Slog Comments

 

Comments (64) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Cato the Younger Younger 1
Parents deserve the death penalty. Preferably a public beheading in the nearest public square.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on June 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM · Report this
2
Just a couple more christian losers, Boy they are adding up fast.
Posted by RICO on June 10, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
onion 6
but abortion should be illegal, even of a tiny embryo.
fucking hell this country doesn't make sense.
Posted by onion on June 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM · Report this
The_Shaved_Bear 9
Aren't these dufus trolls supposed to be in churchy right now? Go to mass already! Pray that Santa gives you good luck!
Posted by The_Shaved_Bear on June 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM · Report this
OuterCow 11
@1 Yup. Though I doubt capital punishment would have much if any deterrent effect on this type of act, cuz of the ol' Christians love being the victim thing. If we started executing parents for letting their children die for religious stupidity, the numbers might even go up.
Posted by OuterCow on June 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 13
@11 - I don't think it's stupidity, I think it's premeditated murder.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on June 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM · Report this
15
What a trolly thread.
Posted by CbytheSea on June 10, 2012 at 12:10 PM · Report this
MirrorMan 16
Man, a little trolly in here today. Do we need to spray again? Or maybe we can pray them away? It worked so well for that one kid....
Posted by MirrorMan on June 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM · Report this
17
What is the complaint here? They plead guilty and were given a lesser punishment. That happens for every sort of crime.
Posted by DRF on June 10, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Vince 19
It's one thing if you want to kill yourself with this stupidity. It's entirely different to kill your child with this stupidity. That's murder!
Posted by Vince on June 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 20
Epic troll bait!
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on June 10, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
furrygirl 21
Remember, Dan: this kind of crazy, child-abusing shit isn't limited to Christianity. We have a major problem here in the Northwest with new age hippies not vaccinating their children or providing them with evidence-based "Western" healthcare. Whichever loony personal beliefs motivate someone to refuse needed medical care to their children, it should be treated, and prosecuted, as child abuse.
Posted by furrygirl http://www.feminisnt.com on June 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM · Report this
22
@1 I'm against the death penalty, but in the event you got your wish and could dictate the method, any humane method would miss the point.

Appendicitis pain is absolute agony. I imagine peritonitis is even worse. That was a horrible death they condemned their child to. I have no idea how you'd revenge that.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on June 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM · Report this
23
Isn't losing your own child because of your own bad judgment punishment enough? Or think of it this way: Did they have malicious intentions? Were they negligent if they consistently pursued a solution to the kid's ailment, albeit through futile means? There is a difference between leaving your child to die and "leaving it to God" while asking for his mercy, right? Even in 2012?
Posted by floater on June 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM · Report this
LEE. 24
my favorite part was when the troll had a conversation with itself.
Posted by LEE. on June 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM · Report this
25
@23 You're right. These parents believed, however wrongly, that they were doing what was best for their kid. That's probably what was tripping the jury up. They should still be punished, but it's not like they killed him on purpose. So no, I don't think it's "punishment enough," but I don't think it's the same as if they'd beaten or starved the boy.
Posted by DRF on June 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM · Report this
TrevCat 26
You trolls want the "issues" answered and no snark, fine. First off, despite his title being snarky itself does not mean this article is over reacting. A child, he was under 18 remember parents still responsible, was allowed to die in a rather agonizing way while his parents stood by and prayed to their invisible friend.

Yes, I said invisible friend. You know why? That's probably exactly how it felt to the child. Imagine laying their with agonizing pain, knowing that help was but a phone call away, and watching your parents pray to this man thats suppose to take all this away while your own body literally poisoned you.

You can skip the shit about maybe the kid choose it. Again, under 18. Consersatives don't want people over 18 to be able to decide things about their own body but were suppose to be okay with an under 18 year old choosing to die in a horrid way simply "because Jesus"?

I think its easy to see where Dan's article might be a little angry to begin with. Then, let us couple that with the whole comparing this to abortion. The willing neglect of a fully grown person does not equate with abortion. One is letting a fully sentient being die in an agonizing way, the other is removing a non sentient clump of cells that may one day grown into a person.

