Parents pick prayer over docs; girl dies

[Elisabethsew 50]

Nobody wants anyone to leave the forum and lively debate is great. People get to hear other points of views. Whether they agree or not, it's always good to listen and learn. However, sometimes people feel the debate gets off topic and the focus becomes personal. This is certainly NOT a reason for anyone to leave.

[anonemouse 1]

So I've been put on report for stating my opinions and questions? Why does that feel discriminatory and unfair?

I'm sorry I have offended anyone, including you gadget. That surely has not been my intent. My intent at this thread and others is to give participants my viewpoint and to generate some lively debate about hot topics.

Would it be as interesting if everyone agreed on every subject? I realize that few people, if any, share my views, and that's absolutely not a problem. But I believe that it is healthy to look at as many sides to an argument as there are sides. This is what freedom of thought and religion is all about. Believe me, there are people who are far more extreme in their views than little ole' me. Although I do try.

If at any time everyone wants me off Lap Band Talk, I will go quietly. I have never meant any harm to anyone.

I sincerely care about the people whose posts I read almost every day. I love to read what you are thinking. I feel very warm toward laurend, for instance, even though we disagree on more than one subject. Laurend has a very bright intellect and she seems to be a genuinely good person. That has no bearing on whether I agree with her politics and we can debate a topic without feeling hateful toward one another. Thank you for that, laurend.

Please tell me if you believe that I should stop participating at LBT, laurend. Not to put you on the spot, but I'd appreciate your feedback. I trust your input.

I definitely don't think you should stop participating at LBT, BJean. You are always more than welcome in the debates here, and your point of view and opinion are well-thought and definitely add to to the discussion. That said, I think that maybe you've allowed past interaction with Gadget to color how you've responded to her posts in this thread. Nothing wrong with that, we all do it with people we've talked to before, but that one post did seem to come out of left field, to a certain extent.

[BJean 16]

Thanks so much for the feedback, laurend. I really appreciate your comments.

Obviously my posts somewhere along the line riled more than one person. I was working hard to get people to understand that although punishing the parents seems like the best thing to do, it not only won't bring back the little girl, but it may not even keep others with their beliefs from doing the same thing. I'd like for someone to come up with a genius idea of how we can protect our children in America. We're doing a lousy job so far.

We have lots of laws and yet still we have children who lose their lives at the hands of their caregivers everyday. I'm sure I didn't do a good job of expressing myself, I was only trying to get someone smarter than I to come up with a better plan than just punishing the parents.

Not that they shouldn't be punished, but IMHO there needs to be something more.

Thanks again for telling me how it is. I trust you completely with your honest, straight forward style. I've been PM'ed and asked to stay and I'm sure I will. But I'll work harder at not riling feathers. That doesn't appear to have the positive effect I was hoping for.

[Gone4Now 4]

Not that they shouldn't be punished, but IMHO there needs to be something more.

I agree...I'm not sure the punishment is for them, but for others and there should be more. Like imposing 6 mo check ups for children, maybe? They way shots are administered to infants, maybe just physicals should be mandatory until a certain age....16? 18? I dunno....

Thanks again for telling me how it is. I trust you completely with your honest, straight forward style. I've been PM'ed and asked to stay and I'm sure I will. But I'll work harder at not riling feathers. That doesn't appear to have the positive effect I was hoping for.

That's hard to do online, and sometimes just normal conversation can go haywire without the intention. Sorry if any of my posts seems crazed and wacko. I assure you, I'm not like that.

[BJean 16]

Oh no, Gloucester, you seem really sharp online! I have really liked your posts in fact. Far from wacko!

And your idea of periodic checkups might really establish a workable way to save our children. It sure seems a shame for our country to have to resort to something so intrusive, but something needs to happen, and soon.

Are you from Gloucester, Mass or the U.K., or neither?

[gadgetlady 4]

So I've been put on report for stating my opinions and questions? Why does that feel discriminatory and unfair?

Nobody said you've been "put on report". I reported you for a personal attack. I feel that your above post was snidely calling me intolerant and judgmental.

I'm sorry I have offended anyone, including you gadget. That surely has not been my intent.

Thank you for your apology. I'm glad to hear it wasn't your intent. I realize things can get heated. I just don't appreciate being singled out and called intolerant.

If at any time everyone wants me off Lap Band Talk, I will go quietly.

And that is not MY intent, either. I just would prefer if you stop attacking me personally. I think the point has been made and beaten to death, so IMO we should just move on.

[Wheetsin 714]

I've given this issue some off and on thought, and part of it for me is that (IMO) a parents' religion is only the child's religion in so far as the parents say so. I know there are processes to bring someone in to a religion, and that can happen at a very early time in life, but that doesn't mean the infant understands what it means, had a choice in it, etc. I think children largely "subsribe" (in so much as they can) to a religion because it's what their parents tell them is right, or tell them to do, or because they grew up in it and don't know any different. (Really, the same reason kids have most significant belief systems). If the parents chose it for themselves, fine. But to "force their beliefs" (so to speak) on a child... I dunno. Even asking a child what they want isn't going to get you an answer that makes you feel comfrtoable the child truly understands the concepts involves, can apply judgment, can distinguish consequences, etc. That's some pretty high cognitive stuff that we're probably just not going to see on that level at such young ages. Until then, I think children are owned responsibilityfrom their parents, and ignoring a medical need in lieu of a fantastic solution is not fully IMO responsible

Now - don't get me wrong, this isn't an "evils of regigion" post. But I do think that my above opinions are influencing what I think about this.

If I am an adult, and can understand my religion, what it means, what it includes -- don't know the age for that but "18" seems to be when the government feels we're able to make sound decisions... and I choose not to seek medical help because of my beliefs, that's one thing.

