More parents kills their children in the name of christ.

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
This has to cause christ to weep but if he does nothing to prevent it then what can you say. But even if he came down ad slapped the parents upside then sad and told them to go to the doctor they would just think it was the devil. They can't be convinced no matter what. :mad::mad::mad::mad:
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268748/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=YbjXYdek

CORVALLIS, Ore. (AP) - A Linn County judge will soon decide whether a family's religious beliefs are relevant to the death of their daughter.

Syble Rossiter, 12, died of complications from diabetes, and she endured such a dramatic weight loss in the month before she died that a teacher confronted her mother about the issue.

The family is part of the Church of the First Born, a fundamentalist sect that believes traditional medical treatment is sinful, and instead trusts in God to heal them through faith, The Albany Democrat-Herald reported (http://bit.ly/1jS23gm ).

Syble's parents, Travis and Wenona Rossiter, face manslaughter charges.

Their attorneys want to exclude evidence of the couple's beliefs from the trial, arguing that such evidence would be prejudicial.

Prosecutors said the family's beliefs are the reason they failed to seek medical care.

"They knew she was in great peril. (They) didn't seek out medical care, and the reason they didn't do it was their religious beliefs," Prosecutor Keith Stein said. "This is what the case is about, and in truth, this is what happened."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
I don't understand how minors in this context are considered property.

"Well she's my child so I will pray and reject medical realities because my loving god decides her fate"

Does a parents religious rights end at the medical decisions that would cost their children's lives? Apparently not. This kind of case seems to be a constant thread that runs through American life.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,038
16,520
The Misty Mountains
Their attorneys want to exclude evidence of the couple's beliefs from the trial, arguing that such evidence would be prejudicial.
Not prejudicial, enlightening. If it's relevant to the accused's motivation it should be included. Otherwise, how can the jury understand?
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
Oregon passed a law exempting using faith as a reason not to give medical care to children because of this horrible church. Generations of families have let their children die sometimes more then once. These idiots are not pro life in anyway.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Should've been first degree murder. This was a premeditated decision to kill their daughter. Lock em up and throw away the key.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Should've been first degree murder. This was a premeditated decision to kill their daughter. Lock em up and throw away the key.
That'd be a helluva lot harder to prove, since you can't say these people were acting maliciously. The facts surrounding the case are enough to slap these people with negligent homicide or manslaughter, and get them a good 20 years in prison, I'm sure.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
That's impressive! It's not every day that you meet someone who's died multiple times.

No the parents killed two of their children and one of their children had kids and let one die. Sow three children dead in one family in the same church. All in the name of god.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Go to a NICU, find a 23 weeker gestational age, and throw it in a blender. Tell me if it's murder after.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Yeah abortion is out of hand.
So we should lock up women who have abortions and throw away the key? Sounds like the type of country I wanna live in!!!! :rolleyes:
Different circumstances, same result.
Different circumstances, different results.
One is the death of a person, the other is the prevention of a clump of cells from growing into a self sustaining person. Apples and oranges. Nice try though.
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
Denying your child, a minor, medical attention because of religious beliefs should be a crime, no questions asked. There is no reason at all that any person can give for this child to die over something as manageable as diabetes.

Lock the parents up, they're not fit to have kids.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Different circumstances, different results.
One is the death of a person, the other is the prevention of a clump of cells from growing into a self sustaining person. Apples and oranges. Nice try though.
I like how you compartmentalize the two, helps with the ick factor doesn't it?

Either way, it could be said that we're all nothing more than a clump of cells, why do you feel the need to make the distinction for a fetus?

I even know a few "clumps of cells" who are not what you could consider "self sustaining persons"; I suppose ending their lives would be permissible under your guidelines?
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
So a murder and a natural death have the same end result so they are the same?
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
I like how you compartmentalize the two, helps with the ick factor doesn't it?
Actually there is no ick factor in it for me, sounds like a you problem.

Either way, it could be said that we're all nothing more than a clump of cells, why do you feel the need to make the distinction for a fetus?
Because a fetus is a parasite that cannot survive outside its host.

I even know a few "clumps of cells" who are not what you could consider "self sustaining persons"; I suppose ending their lives would be permissible under your guidelines?
Can they survive outside the womb? Apparently so, since you know them. So no, it wouldn't be.

EDIT: Actually, it totally depends. If it's someone is in the situation that Renzatic pointed out, if their family feels it appropriate to end their life then I feel that it's permissible.
 
Last edited:

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
So a murder and a natural death have the same end result so they are the same?
You tell me, isn't that what you started this thread arguing?

----------

You mean people in permanent vegetative states who are showing zero higher cortical functionality?
I mean people who are 100% reliant on the care of others for survival. Someone with a severe mental retardation comes to mind. Is it ethical to "abort" someone like that? Some of the people I know are seemingly not even self aware (which was another quality I saw held out as justification of abortion).
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,360
4,342
Gourd City
You tell me, isn't that what you started this thread arguing?

----------



I mean people who are 100% reliant on the care of others for survival. Someone with a severe mental retardation comes to mind. Is it ethical to "abort" someone like that? Some of the people I know are seemingly not even self aware (which was another quality I saw held out as justification of abortion).
Perhaps you can now take the time to answer my earlier question in another thread regarding personhood:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=19036399
 

Renzatic

Suspended
I mean people who are 100% reliant on the care of others for survival. Someone with a severe mental retardation comes to mind. Is it ethical to "abort" someone like that? Some of the people I know are seemingly not even self aware (which was another quality I saw held out as justification of abortion).
No, it's not. To me, someone with severe mental retardation has the right to life because there's a "person" in them. Depending on the severity, they might not be completely self aware, but they can feel pleasure, pain. Some things make them happy, other things sad. They enjoy the company of certain people. Even though it might be limited in some ways, and they'll always require the care of others throughout their lives, there is some semblance of humanity in them, and we should treat them with the utmost respect.

But say you have someone who's basically a brain stem attached to a still living body. For all intents and purposes, that person is dead. There's nothing there that mentally makes up a human being. In this situation, killing the body isn't the same as killing the person, because...well...they had already died long before.

I equate early-mid term abortions with that. I'm not gonna say it's AOK, and everyone should have abortions without feeling the tiniest bit of guilt, but I can't call it outright murder because there isn't a person there yet. It will be one day, but it's not yet. It's here you have to weigh the rights of someone who isn't a person yet against the rights of the mother, who is very much a living, breathing, self aware human being who have their own hopes and dreams, and loves and hates. I err towards the latter. Her now takes precedence over the fetuses unrealized potential.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
I don't understand why a bunch of our right-leaning posters brought up abortion in this thread?

What does abortion have to do with parents committing negligent homicide by denying their 12-year old daughter medical treatment based on their "beliefs" from a fictional book?


If anything, bringing up abortion in this thread just makes Christians look more foolish and reaffirms the whole "Pro-life but only until birth" thing.