Aborting a clump of cells the size of a pea is a crime worthy of life imprisonment, but letting an actual baby die due to neglect is just hunky dory. Welcome to the insanity that is 'Murica in 2019.

Sadly, this is not new to 2019. This is a return to the 1940s and '50s.

In Idaho this isn't new at all. Idaho actively protects 'faith healers' and there have been over a hundred deaths of children because parents refuse to take their kids to a hospital. It's speculated that more often than not the reason for death was easily treatable.

And yet the conservatives complain about death panels when it comes to health care in the USA and people not allowing to chose their own doctors if there is a single payer system? Pathetic.

Shouldn't there be some kind of win/loss chart to determine whether a "faith healer" is actually healing anyone? If a dozen kids out of a dozen die in spite of all the mumbling, rattle-shaking and hooting in tongues, there _should_ be legal charges slammed down on those charlatans...

It seems like the issue is the law itself, not the Michigan Supreme Court.

It strikes me as odd how extremely divergent fundamentalist Christians are when it comes to medical care. For some, do nothing and let people die of easily preventable illnesses. For others, if you're in a permanent vegetative state hooked up to a dozen machines artificially keeping you alive - don't you *dare* pull that plug!

in order to talk about the Right to Live, let's first talk about Terri Schiavo and the Right to Die (with Dignity). her gravestone bears her husband Michael's words: "I kept my promise." or are wedding vows *just words* ... when it suits us?

the fight over her continued *existence* was just disgraceful. her birth family aligned themselves with theocrats who sought -- and still actively seek -- to penetrate the veil of State/Church separation ... no matter what the cost. those *evangelistas* believe that their End fully justifies every Means necessary. they were joined in that effort by no less than FL's governor at the time: Jeb Bush, as well as Congress, President Bush 43, the Vatican (!), and the U.S. Supreme Court.

the tactics were just as they are today, in the Project Blitz onslaught currently being waged against the Commonweal. the case played out in public, before Michael Schiavo was finally granted permission to free his wife from her mortal coil.

read what her gravestone says. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

look at the pictures from the public fight to keep a brain-dead person *alive*. https://www.cbsnews.com/pic....

watch this documentary on Terri Schiavo and the Right to Die. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

after examining these -- and, hopefully, other -- sources, judge these issues for yourselves, but be prepared to articulate your reasons therefor. WHEN did Terri die: in 1990, when she suffered the heart attack and consequent oxygen deprivation that caused her Persistent Vegetative State (PVS)? or in 2005, when she was starved to her physical death? who had the right to the body and earthly existence of a PVS-diagnosed person: their birth family? or their family by marriage? what, indeed, do wedding vows mean IRL? was Terri Schiavo allowed a dignified death, or was she starved to death because of subjective beliefs?

how does this issue relate to the one at hand, about the ownership of one's body and mind? nowadays, the fetal heartbeat is being used as *proof of life* and, thus, humanity. what, then, of lack of brain functionality and, thus, individual autonomy? is that not *proof of death*? or, like wedding vows, is it just something convenient that may or may not be appealed to, as it suits?

these issues, and others i won't pursue in this venue because this would become a pamphlet, if not a book, need to be front and center in today's moral -- and political -- debate.

That was truly a tragic case.

not only tragic, but a perfect -- and perfectly disgusting -- example of the many ways in which religion exploits suffering.

this isn't just *theory* to me; i lived it IRL: after my husband's massive heart attack in April 2002, during which he suffered severe oxygen deprivation (sound familiar?), he was put on life-support machinery for 3 days before an accurate EEG could be performed to assess his brain activity. it was as flat as one can get to flat without EEGing a rock.

i had no difficulty -- or qualms -- about having life-support measures withdrawn and allowing him to die (officially) in peace. i needed a witness in order to sign off on the request, and the religious woman who obliged expressed her sorrow, but i knew i was doing the right thing and i ended up comforting HER!

note that this event occurred years before Terri Schiavo hit the national news. John wasn't pretty like Terri was, nor was he young like her, and his parents had predeceased him (by only a year!); as an only child, there were no potential entanglements from relatives, and his two children by a previous marriage had no objections.