Do you know how this DOES relate to abortion? It shows that once a fetus is out, conservatives could give two shits about it. Where is the moral indignation, the fiery demands to pass legislation demanding that if a child has so much as a sniffle they must be rushed to the hospital? No where? None to be found? Why can't you conservatrolls seem to muster two fucks to give about this?

That's right, this kid had been out of the vagina for years! Who cares! That's where the anger comes from, the fact that you aren't "pro-life" you're "pro-birth" merely as a way to punsih those sluts(to you all women) for daring to have sex!

Want to know where a little bit more anger comes from? Guys like Dan and his husband, lesbians, gays, and all non traditional families must prove over and over that they would storm the bastions of the League of Evil Things for the kids, merely to be able to adapt them. Even then they have to fight night and day against those that would rip their kids from their homes and put them back into Foster care because surely having two gays dads will lead to them being sociopaths.

We are lead to believe that conservative concern over kids in gay households is so great that every time a child is adopted into a gay household Maggie Gallagher has a hair turn gray. However, when something like this happens....nothing, save the sounds of crickets, is heard. Or, even worse, you some how attempt to say this is okay because abortions are okay. The shear amount of mental gymnastics required to eguate manslaughter with the removal of non sentient cells is amazing.

Perhaps, and do forgive me if I assume to much Dan, that is why Dan seems a bit angry? He's told over and over that his husband and him are shit parents simply for being gay. All gays that adopt are told their kids will come out fucked up from having two moms or two dads, but shit like this gets a pass?

For the "not all like that" group....where's your moral outrage? Where's your demands to get legislation passed forcing parents to take their kids to the hospital? You seemed to be fine demanding legislation preventing abortions or even birth control, yet on this....nothing. In other words all you "not all like thats", your silence is deafening.
More...
Posted by TrevCat on June 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM · Report this
LEE. 27
@23

yes it is, but think about it like this: we charge parents with 2nd degree murder all the time when a kid finds their gun and accidentally kills a sibling/friend. it's not exactly right, but at least it's consistent. personally I think we should be a little more attuned toward malicious intent rather than just reflexively screaming for more blood when these kinds of tragedies occur, but hey...it's not like anyone asked me.
Posted by LEE. on June 10, 2012 at 2:11 PM · Report this
28
It makes me wonder if the bacteria in his gut prayed to the same Lord they did, but just a little bit harder. Was that thevPromised Land?
Posted by bozbozeman on June 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM · Report this
mr. herriman 29
i wonder how the outcome might have been different if, say, it was a much younger child, or somebody else's child, or not a child at all - let's say you're an adult alone with another person (not your kid) whose appendix ruptures. i'd think you'd get in a lot of trouble if you just stood there and did nothing, right? i can't imagine "oh, but officer, i was praying for him - uh, no, i didn't call 911" would get you very far.
Posted by mr. herriman on June 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM · Report this
30
@25 The point of punishment in a case like this is to make a societal statement through the courts and news outlets. Stupid people need to be reminded what's stupid. Devout stupid people need to be told that their stupidity will be punished and their devoutness is irrelevant.

Stupid jury was too stupid to punish stupidity.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on June 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM · Report this
31
@1 Close... Fully agreed that the parents should face the death penalty, but I thunk it should be by drowning. In the nearest public toilet.
Posted by Eddie R on June 10, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
33
Third-degree manslaughter may be insufficient, but it's hardly "all good."
Posted by MarBeth on June 10, 2012 at 3:31 PM · Report this
36
I don't think parents' "right" to impose their personal religious beliefs on their children should trump a child's right to life and good health (or, indeed, its own freedom of conscience). But that's precisely what faith-healing exemptions do. Any interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause that allows that result implicitly treats children as their parents' chattel, as a subclass whose life, welfare, and rights are less worthy of consideration and protection than those of their parents.

And to all of the pro-lifers who'd like to hijack that argument, I also think it's better to kill a pre-sentient fetus than to torment a sentient child by bringing it into the world unsupported, unwanted, or unloved. Please, spend some time with abused and neglected children before weighing in.
Posted by PCM on June 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM · Report this
delirian 37
They still have a 4 year old girl. Apparently they have agreed to call Child Protective Services if this child gets sick. But since they were willing to sacrifice their 17 year old son to this religious stupidity, I'd be surprised if the child would be taken to the doctor unless she is in dire need of medical attention (meaning: jail if they didn't do it). I'd also be surprised if she is immunized properly.

