Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death

[AllieBaba]

And my point is that while you may not THINK it's serious, it remains serious. Just because we're able to successfully treat it now doesn't mean it isn't serious, nor does it mean you can't die from it (even when it's treated).

And it is much more common than it was. Which is my only point.

 

[nibor]

And my point is that while you may not THINK it's serious, it remains serious. Just because we're able to successfully treat it now doesn't mean it isn't serious, nor does it mean you can't die from it (even when it's treated).

And it is much more common than it was. Which is my only point.

Actually I find it amazing how many go belly up to the bar for the pharmecutical companies considering that the ADVERTISED DRUGS come with a dictionary of warning labels.......................but hey enjoy your ANAL LEAKAGE.........................I'm wondering about the ones THAT AREN'T ADVERTISED and what the hell they actually do to you..........

 

[AllieBaba]

Well I can't find anything that backs up my claim that it's more prevalent than it was.

Still, I know it is, or I wouldn't be seeing an increasing number of scarlet fever cases. The literature will catch up eventually.

What I have read supports my insistence that antibiotics can give us a false sense of security. They are wonderful, and now MOST kids recover from scarlet fever.

All except for the 2 percent who die. That means 2 out of 100 don't respond to antibiotics. Then there are those who get the secondary stuff...rheumatic fever, hepatitis, all that good stuff.

The reason I carp on it is to point out the fact that it is impossible to predict who will respond and who won't, and sometimes people just don't GET how thin the thread by which we cling to life is. I maintain that reasonable parents often misread symptoms in their kids, inadvertently not obtaining treatment for them quickly enough. So why is the standard so much higher for religious parents? If a couple of non-praying parents had missed the severity of symptoms and not gotten their kid to the ER quick enough, folks would be sympathetic. If parents who believed in holistic medicine had exhausted every herb and chant known to man, nobody would have questioned their right to do so, even if the kid ultimately died.

 

[Ravi]

Well I can't find anything that backs up my claim that it's more prevalent than it was.

I'm curious, did you find anything that discredited your claim? I did:

Frequency
United States

In the past century, the number of cases of scarlet fever has remained high, with marked decrease in case-mortality rates secondary to widespread use of antibiotics. Transmission usually occurs via airborne respiratory particles that can be spread from infected patients and asymptomatic carriers. The infection rate increases in overcrowded situations (eg, schools, institutional settings). Immunity, which is type specific, may be induced by a carrier state or overt infection. In adulthood, incidence decreases markedly as immunity develops to the most prevalent serotypes. Complications (eg, rheumatic fever) are more common in recent immigrants to the United States.​

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic518.htm

If a couple of non-praying parents had missed the severity of symptoms and not gotten their kid to the ER quick enough, folks would be sympathetic. If parents who believed in holistic medicine had exhausted every herb and chant known to man, nobody would have questioned their right to do so, even if the kid ultimately died.

Can you post some statistics to back these statements up? I doubt they are in the least true.

 

[AllieBaba]

I read that, too. Which is why I said what I did.

There are no "stats" about how people respond to most situations. But the media wouldn't have jumped over a couple of ordinary parents who missed symptoms except in a sympathetic way. I don't have stats to prove that, that's idiotic, but I know all the same it's true. The same way the liberal media doesn't jump on Obama for his racism. There are no "stats" to prove such a thing. It's true all the same.

The antagonism comes because they're Christian.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, I see. You take it on faith. You and Shooter are really good at making baseless claims.

So lame.

 

[Shogun]

Ravir.. I hope you realize that pointing out things like that amounts to hateful christian baiting..

 

[Ravi]

I have nothing against baiting hateful Christians. They do such a disservice to the decent ones.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, I see. You take it on faith. You and Shooter are really good at making baseless claims.

So lame.

Er...so because I won't jump when you insist on "stats" proving liberal bias, we're to assume it doesn't exist?

Really?
http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-statistics-suggest-strong-liberal-bias/

The truth behind why lefties hate Ann Coulter, and have no problem saying any horrible thing they feel like saying about her...while at the same time accusing her of being a hate-monger is that she's accurate, and right. And they know it:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_bias
The Media Confronts Liberal Bias
Ann Coulter wrote:

To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "conservatives" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the ideological diversity in the nation's newsrooms. Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors, and reporters. Republicans in the media are "from the right" polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "Partisan Conservative Opinion Coming!" Neutral news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. [1]
Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., Andy Rooney).[Citation Needed]

New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. has denied the the New York Times has a liberal viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.[2] However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of homosexual marriage.[3][4] In regards to the Western World, although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the homosexuality issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see Homosexuality in the Media. John Stossel is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the ABC News show 20/20. Cybercast News Service states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and Washington Post:

“ While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.
"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."[5]
Then there's this:
CBS insider Bernard Goldberg wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled Bias.

He asserts that an "inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."
He wrote: "Pauline Kael, for years the brilliant film critic at the New Yorker, was completely baffled about how Richard Nixon could have beaten George McGovern in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." [13]

Here is some more:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2005/04/11/liberal_bias_in_the_ivory_tower/
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2.asp
Excerpt:
ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin: "I don’t know if it’s 95 percent, and unfortunately, they’re not all old. There are a lot of young liberals here, too. But it certainly, there are enough in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction, which is completely improper....It’s an endemic problem. And again, it’s the reason why for 40 years, conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake."
— Exchange on The Hugh Hewitt Show, October 30, 2006.