I am sorry that happened to you. I agree, this case was one of those ways that religion exploits suffering. I've seen similar instances in my family's "pro-life" church.

I had no ill feelings towards my church when I left religion behind me. In fact, the way that my family's church (Catholic) treated me is probably one of the reasons why I stayed so long. I felt accepted there, which was something I craved as I had undiagnosed autism and always came across as "weird" to people, especially children my age. I didn't make friends often during my childhood, and I didn't keep them long when I did. Also, for the most part, the lessons learned from the specific parts of the Bible that they focused on seemed okay to me. However, I also remember them praising the heck out of how Pope John Paul chose to die...full of suffering. Although I suspect that many of them were hypocritically pro-death penalty, blatantly not a very pro-life stance (not my family, who are pretty straight with the "pro-life" doctrine, but they're also more liberal Catholics in many ways), most of the local Catholics took "pro-life" to a very disturbing extreme. "Pro-life" doesn't take into account the quality of life. I mean, we euthanize terminally ill pets and even livestock, don't we? We don't prolong their suffering. Why the hell do we not allow the same dignity to people who are suffering and have no hope of recovery? It doesn't make sense!

BridgetD -- yours is the kind of response that i would pray for, if i prayed. instead, when i cast out my thoughts upon the internet waters, i want to land a big fish -- you've given me that big fish. THANK YOU SO MUCH!

i, too, am autistic -- Aspie, to be specific. also undiagnosed, until i did my own self-diagnosis at age 40 (25 years ago). needless to say, the past 25 years have been a cakewalk compared to the first 40. one of my BFFs back in the '60s is STILL a BFF today. i keep in contact with her AND her 3 sisters via Facebook and telephone calls. another current Facebook friend is the younger sister of my very first BFF, from back in 1957! but i only had one real friend at a time, never anything else, other than acquaintanceships. so i can understand exactly where you're coming from, and i'm sorry that happened to you, too.

i have a theory about Aspies and social media: IMO, we're the next step in Darwinian evolutionary theory. the internet is both our friend and our food-for-thought slash friendships. you might be surprised at how many of us surf these waters -- i grab on to y'all whenever i come upon you and hold on for deal life. so, won't you be my friend? i'm already YOUR friend, no matter what.

now, in the spirit of *catch-and-release*, i carefully remove the hook from your mouth and return you to the still waters of DISQUS, hopefully to see you more often from now on.

One word; Hope.
They hope that "tomorrow" they will have that one in a billion "miraculous" recovery, or that someone will suddenly announce the cure for whatever ails them.

It's all a matter of how active you are in the killing. If you allow someone to die and do nothing to stop it, no matter how easy it would be to do so, that's OK. But if you take an active part in the death, no matter how brain dead that person really is, that's murder!

Just like in law, there are varying degrees of "murder." It's not as black and white as that and you should know that...

conservatives: "liberals are passing abortion bills that legalize child murder after birth!!!!"

fundie christian actually births child, then kills it: silence

In regard of the laws passed recently or on the verge to pass in various backward states, that's particularly painful to read.

I keep hearing that from Fox Noise aficionados, and I have no idea how to address that.

Live children don't matter but if they had aborted a fetus....................................

^This.

Believe me... if the fetus had a condition that would have caused its death in the womb... these folks would have gotten medical aid faster than you could say "Hypocrisy!"

But on the other hand... maybe not. What's another dead woman more if you have to upkeep the divine law?

My religion requires me to punch religious assholes who let their children die of preventable diseases in the face. So, I won't get charged with assault if I punch these two, right?

Mine requires that I hold them hostage, force-feed them acetaminophen until they suffer irreversible liver damage, become jaundiced, and bleed from the mouth before dying...while chanting gobbledygook over them. An eye for an eye, just like their Bible says. They get to experience what their baby did.

just be sure to use big brass knuckles so you do maximum damage.