But if we're talking about parents of.... an infant, let's say... the parents are acting in their belief, on behalf of their child. I keep coming back to a "sanity of the choice" issue, which is all kinds of sticky. I tend to believe that someone with an extraordinarily ill child, who sees no use for doctors because "god" will fix the problem, is probably not packing a full lunchbox. But I can put myself into their shoes, and see how they might be perceiving the situation.

*sigh* All of that to update you that I'm still on the fence, I guess. :bolt:

In one sense, we probably intervene a little too much for our own (logistics) good, and maybe not enough for our (social) good. Sometimes we need to let people die, but far be it for me to have an answer to, "Who gets to live?"

Edited April 3, 2008 by Wheetsin

[ELENATION 0]

They acted, they prayed. For some people that is enough. I just can't see telling someone else that their religion is not what I beleive and then force their children to follow a path that they believe is wrong.

I just wish some of the church goers here could actually put themselves in the shoes of the parents and really think about what faith vs law vs life means to them.

Of course like Gadget, most will just think of it from their perspective and think that their religion wouldn't put me in that situation.

But what if your religion did put you in that situation? Sure keep saying your religion wouldn't, but WHAT IF IT DID?

It's all a matter of perspective. Try to imagine what they are perceiving.

I'm what you call a "church goer" even though I think there are more pleasant words when refering to a religious person....

If my religion would put me in that situation, I guarantee you 100% that I would stop being part of such religion. Just because someone is religious or a "church goer" doesn't mean that I check my brains at the door of the church, we "church goers" and actually every single person in this world should be competetent enough to not let a child that is under our care die under ANY circumstances when it can be avoided, religious or not, if someone is not competent enough, smart enough, mentally stable enough, or is a fanatic irrational religious person, then that person must not have custody of a child, period. In my opinion, it's that simple, and I speak from a believer;s stand point, I believe in the power of prayer myself, but I also believe that laws should be implemented to prevent people from making fatal decisions like this one with a child. We can believe in the power of prayer as much as we want, believing is our right, but we also must give our children the medical care when they need it , I believe that when we exercise our right to practice religion in a way that leads to somone's death it's about time to give up the right and for the government to intervene, since unfortunately there are plenty of religious and non-religious people out there who have absolutely no common sense and are irresponsible, some are just pure evil and hide behind religion to commit crimes as well, there are all kinds out there, so someone must protect the children who legally can't protect themselves, and if that means that some parents/guardians need to be told that prayers are not enough to save their children's lives in order to comply with the law, then that is what needs to be done, I'm all for freedom of religion, gee specially that I'm religious myself, but I'm also all for protecting the life of a child and for setting our priorities straight as well.

Edited April 3, 2008 by ELENATION

[Gone4Now 4]

Oh no, Gloucester, you seem really sharp online! I have really liked your posts in fact. Far from wacko!

And your idea of periodic checkups might really establish a workable way to save our children. It sure seems a shame for our country to have to resort to something so intrusive, but something needs to happen, and soon.

Are you from Gloucester, Mass or the U.K., or neither?

Neither, actually...it's the street I grew up on. :bolt:

[gadgetlady 4]

If my religion would put me in that situation, I guarantee you 100% that I would stop being part of such religion.

This has been said more than once (by Marimaru also, I believe), and I have to completely agree. Faced with a choice between the imminent death of my child and any value-system I might have, I would have some pretty serious questions about my value-system.

[luluc 6]

I've been PM'ed and asked to stay and I'm sure I will. But I'll work harder at not riling feathers. That doesn't appear to have the positive effect I was hoping for.

Be no fun w/out ya - Gadget too!!!...Did I say that ????

[ELENATION 0]

This has been said more than once (by Marimaru also, I believe), and I have to completely agree. Faced with a choice between the imminent death of my child and any value-system I might have, I would have some pretty serious questions about my value-system.

Exactly! it's common sense in my opinion, and for those who don't have the common sense, well, that's when the law should come in....

[snuffy65 1]

Wow, didn't know church goer was a four letter word. As a matter of fact when someone asks if I am religious I tell them I'm a church goer.

Guess I better get to confession and pray God doesn't strike me down.

Edited April 3, 2008 by snuffy65

[ELENATION 0]

Wow, didn't know church goer was a four letter word. As a matter of fact when someone aks if I am religious I tell them I'm a church goer.

Guess I better get to confession and pray God doesn't strike me down.

Hey, if you feel the need to confess, by all means knock yourself out!, even though I doubt that saying "church goers" will be on the top of your list of confessions.... nah!

I personally thought the words came across a little bit snippy.... but hey, that's just my perception and reading an online post... so no worries...

Edited April 3, 2008 by ELENATION

[BJean 16]

Just to set the record straight - although I know people are wanting to retch over the entire matter at this point, gadget I did not call you intolerant. I just didn't. I said that people should be more tolerant. You chose to make it into something that I did not say or intend to say. Now, as far as I'm concerned, it has been put to rest.

luluc: Thanks. I'd sure miss you, that's for darned sure!!!

I agree Wheet, this is a very complicated issue and I have mixed emotions too. I do think that we all agree that the death of this child was a horrendous, dispicable mistake.

I'm not so sure how we make a law that punishes stupidity. But we definitely need to protect our children from stupid people.

Oh that's cute Glocester. Do you pronounce it glos-ter? I lived in Virginia for quite a while and their pronunciations often follow the British. In Oklahoma they'd say, glo-ches-ter.

Didn't mean to highjack the thread, but I wondered if Glocester is from across the big pond, since that would be an interesting perspective for this thread.