‘Pro-Life’ Idaho Republican: Religious Parents Should Be Allowed To Kill Their Kids

[daws101]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.


I didn't say one word about an unborn child.

So YOUR reference to "pro life" has nothing to do with the abortion issue? Yeah, sure.

 

[koshergrl]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.

What is disgusting is your dishonest attempt to equate the free exercise of religious beliefs with the intentional murder of an unborn child.

I didn't say one word about an unborn child. That's not what this thread is about.

It's about conservatives making it legal for parents to deny medical treatment to their child that results in the child's death.

So you're saying that religion can be used as an excuse to kill a child?

Wow.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Only lefties get to kill people who are in the way.

 

[chikenwing]

This would be commonplace in this country if republicans had their way of things.

Oh bull shit and you know it,could one be more of an hysterical ass??
Clowns like you support mass killing of childern by the millions ever year year after year,you have shit for crdability

False. Go fuck yourself.

bada bing!!

 

[daws101]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.

What is disgusting is your dishonest attempt to equate the free exercise of religious beliefs with the intentional murder of an unborn child.

I didn't say one word about an unborn child. That's not what this thread is about.

It's about conservatives making it legal for parents to deny medical treatment to their child that results in the child's death.

So you're saying that religion can be used as an excuse to kill a child?

Wow.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Only lefties get to kill people who are in the way.

bahahahahahahahahah!

"Terri" Schiavo to remove Terri's feeding tube that provided life support. Terri was diagnosed by multiple physicians, including independent court-appointed physicians, as being in a persistent vegetative state,

 

[turzovka]

This is interesting.

All these "pro life" conservatives aren't condemning this. They're making excuses and pointing fingers.

I guess they all agree with this bill that conservative christian extremists have every right to kill their children.

Which I find extremely disgusting but not surprising.

I condemn it. I would bet almost all Christian denominations would condemn it as well. Sound judgment in modern times should prevail in these specific type cases.

I have no idea what some in Idaho are trying to do, but it is not a Christian value as far as I am concerned.

 

[suplex3000]

The parents and their political enablers should get the same treatment that their fellow theocrats give to planned parenthood clinics and their client. Protesters picketing their homes and offices, screaming abuse and holding up placards calling them child murderers, and of course the photographs really would be of murdered children

 

[koshergrl]

The OP is from a liberal hack site..written by a leftist hack who is well known for fabricating garbage:

"...one of these sites, Addicting Info, shockingly managed to take it a step further. Not only did they not remove, retract or fix their previous untrue story – they blatantly fabricated another one to cause more outrage which equates to more blog hits."

Popular Liberal Blog Shamefully Doubles Down On Blatant Lie About Ted Nugent s Native American Comments

 

[koshergrl]

This is interesting.

All these "pro life" conservatives aren't condemning this. They're making excuses and pointing fingers.

I guess they all agree with this bill that conservative christian extremists have every right to kill their children.

Which I find extremely disgusting but not surprising.

I condemn it. I would bet almost all Christian denominations would condemn it as well. Sound judgment in modern times should prevail in these specific type cases.

I have no idea what some in Idaho are trying to do, but it is not a Christian value as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, they aren't doing what the OP says.

The dems are striving to get the law changed so that Christian parents can be prosecuted for choosing alternative treatments for their kids, and this Republican lawmaker is putting up barriers. Meanwhile, they think that the same parents should be able to euthanize their kids if their kids have disabilities.

It's just another push being made to target and imprison Christians.

 

[Dana7360]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.


I didn't say one word about an unborn child.

So YOUR reference to "pro life" has nothing to do with the abortion issue? Yeah, sure.

I don't think that pro life only means that a person is against abortion. I believe it means that a person is pro life. Which means that person believes that it's wrong to kill a child by denying it medical treatment. Pro live means that you don't support war or the death penalty.

When a person is pro life they can't pick and choose what they call life or pro life.

Meanwhile conservatives are trying to make it legal to use religion as an excuse to withhold medical treatment from children even if the children die.

How about addressing that instead of trying to change the subject?

 

[Dana7360]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.

What is disgusting is your dishonest attempt to equate the free exercise of religious beliefs with the intentional murder of an unborn child.

I didn't say one word about an unborn child. That's not what this thread is about.

It's about conservatives making it legal for parents to deny medical treatment to their child that results in the child's death.

So you're saying that religion can be used as an excuse to kill a child?

Wow.

It's been legal for decades. More than 100 years. Did you imagine that refusal of medical care on religious grounds was something that republicans just invented?

