humans are potentially capable of being. Having a mother and a father does not automatically lead to happiness and success.
The magic ticket for happy children is not just "a mother and a father", but rather a loving, stable, supportive, and supported family. The exclusionary definition of family by those who are anti-gay-marriage is founded in venomous thoughtlessness which Dan's posts serve to expose, and to a lesser extent, explode.
"The reality that these posts of Dan's show is that parents, even the straight ones, being human, can be as despicable and murderous as any other humans are potentially capable of being."
Unfortunately, using other people's flaws to make a case for one's own opinions isn't a very effective argument. If he truly believes his opinion is valid, these isolated cases of gross parent ineptitude shouldn't matter (yes, there are quite a few but still rare). This is the type of behavior that comes only with insecurity. I could just as easily come up with plenty of stories of crazy uncle Ed who liked to fondle the young boys on his lap as a rant against homos. I doubt anybody would listen though.
While I agree with the ends, I'm finding myself in disagreement with the means. It seems sort of exploitative to revel in a tragedy, especially ones that involve the suffering and deaths of children.
I suppose what the realistic argument, in contrast to my emotional one would be, is that I wonder who Dan's intended target audience is when he posts these (seemingly) celebrations of tragedy on this blog and if he thinks his line of attack will change that audience's opinion? Especially if that audience, being the ones who read this blog, need their opinion changed?
Dan's posts don't actually prove anything. Since there is no attempt made to compare how frequently gay parents versus straight parents abuse their kids, you're left with nothing but a lot of examples of "if it bleeds it leads" journalism.
These kind of dumbed down propaganda tactics are supposedly justified because anti-gay rhetoric is even dumber. But what would happen if you addressed the public as if they were intelligent?
These "every child deserves..." posts are not really assertive of a point. They are targeted straight at the argument that all that's needed for a child is a mother and a father. That argument is used as a tool (the main one even) to prevent marriage and adoption rights for gays. These posts destroy that argument.
The posts do not make the case for gay marriage and adoption rights. They do not manage that in the slightest, and don't even attempt to. These posts attempt to clear an obstacle in the way of having the real discussion of whether homosexual parents can stand as equals with heterosexual parents.
They are not an attack on heterosexuals, and are not making the case for gay marriage. They remove the refuge that many people resort to (pretty quickly, usually) that the only path to happiness is having a mother and father in a child's ongoing upbringing. So what's the next step in the anti-gay argument? Probably something to the effect of "well, a mother, a father who love each other, love the child, have the wherewithal, and community and government support will do it". The response should be something like "is the specific mother and a father part truly a requirement in that list, and by what exact means that aren't there for an otherwise equal family that has two men or two women as the parents? Or can we agree that you're not used to the idea, are just uncomfortable with it, but not for any good reason?"
I would agree that Slog is not necessarily the best venue for this as it's substantially preaching to the choir. It is interesting, though I don't know how useful, to note that the top links returned from yahoo and google searches on the phrase "every child deserves a mother and a father" aren't some christian church sites crying for amendments to the US constitution. Try it.
evolution in action.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).