People like this should not have children.
Posted by delirian on June 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM · Report this
38
@25 - that's precisely why they should have been convicted of manslaughter, which is when you don't intend to murder someone, but through recklessness kill them anyway. Punishment in society is not only about punishing irresponsible parents like this but serving as a warning to others. If you kill your child through 'faith healing', you go to jail and lose your other children. If it's enough to make even one parent or relative or neighbor rethink this the next time a child is ill, it's worth it.
@29 - actually, since adults have no responsibility for other adults, you could watch an adult die without helping with no consequences.
Posted by sf gal on June 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM · Report this
39
The question I have is whether or not they also prevented HIM from making his own phone call to 911. Unfortunately, only the young man would be able to tell us that.
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on June 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM · Report this
TrevCat 40
@32, I did not mean to say that anyone condoned this, rather I was pointing out the curious lack of excitement over issues like this expressed by the likes of Gallagher, Santorum, etc.

The likes of those and the commentors here on slog are the "straw men" with which I refer. I was pointing out how there seems to be a swift conservative reaction in the form of comments, their talking heads , Et. Al., when it comes to issues of gays, marriage, and children. We are told by the like of NOM and other hate groups about how gays will scar children and we must pass legislation to keep the "gay agenda" out of schools. Curiously though, they remain pretty silent beyond a "what tragedy" when things like this happen. We don't see rhethoric about how this is all the fault of Chrisitianity, and in fact we see the opposite, the rushing in to seperate Christianity from these "obvious" nutcases....

Let me ask this though, when Santorum and the rest speak of needing to restore "Chrisitan Rights", how do they pick and choose which rights?.

I mean is the Christian "right" to send kids to gay reparative therapy and maybe drive them to suicide to be protected but the Christian "right" to pray over your sick kid instead of taking them to the doctor and maybe having this happen not okay?
Posted by TrevCat on June 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM · Report this
41
@23, I do not understand what you're trying to demonstrate.

"Isn't losing your own child because of your own bad judgment punishment enough?"

The answer is no. Your argument implies clearly that, for example, beating the shit out of your own child (for discipline! for their own good! because my religion tells me I should!) should not be punishable, because "isn't it bad enough that you had to hurt your own child?" (If it doesn't imply that, then please explain to me why causing your child's death is okay but lesser crimes aren't.)

Apparently (@37) these people have a second kid. Do you really think the state should be risking that second kid's life on people who have demonstrated this behavior - because losing that first child was "punishment enough"?

"Did they have malicious intentions?"

This is unknowable. But let's suppose no.

"Were they negligent if they consistently pursued a solution to the kid's ailment, albeit through futile means?"

Is it possible that they were negligent despite having pursued...? Of course it is possible. If I think it's to my kid's ailment is a lack of familiarity with firearms, and my solution, consistently pursued, is to leave a loaded gun around the house for her to play with (and truly, I sincerely believe this will work!), and said solution turns out to be futile (in that she shoots herself) - then yeah, I am negligent and I deserve to be put in prison for a long time. How is this a remotely difficult question?

"There is a difference between leaving your child to die and 'leaving it to God' while asking for his mercy, right? Even in 2012?"

Yes, and it's the difference between murder and manslaughter.
Posted by Ancient Sumerian on June 10, 2012 at 5:17 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 43
Wow. The troll @35 made @26's point to the letter. Fuck 'em once they're born, right, troll?
Posted by Free Lunch on June 10, 2012 at 5:55 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 44
The imaginary magic being in the clouds didn't cure he boy, even after his parents said the mystical magic incantations? Shocking!
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on June 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 45
@14 - the Catholic Church to this day includes faith healing as part of their belief system, and they're no tiny sect. A Catholic could have mounted the same legal defense after letting their kid die, as it would have been wholly consistent with their belief.
Posted by Free Lunch on June 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM · Report this
46
Religion poisons everything.