Like that?
https://youtu.be/XrvuqBeKIBk

They stole that from Bugs Bunny.

How in the world do you decide what is, or is not, a 'legitimate' religious belief? Establish a governmental panel to pass judgment on religion? Religion shouldn't even be a legitimate consideration. These people belong behind bars, and permanently stripped of their parental rights.

Yeah! I mean, suppose someone kills a child and then claims they sacrificed them to the Great God Pan because He requires the blood of the firstborn? How is that any less “legitimate” than Christians neglecting their kids to death? After all, the Christian God required human sacrifice of children many times in the OT, yet somehow Christianity is “legit”.

I think all religious beliefs are equally legitimate, which is to say, completely illegitimate.

I would say that the barest minimum of what a "legitimate" religious belief is should start with the idea that the religious belief doesn't kill someone*.

*Since forced birthers are so deliberately obtuse, i'll state the obvious and say that abortion is not about killing the babeeees, it's about the woman being able to determine what happens within her own body.

No, throw all holy books in the trash, and throw out all religious claims and defense out. Then give these savages a good ass kicking. Put them in jail, and make sure every other inmate knows what they did to their children.

I'd be good with that.

For the ass kicking part, in you opinion, cleats or steel-toed boots?

“God never makes mistakes.”

Which is why he had to murder everyone on the planet and start over with one incestuous family.

How does she know that god's plan wasn't for her to seek medical treatment?

"I sent you a boat and a helicopter..."

" . . and 'He' had the raw gall to place a rainbow in the sky and then 'say' that he wouldn't do this again."

But, meanwhile, there are still tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, the risk of a giant meteor impact, risks of global epidemics, global climate change - ocean level rising, and -always- stupid parents who should never be allowed to abuse or neglect any children (not excluding those who have the misfortune to be their own offspring).

So, all the "pro-lifers" are currently scrambling to repeal this horrific law, yes?

Since the child wasn't a fetus the pro-forced birthers couldn't care less.

It would make sense that they are...so no, they aren't.

I'd say the issue has more to do with the law. It's a loophole that should be closed. Slim chance of that happening because of christian privilege. Somehow I don't think if the parents were muslim they would have gotten the same ruling. This is what religious liberty is really about, the right to harm others and get away with it because you're christian.

Why the fuck are they counted as not negligent parents just because they're religious? Who the fuck thought that allowing a fucking religious exemption to negligence laws? Because they need to be dragged out of their fucking grave and hung, drawn and quartered. And then fucked by rancid zombies.

Those poor rancid zombies. Why do you hate them so?

Those rancid zombies who you suggest should perform this sentence of penal rape- they should be Zombies-of-the-cloth, should they not?

http://images.esellerpro.co...

Christian privilege.

It is what it is.

This is what a christian nation would look like. Christians can kill and use their religion to hide behind. Ironically they use the laws to their advantage because those were made for christians. If a muslim would do that this law would never apply!

Sadly, there are kid-killer statutes like this on the books of most states, put there decades ago at the behest of Christian Science lobbyists. If you'd like to help get rid of them, you should support the work of Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (childusa.org).

I wonder if these people would demonstrate consistency in their religious faith filth by refusing to seek shelter for themselves (and their children?) when a tornado is approaching . . . because "God makes no mistakes," and it would also be interfering with God's will.

Ideally, the planned neglect of the second jaundiced child would provide proof positive that these so-called parents had NOT learned the lesson that the first death should have taught them. The law should hold them accountable, and any preacher that told them this nonsense should shoulder part of the blame.

What is wrong with these people? In a word, religion. What is wrong with these laws? Same answer.

This "any preacher that told them this nonsense should shoulder part of the blame" is one of the problems with the law. If a Mafia don tells his people to kill others, he can be charged for the murder. If a "pastor" teaches things that cause harm or death he can't be charged because "religion." This...must...be...changed!!!

They are really deep in their weird religion. I peeked once at their fb pages. Hers especially is practically all KJV quotes. That's it. They're like a pair of parrots or something, or defective computers programmed to spout nothing but KJV babble verses.