If I were a conservative, I understand why I would feel suspicious that I was not going to get a fair break....The mindset at ABC, where you and I used to be colleagues at, at the other big news organizations, it’s just too focused on being more favorable to Nancy Pelosi, say, than Newt Gingrich; being more down on the Republicans’ chances than perhaps is warranted; singling out — you’re seeing here a 60 Minutes piece about Nancy Pelosi. I don’t remember Newt Gingrich getting a piece that favorable in 1994."
— ABC Political Director Mark Halperin, co-author of The Way to Win, on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, October 24, 2006.

Former Washington Post reporter Thomas Edsall: "I agree that the — whatever you want to call it, mainstream media — presents itself as unbiased when, in fact, there are built into it many biases and they are overwhelmingly to the left."
Host Hugh Hewitt: "Well, that’s very candid....Given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?"
Edsall: "It’s probably in the range of 15 to 25:1 Democrat....There is a real difficulty on the part of the mainstream media being sympathetic, or empathetic, whatever the word would be, to the kind of thinking that goes into conservative approaches to issues. I think the religious right has been treated as sort of an alien world."
— Exchange on Hugh Hewitt’s syndicated radio show September 21, 2006 audio later posted at TownHall.com.


“The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We’re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I’ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.”
— Washington Post “Book World” editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post’s “daily in-house electronic critiques,” as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article.

Yeah, liberal bias has nothing to do with the coverage of this story.

 

[Ravi]

Allie? How do a bunch of opinion pieces demonstrate that people who let their kids die from neglect are only criticized if they are religious?

Oh, wait. They don't.

Nor did I see anything to support your baseless claim that scarlet fever has become more widespread in recent years.

 

[Shogun]

I tellya.. nothing validates a claim of bias quite like quoting blogs and CONSERVAwiki...

 

[Ravi]

I didn't even notice that. I often make things up and post them over at Conservapedia. I love that place.

 

[AllieBaba]

Note the people who are admitting the bias, nitwit. Of course a biased press isn't going to accumulate and publish proof that they're biased. The quotes are real.

 

[BrianH]

Allie? How do a bunch of opinion pieces demonstrate that people who let their kids die from neglect are only criticized if they are religious?

Oh, wait. They don't.

Nor did I see anything to support your baseless claim that scarlet fever has become more widespread in recent years.

I do agree with you, but with all due respect...
the thread title does state.."Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death."

It would leave one to believe that their actions were based on religions reasons. I don't think this should be considered a religous matter. After doing a little more "lookin" into it, there are those who refuse medical treatment for other reasons than religious matters. The question, which I believe someone else stated earlier is; these parents have the right to not seek medical treatment for themselves, but do they have the right to not seek medical treatment for their child?

IMO...if the state can take your kid away for being neglected, mistreated or abused, what's the difference in sitting there and letting your kid die?

 

[Ravi]

Allie - Why are you even on that topic. You made a claim that non-religious parents that let their children die of neglect would be given a pass by the media. Back it up, don't give me a bunch of non-sequiturs.

 

[Ravi]

I do agree with you, but with all due respect...
the thread title does state.."Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death."

It would leave one to believe that their actions were based on religions reasons. I don't think this should be considered a religous matter. After doing a little more "lookin" into it, there are those who refuse medical treatment for other reasons than religious matters. The question, which I believe someone else stated earlier is; these parents have the right to not seek medical treatment for themselves, but do they have the right to not seek medical treatment for their child?

IMO...if the state can take your kid away for being neglected, mistreated or abused, what's the difference in sitting there and letting your kid die?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/08/child.starved/index.html:eusa_whistle:

I don't mind wandering off topic, but if Allie is going to make outrageous claims she should back them up.

 

[AllieBaba]

I didn't even notice that. I often make things up and post them over at Conservapedia. I love that place.

Yet another shining example of the dishonestly and lack of integrity of the left.

We don't come across as stupid enough to validate your vitriol, so you feel obliged to post fraudulently to make us look more stupid.

It's wonderfully telling. I wonder how much of the perceived bigotry and stupidity of the right is actually just fraud perpetuated by the left?

I imagine quite a few...particularly given the fact that lefties everywhere admit to it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Allie - Why are you even on that topic. You made a claim that non-religious parents that let their children die of neglect would be given a pass by the media. Back it up, don't give me a bunch of non-sequiturs.

My claim was that a biased media would give it a pass. I proved the bias of the media. That's all there is on that one. A reasonable person can see the truth in it. But if you want to argue it, ok. The media has no bias against Christianity (cough cough) and I'm sure they would have jumped all over this story even if the parents had been, say, teachers who didn't recognize the seriousness of the disease, or who, because of the increased incidence of ADHD in kids who use too many antibiotics, chose not to use antibiotics....

 

[Shogun]

it really is like pimp slapping a down syndrome kid.

 

[Ravi]

to make us look more stupid.

Is that even possible?

btw, I was kidding. I didn't realize you had no sense of humor. I'll do my best to only respond to your posts with dead seriousness.

Now, about that evidence?