If the doctor doesn't like it he can do what doctors have always done, go to court and get a guardian ad litem appointed to make medical decisions on behalf of the child.

This is not new. It is so old it creaks already.

You're talking about something very different. You're talking about someone who is brain dead or in a persistent vegetative state, or living wills.

What I'm talking about is a child who has a very curable or maintainable condition. A condition that will kill that child if that child doesn't get medical help.

Please stop trying to change the subject.

It's funny to see all you conservatives make excuses or point fingers or try to change the subject. I guess you don't want to talk about the subject of this thread. If that's the case, why are you posting and reading this thread?

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I hate abortion, but I don't have the money to fund every child that is aborted in this country. So, why should I tell a woman to have a baby or not? I am not going to raise her child, or support her child, other than thru my tax dollars.

I would encourage women to find prospective parents for their unborn children, hell, I would even support legislation, that makes it legal for people to legally sell their unborn children to other people(after a rigourous application process), instead of aborting a child. Yet, I wouldn't make it mandatory, and it would create child production men and women, who only get pregnant to make a shitload of money. And it would lead to forced reproduction by some of the lowest forms of life, by making a woman get pregnant, much like the sex trafficking going on now.

However, this is already happening, all over the world. How many people do you know that have adopted children from overseas? Do you really believe they didn't pay out the ass for these children? At least here, we would be able to oversee it, and catch and punish many of the baby peddlers(death penalty IMO), just like sex trafficers should get.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.

What is disgusting is your dishonest attempt to equate the free exercise of religious beliefs with the intentional murder of an unborn child.

I didn't say one word about an unborn child. That's not what this thread is about.

It's about conservatives making it legal for parents to deny medical treatment to their child that results in the child's death.

So you're saying that religion can be used as an excuse to kill a child?

Wow.

It's been legal for decades. More than 100 years. Did you imagine that refusal of medical care on religious grounds was something that republicans just invented?

If the doctor doesn't like it he can do what doctors have always done, go to court and get a guardian ad litem appointed to make medical decisions on behalf of the child.

This is not new. It is so old it creaks already.

You're talking about something very different. You're talking about someone who is brain dead or in a persistent vegetative state, or living wills.

What I'm talking about is a child who has a very curable or maintainable condition. A condition that will kill that child if that child doesn't get medical help.

Please stop trying to change the subject.

It's funny to see all you conservatives make excuses or point fingers or try to change the subject. I guess you don't want to talk about the subject of this thread. If that's the case, why are you posting and reading this thread?

I think it's idiotic as Hell for a parent to withhold medical treatment from a child. I think those parents who claim to be Christian while doing this, have been taught just bits and pieces of the Bible, and need to change Churches.

It's much like this story:
A building was on fire, a man was trapped on the 5th floor, and the man was a devout Christian. He got down on his knees and prayed for The Lord to save him, the Lord answered him and said, 'I will save you from this fire.'
Just then the window got busted in, and a fireman came through it, 'come on let's go' the fireman said, the man said 'no' the Lord has said He will save me.'
As soon as the fireman left, the door got broken down, and a police man said 'come on le'ts go' the man refused for the same reason.
The policeman left and the ceililing came crashing down in one spot. A construction worker with a sledgehammer was busting his way to the bottom floor, , he begged the man to come with him and the man refused yet again.
An hour later the building finally collapsed and the man woke up in the presence of God, and the man asked God, why did you let me die, when you promised to save me.
The Lord said, 'I tried to save you 3 times yet you refused My help.'

 

[Katzndogz]

Faith Healing: Religious Freedom vs. Child Protection
Posted by Harriet Hall on November 19, 2013 (92 Comments)
We have written a lot about people who reject science-based medicine and turn to complementary/alternative medicine (CAM), but what about people who reject the very idea of medical treatment?

Faith healing is widely practiced by Christian Scientists, Pentecostalists, the Church of the First Born, the Followers of Christ, and myriad smaller sects. Many of these believers reject all medical treatment in favor of prayer, anointing with oils, and sometimes exorcisms. Some even deny the reality of illness. When they reject medical treatment for their children, they may be guilty of negligence and homicide. Until recently, religious shield laws have protected them from prosecution; but the laws are changing, as are public attitudes. Freedom of religion has come into conflict with the duty of society to protect children. The right to believe does not extend to the right to endanger the lives of children. A new book by Cameron Stauth, In the Name of God: The True Story of the Fight to Save Children from Faith-Healing Homicide, provides the chilling details of the struggle. He is a master storyteller; the book grabs the reader’s attention like a fictional thriller and is hard to put down. He is sympathetic to both the perpetrators and the prosecutors of religion-motivated child abuse, and he makes their personalities and their struggles come alive.

