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

[Dana7360]

This is a perfect example of pro life conservatives. Force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth then allow her to kill that child by refusing any medical help and only using prayer to cure the child. Which we all know kills children.

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.


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

 

[TheOldSchool]

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

 

[Katzndogz]

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

 

[martybegan]

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

Or prosecute them when some other kid, who can't be immunized for some medical reason, gets sick and dies because the hipster parents read junk science.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

Or prosecute them when some other kid, who can't be immunized for some medical reason, gets sick and dies because the hipster parents read junk science.

Prosecute "liberal" parents for negligence but let Repubs kill their children.

How predictable. Rabid RWs never disappoint and once again prove they really don't care about children at all.

According to RWs, its all about controlling and invasive laws against "liberals" and the welfare of children should never be a consideration.

So how do you propose to punish only "liberal" parents for killing their kids?

 

[martybegan]

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

Or prosecute them when some other kid, who can't be immunized for some medical reason, gets sick and dies because the hipster parents read junk science.

Prosecute "liberal" parents for negligence but let Repubs kill their children.

How predictable. Rabid RWs never disappoint and once again prove they really don't care about children at all.

According to RWs, its all about controlling and invasive laws against "liberals" and the welfare of children should never be a consideration.

So how do you propose to punish only "liberal" parents for killing their kids?

I guess your side hates it when their hypocrisy is shown, which of course in this case, it is evident.

Mind your own fucking kids, unless parents are ACTIVELY harming their own children, stop trying to legislate parenting.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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

 

[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

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This is a perfect example of pro life conservatives. Force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth then allow her to kill that child by refusing any medical help and only using prayer to cure the child. Which we all know kills children.

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.


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

I assume he was doing what I myself do saying if abortion's gonna be legal, then a new mother should be able to bash her kids' brains out on the floor as well. It's hyperbolic language not sincere belief.

 

[daws101]

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

false there are just as many conservative parents who don't vaccinate because of religious reasons ..

also
Measles Outbreak Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field
By JEREMY W. PETERS and RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑAFEB. 2, 2015

Inside
Continue reading the main story Video

Play Video|12:12
Vaccines: An Unhealthy Skepticism
Vaccines: An Unhealthy Skepticism
An outbreak of measles that started at Disneyland has turned a spotlight on those who choose not to vaccinate their children. How did we get to a point where personal beliefs can triumph over science?

Video by RetroReport on Publish Date February 1, 2015. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.

WASHINGTON — The politics of medicine, morality and free will have collided in an emotional debate over vaccines and the government’s place in requiring them, posing a challenge for Republicans who find themselves in the familiar but uncomfortable position of reconciling modern science with the skepticism of their core conservative voters.

As the latest measles outbreak raises alarm, and parents who have decided not to vaccinate their children face growing pressure to do so, the national debate is forcing the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential hopefuls to confront questions about whether it is in the public’s interest to allow parents to decide for themselves.

Gov. Chris Christie’s trade mission to London was suddenly overshadowed on Monday after he was quoted as saying that parents “need to have some measure of choice” about vaccinating their children against measles. The New Jersey governor, who is trying to establish his credibility among conservatives as he weighs a run for the Republican nomination in 2016, later tried to temper his response. His office released a statement clarifying that “with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated.”

Continue reading the main story
Graphic
Facts About the Measles Outbreak
A map of counties where cases have been reported so far this year, and a chart showing how the number of cases compares to previous years.


OPEN Graphic
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a physician, was less equivocal, telling the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on Monday that parents should absolutely have a say in whether to vaccinate their children for measles.

“While I think it’s a good idea to take the vaccine, I think that’s a personal decision for individuals,” he said, recalling his irritation at doctors who tried to press him to vaccinate his own children. He eventually did, he said, but spaced out the vaccinations over a period of time.

The vaccination controversy is a twist on an old problem for the Republican Party: how to approach matters that have largely been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives.

It is a dance Republican candidates often do when they hedge their answers about whether evolution should be taught in schools. It is what makes the fight over global warming such a liability for their party, and what led last year to a widely criticized response to the Ebola scare.

strict quarantines of people who may have been exposed to the virus. In some cases, Republicans proposed banning people who had been to the hardest-hit West African countries from entering the United States, even though public health officials warned that would only make it more difficult to stop Ebola’s spread.