This is what happens when people take their pet superstitions seriously.
Posted by Mattyx on June 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM · Report this
Delishuss 47
@38 That's not true, a lot of states have Good Samaritan laws. Didn't you see the series finale of Seinfeld?
Posted by Delishuss on June 10, 2012 at 6:34 PM · Report this
48
I live in this community. What scares me is that the Swezeys have more kids and this could happen to them. It is pretty common for a child to need life saving medical treatment and I have no faith that the Swezeys kids will get it if they should get sick.
Posted by orion34 on June 10, 2012 at 6:39 PM · Report this
49
For the umpteenth time, 42, the point of these posts is not that this is all the fault of Christianity, but that the argument is made, over and over again, that having a mother and a father - any mother and father - is better for kids than having same sex parents. These posts highlight the falsity of those arguments - this boy would have been better off with non-religious-crazy parents, of whatever gender.

The reason that an argument of "different gender parents are bad for kids" does not hold up is that it's not the argument being made here. Nobody is saying that, because it is not true.

No one is even saying that Christian parents are bad for children - I was brought up by Christians, Dan was, and I'd bet that a majority of posters here were, too. Some were good parents (mine were, by and large) and some were bad. However, we are told, over and over, that it is impossible to be good without religion. The posts showing religious people who are not good point out the falsity of *that* argument - belonging to a church is no guarantee of virtue.

If these false arguments weren't being made, there would be no necessity to counter them. Without "there is no morality without religion" and "every child deserves a mother and a father" these posts would disappear. In other words, if you'd stop attacking, we could stop defending.
Posted by agony on June 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM · Report this
50
@42 "The fact that someone does not campaign against every known vice, or against your pet peeves, does not preclude them from working for other causes they believe in. Sorry."
Posted by agony on June 10, 2012 at 7:03 PM · Report this
mubhappy 51
Try to look at it this way: At least the kid won't infect another generation of children with the mind virus of his parents.
Posted by mubhappy on June 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 52
@14 - here's a link, straight from the Pope to you, reaffirming faith healing as part of the Church. (And this was rolled out in 2000, and not 200 as one might expect.)
Posted by Free Lunch on June 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM · Report this
53
You know what? I think a 17-year-old is old enough to live by his own religious convictions. If the son in this case embraced his parents' faith, and didn't want to see a doctor, then I don't think the parents should be prosecuted for that. (If, as @39 suggests could be possible, the kid wanted to see a doctor and the parents stopped him, that's a whole different story.)

For a younger child, yes, the parents have the obligation to provide adequate care regardless of their own religious beliefs. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line, but to me 17 is clearly on the able-to-make-that-decision side.
Posted by Brett Alan http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_songs-Power-Pop.html on June 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM · Report this
TrevCat 54
@42. Either I am not being clear, and if so I apologize, or you don't want to see my point. Which is, all of the Gallagher's and Santorums of the world decry gays saying they need to be outlawed, fixed, or shot. When asked why, the invariable answer is, "Think of the children!" (Random side not here, whenever I hear that from the mouth of a conservative I mentally add "'s akward questions that I might have to answer!")

So they are on a crusade to get the gay banned for the children, always thinking of the children.....except in cases like this. Where are the calls to ban this type of Chrisitianity....for the children? The demands that adoption agencies screen all Christians to make sure this doesn't happen....for the children?

As for what Dan does.....

1. He speaks out against abuse all the time. He does not condone child abuse. You would have to ask him why he does not make videos for each and every offender....though time is probably an issue.
2. If you read his Savage love articles you'll see many instances of him urging people both straight and gay to leave abusive relationships. He speaks at length about everyone having equal rights in a relationship.
3. Really? The "aids is a gay disease" thing? Look, when aids first came about, gay men probably weren't using condoms. Know why? There was no real need from their point of view. Most STDs at the time were either curable or not so bad. That's why AIDS hit the gay community so hard. There was no need for protection and given the long latency of AIDS, people were spreading a NEW AND NEVER BEFORE SEEN virus without knowing it. Then when it became apparent something was up, education and medical research was put off cause, "Hey....its just them fags right?" Again, if you read his Savage love articles Dan repeatedly condones the use of condoms and getting oneself checked.
4. He doesn't point out that they are gay because often they are not....they are pedophile offenders. Often its merely that they only have access to children of the same sex. Society is still cautious about leaving young girls with a male, but see nothing wrong leaving young boys with that same barely known person. So, despite the fact that their victims are often the same sex, they aren't gay, just have access only to children of the same sex.
5. Dan was admonished for his words, and he spoke about the incident. However, the contention that being browbeat by someone that your parents probably told you was evil anyways, is somehow equivalent to the systematic abuse lgbt child go through at the hands of teachers, faith leaders, thier parents, and some times pretty much their entire community, is grotesque.