Rita Swan: From Christian Scientist to Crusader
Rita and Doug Swan were Christian Scientists who firmly believed that disease was an illusion, and that “the most dangerous thing they could do was to show lack of faith in God by relying on medical treatment.” (One wonders just how strong their belief was, since when an ovarian cyst caused intractable pain, Rita had surgery to remove it.) When their baby Matthew developed a fever, they paid a Christian Science practitioner to come to their home and pray over him. She told them fever was just fear; and indeed, Matthew recovered.

At age 16 months, Matthew developed a fever again and this time he didn’t improve with the practitioner’s prayers. Rita and Doug were worried but unwilling to reject the lifelong beliefs that made sense of their lives. Rather than taking Matthew to a doctor, they compromised by calling in a second Christian Science practitioner. The practitioner accused Rita of sabotaging her work with fear, and both parents believed that defects in their own thoughts were responsible for Matthew’s illness. Eventually they called in a Christian Science “nurse” (trained in metaphysics, not medicine). She did nothing except talk to Rita. Shortly after she left, Matthew began having convulsions. The desperate parents found an escape strategy: they would take Matthew to a doctor with the complaint of a broken bone (something the Church allowed to be treated by a doctor), and would not mention the fever. He was quickly diagnosed with bacterial meningitis and a brain abscess. They had waited too long. Despite intravenous antibiotics and surgery to relieve pressure on the brain, Matthew died.

Faith Healing Religious Freedom vs. Child Protection Science-Based Medicine

Where is the part about vaccinations?

 

[Katzndogz]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.

What is disgusting is your dishonest attempt to equate the free exercise of religious beliefs with the intentional murder of an unborn child.

I didn't say one word about an unborn child. That's not what this thread is about.

It's about conservatives making it legal for parents to deny medical treatment to their child that results in the child's death.

So you're saying that religion can be used as an excuse to kill a child?

Wow.

It's been legal for decades. More than 100 years. Did you imagine that refusal of medical care on religious grounds was something that republicans just invented?

If the doctor doesn't like it he can do what doctors have always done, go to court and get a guardian ad litem appointed to make medical decisions on behalf of the child.

This is not new. It is so old it creaks already.

You're talking about something very different. You're talking about someone who is brain dead or in a persistent vegetative state, or living wills.

What I'm talking about is a child who has a very curable or maintainable condition. A condition that will kill that child if that child doesn't get medical help.

Please stop trying to change the subject.

It's funny to see all you conservatives make excuses or point fingers or try to change the subject. I guess you don't want to talk about the subject of this thread. If that's the case, why are you posting and reading this thread?

I think it's idiotic as Hell for a parent to withhold medical treatment from a child. I think those parents who claim to be Christian while doing this, have been taught just bits and pieces of the Bible, and need to change Churches.

It's much like this story:
A building was on fire, a man was trapped on the 5th floor, and the man was a devout Christian. He got down on his knees and prayed for The Lord to save him, the Lord answered him and said, 'I will save you from this fire.'
Just then the window got busted in, and a fireman came through it, 'come on let's go' the fireman said, the man said 'no' the Lord has said He will save me.'
As soon as the fireman left, the door got broken down, and a police man said 'come on le'ts go' the man refused for the same reason.
The policeman left and the ceililing came crashing down in one spot. A construction worker with a sledgehammer was busting his way to the bottom floor, , he begged the man to come with him and the man refused yet again.
An hour later the building finally collapsed and the man woke up in the presence of God, and the man asked God, why did you let me die, when you promised to save me.
The Lord said, 'I tried to save you 3 times yet you refused My help.'

God gave doctors skill and knowledge. That's good enough for me. Why liberals don't believe in vaccinations is mystifying since they certainly don't believe God will protect them from disease.

 

[bodecea]

This is interesting.

All these "pro life" conservatives aren't condemning this. They're making excuses and pointing fingers.

I guess they all agree with this bill that conservative christian extremists have every right to kill their children.

Which I find extremely disgusting but not surprising.

I find this to be the case most of the time. Present the most ridiculous situation...and if it comes from somewhere remotely "not liberal", they will run to defend it, excuse it, insult the OP......anything but say "wow! that's messed up!"

 

[Dana7360]

This is interesting.