On climate change, the party has struggled with how to position itself, with some Republicans inviting mockery for questioning the established science that human activity is contributing to rising temperatures and sea levels.

There is evidence that vaccinations have become more of a political issue in recent years. Pew Research Center polls show that in 2009, 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats favored requiring the vaccination of children. Five years later, Democratic support had grown to 76 percent, but Republican support had fallen to 65 percent.

The debate does not break entirely along right-left lines. The movement to forgo vaccinations has been popular in more liberal and affluent communities where some parents are worried that vaccines cause autism or other disorders among children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/us/politics/measles-proves-delicate-issue-to-gop-field.html?_r=0

 

[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.

 

[Dana7360]

This is a perfect example of pro life conservatives. Force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth then allow her to kill that child by refusing any medical help and only using prayer to cure the child. Which we all know kills children.

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.


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

I assume he was doing what I myself do saying if abortion's gonna be legal, then a new mother should be able to bash her kids' brains out on the floor as well. It's hyperbolic language not sincere belief.

You assumed wrong.

They're trying to pass a law making it legal to use religion as an excuse to withhold medical treatment for children. Even if it results in the child dying.

This isn't hyperbolic language and they're very sincere about trying to pass such a law.

Denying what it really is won't prevent children from needlessly dying.

 

[Katzndogz]

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

false there are just as many conservative parents who don't vaccinate because of religious reasons ..

also
Measles Outbreak Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field
By JEREMY W. PETERS and RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑAFEB. 2, 2015

Inside
Continue reading the main story Video

Play Video|12:12
Vaccines: An Unhealthy Skepticism
Vaccines: An Unhealthy Skepticism
An outbreak of measles that started at Disneyland has turned a spotlight on those who choose not to vaccinate their children. How did we get to a point where personal beliefs can triumph over science?

Video by RetroReport on Publish Date February 1, 2015. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.

WASHINGTON — The politics of medicine, morality and free will have collided in an emotional debate over vaccines and the government’s place in requiring them, posing a challenge for Republicans who find themselves in the familiar but uncomfortable position of reconciling modern science with the skepticism of their core conservative voters.

As the latest measles outbreak raises alarm, and parents who have decided not to vaccinate their children face growing pressure to do so, the national debate is forcing the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential hopefuls to confront questions about whether it is in the public’s interest to allow parents to decide for themselves.

Gov. Chris Christie’s trade mission to London was suddenly overshadowed on Monday after he was quoted as saying that parents “need to have some measure of choice” about vaccinating their children against measles. The New Jersey governor, who is trying to establish his credibility among conservatives as he weighs a run for the Republican nomination in 2016, later tried to temper his response. His office released a statement clarifying that “with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated.”

Continue reading the main story
Graphic
Facts About the Measles Outbreak
A map of counties where cases have been reported so far this year, and a chart showing how the number of cases compares to previous years.


OPEN Graphic
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a physician, was less equivocal, telling the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on Monday that parents should absolutely have a say in whether to vaccinate their children for measles.

“While I think it’s a good idea to take the vaccine, I think that’s a personal decision for individuals,” he said, recalling his irritation at doctors who tried to press him to vaccinate his own children. He eventually did, he said, but spaced out the vaccinations over a period of time.

The vaccination controversy is a twist on an old problem for the Republican Party: how to approach matters that have largely been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives.

It is a dance Republican candidates often do when they hedge their answers about whether evolution should be taught in schools. It is what makes the fight over global warming such a liability for their party, and what led last year to a widely criticized response to the Ebola scare.

strict quarantines of people who may have been exposed to the virus. In some cases, Republicans proposed banning people who had been to the hardest-hit West African countries from entering the United States, even though public health officials warned that would only make it more difficult to stop Ebola’s spread.

On climate change, the party has struggled with how to position itself, with some Republicans inviting mockery for questioning the established science that human activity is contributing to rising temperatures and sea levels.