The whole point of these is, as has been pointed out, to illustrate the falsity of the gay parents are automatically bad arguement. Even heterosexual Christian parents can sometimes be shit. Its almost as if you can't judge a person based solely upon trait.......
More...
Posted by TrevCat on June 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM · Report this
mtnlion 57
Attorneys must've done a good job picking the jury to get that split. Too bad. The legal system is imperfect and is reflected in things like this, because I believe these parents should have all other children removed from their care and they should go to jail for a while.

But I also agree with @17. People straight up abuse their children purposefully with no religious reasoning (not that religious reasoning is a "reason" at all) and get out on plea deals every day of the week. Over 95% of cases are handled this way; trials take forever and they are immensely costly. Courts 101. This shit fucking sucks, but it's just not that surprising.

Our other option is just to revert to caveman status and torture chamber any fuck who dares to be in the vicinity of something we disapprove of. People who deserved it would get their lot but those who didn't... well they'd suffer an unimaginable in justice, at the hands of the state. And that's why we have the criminal justice system. As broke as it is, it beats the alternatives.
Posted by mtnlion http://radicalish.wordpress.com on June 10, 2012 at 10:43 PM · Report this
Knat 58
Threads like this one are exactly why I have unregistered comments set to be hidden by default.
Posted by Knat on June 10, 2012 at 11:01 PM · Report this
mtnlion 59
@42: You're just too biased to actually read what Dan writes. You interpret everything he says through a lens of hatred; of course you're going to find a million flaws and bring up a bunch of stuff he "doesn't say that he really should say". And you know, I find the whole "Dan Savage is a bully" thing to be a hilarious misunderstanding of the word "bully," as well as an inability to take what people dish, seeing how many Christians literally believe much of the world is going straight to Hell and do not hesitate to tell them that.

It's sooo funny to me when favored groups talk about how bad they've got it because in the last few years, people are finally calling them out as assholes when they're being assholes, instead of quietly suffering.

Also, I think "America's Gay SpokesPrincess" is a phrase he might be okay with.
Posted by mtnlion http://radicalish.wordpress.com on June 10, 2012 at 11:01 PM · Report this
60
As a perhaps interesting aside, the Church of the Firstborn is an offshoot of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There is a faith healing tradition within the larger Mormon church with blessings and anointings and the like but members of the larger church seem to lack the faith necessary to let their kids die, thank goodness. Oddly, this faith healing tradition was infused into the Mormon Church through the baptism of a Campbellite minister whose past church is now known as The Assemblies of God. Fun!

What can you say, health insurance is expensive.....
Posted by Why are there cars? on June 10, 2012 at 11:08 PM · Report this
LEE. 61
@54

Oh dear...you don't spend a lot of time on this blog do? Remember in Terminator when Reese tells Sarah that the terminator can't be reasoned or bargained with? Well, they at least had homemade explosives and an industrial mechanical press.
Posted by LEE. on June 10, 2012 at 11:36 PM · Report this
TrevCat 62
@61, Oh I've lurked on the blog comments for quite a while. I know they don't listen, but it's fun to watch them chase their tails. Writing is a hobby of mine, so writing those comments took me no time at all. In fact, I did it on my phone.
Posted by TrevCat on June 11, 2012 at 1:44 AM · Report this
63
While unregistered comments are sometimes tragic to the point of hilarity, (and occasionally insightful -- now go register already!) I have a new slog rule -- I terminate reading upon first use of "Danny". The childish condescension contained therein renders the comment as interesting as McDonalds food, a pale simulacrum of content.

Don't feed the trolls. The results are as predictable as eating fast food -- upset all around.
Posted by x14n on June 11, 2012 at 1:45 AM · Report this
64
To be fair, Christian parents, such as mine, were in the hospital practically every night due to my asthma attacks when I was a child. So the Swezey's don't reperesent all Christian parents.