All these "pro life" conservatives aren't condemning this. They're making excuses and pointing fingers.

I guess they all agree with this bill that conservative christian extremists have every right to kill their children.

Which I find extremely disgusting but not surprising.

I find this to be the case most of the time. Present the most ridiculous situation...and if it comes from somewhere remotely "not liberal", they will run to defend it, excuse it, insult the OP......anything but say "wow! that's messed up!"

All they've been doing is trying to change the subject or point fingers.

It's very interesting. They spend so much time calling others murders yet they have no problem when a so called christian kills their child by withholding medical treatment to that child.

Now the crazy extremists want to make it legal to kill your child by withholding medical treatment in Idaho.

Don't you just love that personal responsibility the right wing extremists demand from everyone but themselves?

 

[jwoodie]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.


I didn't say one word about an unborn child.

So YOUR reference to "pro life" has nothing to do with the abortion issue? Yeah, sure.

I don't think that pro life only means that a person is against abortion. I believe it means that a person is pro life. Which means that person believes that it's wrong to kill a child by denying it medical treatment. Pro live means that you don't support war or the death penalty.

When a person is pro life they can't pick and choose what they call life or pro life.

Meanwhile conservatives are trying to make it legal to use religion as an excuse to withhold medical treatment from children even if the children die.

How about addressing that instead of trying to change the subject?

Hoisted by your own "pro-life" petard, eh? As long as we are playing word games, let's redefine "pro-choice" as including the choice to withhold medical treatment from your child. How does that sound?

 

[koshergrl]

Nonsense. The thread is a joke, and the title is a lie.

Republicans in Idaho and elsewhere have no interest in *killing* children. That's a fabrication. It isn't like they are advocating that the children have their spines snipped or they be ripped apart.

They are just saying the state cannot prosecute parents because they choose alternate treatment methods for their children. But the statists, per usual, think the state should dictate what sort of care and when it is provided.

See, this child must undergo painful and sickening chemo, even if he's dying...

But this child should be euthanized.


Depending on the day and the progressive nutbag in charge.

The important thing..the parents have no say.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.

What is disgusting is your dishonest attempt to equate the free exercise of religious beliefs with the intentional murder of an unborn child.

I didn't say one word about an unborn child. That's not what this thread is about.

It's about conservatives making it legal for parents to deny medical treatment to their child that results in the child's death.

So you're saying that religion can be used as an excuse to kill a child?

Wow.

The article that you posted in the OP makes the unborn part of what the thread is about.

Addicting Info Pro-Life Idaho Republican Religious Parents Should Be Allowed To Kill Their Kids

And there you have it. A “pro-life” conservative “Christian” Republican lawmaker just demonstrated that her party cares more about fetuses than they do about children. According to this philosophy, women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term, but religious nutjobs should be allowed to let their already born children die by denying them professional medical care. This is about as monstrous and hypocritical as it gets.

I doubt there are but a few republicans like Perry who support the right to refuse medical treatment to children. Those few do not represent the whole republican party, while every democrat supports abortion and is representative of the whole.

 

[Dana7360]

There's nothing pro life about this and it's disgusting that there are politicians in our nation that want to let people get away with murdering their living and breathing children.


I didn't say one word about an unborn child.

So YOUR reference to "pro life" has nothing to do with the abortion issue? Yeah, sure.

I don't think that pro life only means that a person is against abortion. I believe it means that a person is pro life. Which means that person believes that it's wrong to kill a child by denying it medical treatment. Pro live means that you don't support war or the death penalty.

When a person is pro life they can't pick and choose what they call life or pro life.

Meanwhile conservatives are trying to make it legal to use religion as an excuse to withhold medical treatment from children even if the children die.

How about addressing that instead of trying to change the subject?

Hoisted by your own "pro-life" petard, eh? As long as we are playing word games, let's redefine "pro-choice" as including the choice to withhold medical treatment from your child. How does that sound?

Your reply shows you didn't read my full post and you didn't click on the link.

You're having a temper tantrum about the title of an article. An article and title I didn't write. Those aren't my words. They're the words of the author of that article.

If you have a problem with the words pro life then it's yours. Not mine.

Meanwhile since I have not read anything from you beyond trying to change the subject, I can only believe that you approve of killing children by denying life saving medical treatment.

I guess life is valuable to you when it's inside a woman's body. Once it's outside her body you want that child to be killed by denying it live saving medical treatment.

You don't condemn what those conservatives are doing so you must agree with it. Which is very sick in my opinion.