There is evidence that vaccinations have become more of a political issue in recent years. Pew Research Center polls show that in 2009, 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats favored requiring the vaccination of children. Five years later, Democratic support had grown to 76 percent, but Republican support had fallen to 65 percent.

The debate does not break entirely along right-left lines. The movement to forgo vaccinations has been popular in more liberal and affluent communities where some parents are worried that vaccines cause autism or other disorders among children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/us/politics/measles-proves-delicate-issue-to-gop-field.html?_r=0

No religious denomination is mentioned as prohibiting vaccinations. Which ones are they? Even this article says that it's liberal affluent parents refuse to vaccinate. Is liberal now an evangelical religion.

 

[daws101]

If democrats don't want a religious exemption change the law. It's been the law for decades. Republicans didn't just pass it.

Meanwhile start prosecuting liberal parents who let children die rather than have vaccinations as well. No more double standards.

false there are just as many conservative parents who don't vaccinate because of religious reasons ..

also
Measles Outbreak Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field
By JEREMY W. PETERS and RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑAFEB. 2, 2015

Inside
Continue reading the main story Video

Play Video|12:12
Vaccines: An Unhealthy Skepticism
Vaccines: An Unhealthy Skepticism
An outbreak of measles that started at Disneyland has turned a spotlight on those who choose not to vaccinate their children. How did we get to a point where personal beliefs can triumph over science?

Video by RetroReport on Publish Date February 1, 2015. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.

WASHINGTON — The politics of medicine, morality and free will have collided in an emotional debate over vaccines and the government’s place in requiring them, posing a challenge for Republicans who find themselves in the familiar but uncomfortable position of reconciling modern science with the skepticism of their core conservative voters.

As the latest measles outbreak raises alarm, and parents who have decided not to vaccinate their children face growing pressure to do so, the national debate is forcing the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential hopefuls to confront questions about whether it is in the public’s interest to allow parents to decide for themselves.

Gov. Chris Christie’s trade mission to London was suddenly overshadowed on Monday after he was quoted as saying that parents “need to have some measure of choice” about vaccinating their children against measles. The New Jersey governor, who is trying to establish his credibility among conservatives as he weighs a run for the Republican nomination in 2016, later tried to temper his response. His office released a statement clarifying that “with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated.”

Continue reading the main story
Graphic
Facts About the Measles Outbreak
A map of counties where cases have been reported so far this year, and a chart showing how the number of cases compares to previous years.


OPEN Graphic
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a physician, was less equivocal, telling the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on Monday that parents should absolutely have a say in whether to vaccinate their children for measles.

“While I think it’s a good idea to take the vaccine, I think that’s a personal decision for individuals,” he said, recalling his irritation at doctors who tried to press him to vaccinate his own children. He eventually did, he said, but spaced out the vaccinations over a period of time.

The vaccination controversy is a twist on an old problem for the Republican Party: how to approach matters that have largely been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives.

It is a dance Republican candidates often do when they hedge their answers about whether evolution should be taught in schools. It is what makes the fight over global warming such a liability for their party, and what led last year to a widely criticized response to the Ebola scare.

strict quarantines of people who may have been exposed to the virus. In some cases, Republicans proposed banning people who had been to the hardest-hit West African countries from entering the United States, even though public health officials warned that would only make it more difficult to stop Ebola’s spread.

On climate change, the party has struggled with how to position itself, with some Republicans inviting mockery for questioning the established science that human activity is contributing to rising temperatures and sea levels.

There is evidence that vaccinations have become more of a political issue in recent years. Pew Research Center polls show that in 2009, 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats favored requiring the vaccination of children. Five years later, the New Socialist Progressive Democrats

The debate does not break entirely along right-left lines. The movement to forgo vaccinations has been popular in more liberal and affluent communities where some parents are worried that vaccines cause autism or other disorders among children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/us/politics/measles-proves-delicate-issue-to-gop-field.html?_r=0

No religious denomination is mentioned as prohibiting vaccinations. Which ones are they? Even this article says that it's liberal affluent parents refuse to vaccinate. Is liberal now an evangelical religion.

DODGE
and out of context

 

[daws101]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

that's not the point, you claim more liberals refuse medical treatment for their kids than do conservatives and that's bullshit.