""""There is a key difference here. In the case of abortion that collection of cells is not yet a thinking, independent function human being...it cannot live and thrive independently. A child living outside the womb is.""""

per the declaration of independance

"""that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,"""

as soon as they become cells they are created by their creator (their parents)

I don't want to make this an abortion thread but if a collection of human cells that is indistinguishable from a collection of frog or goat or cow cells is a human being with a right to life you have just taken off the table birth control pills, stem cell research, organ transplants, blood transfusion, large portions of life saving medical research and treatments and so on.

Simplistic thinking and superstition yields uninformed, invalid and unworkable solutions...life simply isn't that simple.

so these cells are no different than any other cells (dna may diasagree)

and i did nothing but quote the declaration of independence

so shoot me

I've noticed you've taken to saying "Christian Extremists" that part is good, but I can't help but notice that no matter what the circumstance, like this one that involves American Indian beliefs, you look for an example of where Christians have done something similar. It's hard to believe you don't have a problem with Christians in general. But hey that's just me, when I see something that quacks like a duck I assume it's a duck

again...when should the government come in between someoneones belief....whatever the belief???

IMO - when a child is being abused or neglected. The children need to be protected.

I do agree personally....but what about those that believe in alternative medicine. this particular group believes that their way has been around longer than modern medicine and even modern medicine can at times be worse for the patient. chemo and radiation makes a person very sick and doesn't guarantee a cure either in a lot of cases. maybe it's science vs nature here?

I agree. I think the problem is we don't want to turn over the decision of when that takes place to our government, and with good reason. But what is the alternative?

no doubt

but who is to say when religion turns to neglect

if one is of the faith that does not believe in a blood transfusion should their children be forced to have a blood transfusion or face neglect charges

i think not

it is there right under the first amendment (shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof)

if the govt can mandate medical treatment then the govt might just as well take the child at birth and institutionalize them and raise them the govt way

as that is what this will lead to

their was a movie that had something like this happening (wish i could remember the name of it)

the govt said there was a shortage of children and forced known children into custody but there were a group of freedom fighters living in the woods with their children a lot of children (which group is abusing and neglecting the children in that circumstance)

the constitution is on fire and i find it hard to believe so many want to throw gasoline on it to burn it faster

What group believes in such a thing?

Let's stick to realities here davey!

Fanta...there are people that don't believe in any modern meds at all

some Jehovah’s Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions...i'm sure there are other's as well

Soo! LMAO

What does that have to do with drilling a hole in a childs head?

Show me a group who does that!

Besides Med doctors!

the cult of assassins

but hey

what do i know

I'm going crazy...I swear I saw something about transfusions somewhere

adj said it....and I thought fanta responded to him I need to go back to bed

It's an extreme example I admit and to my knowledge there is no one in this country doing that. The point was to make an obvious situation. There are many situations where beliefs can be life threatening I just wanted one that couldn't be argued with.

So the question I'm looking to have you answer and stop avoiding is, when a religious belief is known to cause death in a given situation should we still allow parents to kill their children?

Well, there are steps that they talk. It starts with an investigation with social workers in Family Services. If done correctly and is needed, it goes to court.

When one reads the news, we can see that not all children get the protection needed ie shaken baby syndrome, death, etc.

Religion isn't the only cause of abuse or neglect. People can have mental illnesses or drug addictions.

The law stepped in with the booster seat laws. That's saved lives and injuries.

The bottom line is that children need to be protected.

Yeah absolutely religion is not the only cause for concern. Generally when religion isn't involved kids get the appropriate help and offenders (when caught) get appropriate punishment. We are sometimes too slow to help children and such as well. The question at hand is what do we do when religious beliefs are at the heart of the problem.

The parents intent is not to harm in this case and it's a much stickier question. If I believe what I hear Fanta saying it is a parents right to kill their child if what necessary to save them goes against their religious beliefs.

Usually such questions of outside intervention come from different beliefs and a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind that belief.
Usually the question arises when the death sentence has already been diagnosed.

The question then becomes, Do we have a right to dictate our beliefs on them and our own righteous feelings that we know better, that our way should be followed.

We are not God and we are not second in command. We are not the natural biological parent.

We have no right and we should just butt out. Period!