But of course, these jerks should be thrown under the jail for child abuse. I don't understand why saying "We're religious" is an excuse for their misconduct.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on June 11, 2012 at 3:43 AM · Report this
onion 65
ug. they didn't just kill their kid, they made him suffer horribly.
Posted by onion on June 11, 2012 at 5:36 AM · Report this
geoz 66
Nice to the xian trolls out. As usual, they are simultaneously victims of oppression and the fastest growing religion ever, at any time in every country. They can neither be out-victimed nor surpassed in popularity according to their less-than-scientific take on numbers (They just "feel" popular... and oppressed).

I wouldn't have to be an athiest if it weren't for xians.
Posted by geoz on June 11, 2012 at 6:13 AM · Report this
HOT PUSSY 67
@58-Saaaa-lute! ;)
Posted by HOT PUSSY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QKiYar9pI on June 11, 2012 at 7:16 AM · Report this
68
(Has anyone else had trouble posting this link to Facebook? It was blocked for "containing a spammy link", then I also saw that it was blocked for "hate speech". Weird.)
Posted by MemeGene on June 11, 2012 at 7:21 AM · Report this
HOT PUSSY 69
They'll let a 'Christian' cause the death of their own child but won't allow Rasta to lick the chalice? What won't they let white Christians get away with?
Posted by HOT PUSSY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QKiYar9pI on June 11, 2012 at 7:21 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 70
@ 63, I have a rule, too - unregistered comments are always OFF. The rate of intelligent, worthwhile, or even non-trolling unregistered comments is about one in 100, so they're not worth plowing through to find. (Hell, most of the registered comments, non-trolling as most of them are, aren't worth reading anymore anyway.)
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 11, 2012 at 8:45 AM · Report this
COMTE 71
Presumably, all the non-registered trolls are extolling the virtues of some good, old-fashioned, God-fearing PRAYAH to solve problems. I wouldn't know, since I seldom read unregistered comments, but I would stake good money this is the case.

So, my question to you-all - essentially rhetorical, since I"m not going to read the responses anyway - is: please cite instances where praying to Yahweh or Yeshua has EVER, even ONCE, brought about the result you desired, in a way that couldn't just as easily (if not in point of fact, MORE easily) be attributed to random chance.
Posted by COMTE on June 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
onion 72
Seriously Dan, you should add "Abortion is murder" to your grab-bag title up there. How can religion dictate that aborting a pinhead full of non-sentient, unfeeling, totally not conscious cells be murder but letting your 17 yo thinking, breathing, feeling kid die by horrendous torture is ok?
Posted by onion on June 11, 2012 at 10:28 AM · Report this
aureolaborealis 74
@22: I survived a burst appendix, and as I went into surgery I was aware (perhaps a little dramatically) of two outcomes: getting cleaned up and cured or dying on the table. I didn't care which happened, as long as they got the anesthetic in me. It was that painful, and I was nowhere near death. This kid must have gone through unbelievable agony.
Posted by aureolaborealis on June 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
HellboundAlleee 75
And everybody still agrees that children are the property of their parents, and have the default religion of their parents, and nothing changes.
Posted by HellboundAlleee http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com on June 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM · Report this
76
It's manslaughter, and the parents should have been charged accordingly.

Doing something in the name of religion doesn't mean it's protected by freedom of religion. Religious beliefs, or the claim of religious beliefs, are not carte blanche to do things that would otherwise be criminal behavior. This case, of course, is no exception.
Posted by brendan on June 11, 2012 at 10:09 PM · Report this
77
I can't imagine any parent standing by and watching their children die in front of them. It's even more incomprehensible that they would prevent medical attention because they were waiting for their magic sky wizard to fix everything.
Posted by montex on June 11, 2012 at 11:38 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 78
Religious beliefs are not fit for governing, making health care choices, or pretty much anything else that involves real life.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on June 12, 2012 at 7:11 AM · Report this
79
I was wondering how far this "logic" gets extended. So if you see your child drowning at the pool, if you kneel down and pray for him to be suddenly able to walk on water instead of throw him a life preserver, would that be ok?
Posted by cminmd on June 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM · Report this
80
1) Lovingly grow a nice, healty strain of E. Coli
2) Load the culture into a 20 cc syringe with a wonderful needle.
3) Inject the solution into thos fantastic parents abodminal cavities. Practicaly painless, easy to do at home
4) Sit with them and pray.
Posted by ferfer on June 12, 2012 at 9:12 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.