Rights of Children to Life>Religious Freedom

I would refine that. Exorcisms that are harmful to the child and a willful failure to obtain medical care for a child should be illegal.

Forced conversion is a historical fact. And not limited to Christianity.

And there are plenty of people world wide in various different religions who would be OK with it now, if they were the ones doing the forced converting and they could get away with it.

Well most Christians would pray along with normal medical treatment. Certainly you aren’t opposed to that. Its only when you get to the cultic loonies that they refuse all medical treatment.

I love it when religious folk call other religious folk loonies. You’re not OK with blood transfusions because you’re a rational person. You’re OK with blood transfusions because the particular sect of Christianity you were born into isn’t against them.

The Bible does not demand things like “refuse medical treatment” as it is reasonable.

Is it your position that the Bible only demands reasonable things?

From the human perspective, not necessrilly.

Praying along with normal medical treatment is good wishing, not opposed to that. Of course that time could be spent on researching your doctors and hospitals that are really doing the work.

Read the articles posted on the Milwaukee kid and the Neumanns. They look or seem like loonies? By any other standard, they’re not. Own houses, leaders in their communities, but they are absolutely not capable of raising children.

Then what does your previous post mean? Certainly it’s possible to posit a God who is opposed to blood transfusions for reasons known only to It.

What other perspective is there? Or do you mean, from the non-human perspective? Like the perspective of a horse? Or a dog? Or a super computer? Please, be specific.

Why are we singling out religious freedom? Deaths of children due to lack of blood transfusion number, what, maybe 5 a year?

Far more people die because of the obesity, lack of exercise and bad dietary habits instilled by their parents. I’m guessing that number is at 10, 000 a year, and it’s going to increase exponentially in coming years.

And then there are the numerous studies that conclude that a vast majority of vegan children are suffering from malnutririon.

So, do the “less than ideal health conditions” have to be religious in origin? Or do you favour the state mandating all health-impacting decisions?

If you do favour state intervention in all decisions, where do you draw the line on such a gross incursion into personal liberty? If it is based on medical outcomes then it would seem that if you would start mandating diet before surgery.

If you think that it only applies to religious beliefs, why is that? Why does it not also apply to ecological/ethical beliefs as it pertains to vegetarianism? Why does it not also apply to conduct with no basis in belief engendered out of laziness and ignorance, as in most cases of childhood inactivity and obesity?

I think people are over-parsing the word choice of “less than ideal health conditions.” It’s pretty clear what Curtis meant. There’s no need to try to box him in over trivia like circumcision when that’s clearly not the kind of thing he was referring to.

The answer to the OP is that yes, the child’s own rights to health and life supercede any parental rights to force their religion on the kid. Freedom of practice means that individuals can believe and practice what THEY want, it does not mean they have a right to force other people, not even their own children, to subordinate their own lives to it. Children are not property, and parents have no religious right to kill or injure them by withholding medical care.

This does not mean that children necessarily have to be taken away from such households, but the state has a responsibility to make sure the kids get the care they need, whether the parents like it or not.

There was a case up here in the MSP area a year or so ago where a set of parents were refusing to let their kid get chemo for a condition in which his chances of survival were very high with the treatament, but almost non-existent without it. After a court ruled that the kid had to be allowed treatment, the parents tried to flee the state with the kid. They got caught, the kid got the treatments he needed (he was not taken away from the parents), and his condition (which was critical when the parents tried to flee with him) improved greatly. The government did everything right.

Thjis is the caase I was talking about.

Daniel Hauser case

Thank God for the government.

Do you have an answer to the OP’s question? Do parents have a right to refuse to let their kids get blood transfusions, yes or no?

The forum requires me to be charitable and conclude that you are mistaken in this. Scholargoogling “vegan children malnutrition” returns several hits. Let’s look at them:

-None of them suggest that “the vast majority” of vegan kids are malnourished.
-Growth and development is normal when parents pay attention to what they’re doing.
-And yeah, when kids are malnourished due to a fad diet, we DO see it as child abuse.

Is there perhaps the teeniest chance that your antipathy toward animal rights folks is coloring your judgment here? I’m no mind reader; I simply offer it as a hypothesis for your shitalicious reading of the material.

And there’s no Biblical evidence for that.

God obviously.

This is something of a circular argument, I think.

-The Bible doesn’t demand that we refuse blood transfusions, because blood transfusions are reasonable.
-The standard of “reasonableness” we should use is divine, not human.
-We know that blood transfusions are divinely reasonable because the Bible doesn’t demand that we refuse them.

Is this a fair summary?

The Bible has no legal relevance anyway.

Yes. Of course there’s some things the Bible doesn’t condemn or proscribe which are clearly inadvisible such as running stark naked through a street.