I usually don't draw a distinction between direct and indirect abuse. If you refuse to get your child life-saving treatment, you might as well put a bullet in their heads yourself. What makes one action worse than the other, if the results are the same?

What is "indirect abuse"?

I will give you one answer...intent.

What is the intent of the person pulling a trigger? To kill. No matter what, it is to kill.

Does the person refusing to allow a blood transfusion have that same malice and intent?

No. In fact, they are doing that out of love, even though it may be misplaced. They are putting the soul above the body.

Do I agree with that decision? No.

But it is still their decision, as a parent. It trumps society.

You know, I don't really care. Bad things aren't bad because they're done by bad people with bad intentions. They're bad because they result in bad things happening. A person's internal life doesn't effect anyone but them, save for how it manifests in their behavior.

I think people have every right to step in and help a child being seriously neglected, despite what the child's parents might think about it. They don't own the kid.

You know so very little about crime. So let me help you...

Majority of crimes must have intent, and an overt act. Malice crimes, etc.

Murder has different degrees based on different levels of "intent".

And you want to change that to just harmful actions? No intent at all?

So manslaughter should get the same as murder 1? In one situation, you have someone actually plan, organize, and carry out a killing. In the other, you were just careless, maybe a bit scatterbrained, or stupid, but someone still died. Same level of punishment?

Who determines what "neglect" is?

How does your definition somehow trump mine?

Used to be a child at the age of 5 had chores to do. Some might now say that a child doing chores is neglect of some kind.

But you are right. A parent doesn't "own" a child...a child is not a slave.

But you don't "own" that child either. Your rights to determine what is best or right for a child falls below that of a parents rights.

(just going out on a limb here, but you have stated you don't make a distinction between direct or indirect abuse, you don't make a distinction between levels of intent. It seems that the only "distinction" you make so far is elitist...that your view is somehow better than anyone elses? "My view is more enlightened than that of a parent..." Am I wrong here?)

Matters of the soul are best determined by the individual not that individuals parents.

I really have to agree, if a life saving treatment is being refused by the parents I think its societies duty to step in. As the child gets old enough to make their own decisions they might not agree with their parents reasoning or spiritual beliefs.

And yet minors do not have the ability to make those decisions.

For example, if you disagreed with the JW practice, and there was a 6 year old who was going to die...the parents said no, a bunch of others say yes...

You will leave it up to the child to decide?

And when that child says "no", who would be the first to claim that the child lacks the maturity to make a life and death decision? We don't even let them make a decision on things like what to eat for dinner, or enter into a contract? But life and death decisions...that is okay?


You contradict yourself.

Above you say let the child decide. Now you say society decides?

It isn't up to society to dictate what a person believes. Society may not like it, but it isn't their place.

I am not JW, but I will say...my neighbors choices on how I raise my child end at my property line. The ONLY exception is in the case of actual abuse. And denying treatment is not abuse.

No, society decides in a life in death situation, if the parents are content to let their child die, if its a matter of the kid going to church on Sunday, fine parents, and when that child is old enough, they'll decided what they feel about spirituality, best let them get old enough to decide before we let them die for a spirituality they may or may not choose.


Letting a child die when treatment is available and readily accessible is negligent.
Let me pose this question, scientology believes children are theatens who have already lived thousand of lifetimes, so the child is responsible for their actions, not the parent.
Now imagine a few years in the future Tom Cruise's daughter decides to go about town throwing bricks in windows, lets say she's 10 years old.
Now law dictates that the parent of a minor is responsible for that minor's actions, and if charges are raised against the minor they go for the parent.
Does the religion circumvent the law, should Tom Cruise still be charged for his daughter's crime?

Death through negligence is still a crime, religion doesn't circumvent the law.

What gives society the right to decide?

At what age does society no longer get to decide?

I disagree with the role you give society. A group of people won't necessarily make the right choice. And many times, the popular choice is not the best choice.

You, as a neighbor, don't have the best interests of my family at heart. You have YOUR best interests at heart. YOU want to impose restrictions on people that help you sleep at night.

And once you start deciding that you can override the control of a parent in this instance, it will soon become some other item.

Maybe not sending a child to a public school is "abuse" that you can override? No matter how bad that school is.


I disagree.

Not to be offensive, but I have no idea what you are saying here.

I think what you are saying is that the religion in this case punishes the kid for throwing the brick.

Yet somehow society would blame Tom Cruise.

The law doesn't make Tom Cruise criminally liable for the actions of Suri. Nowhere, not any law, makes him liable for that. The cops do not go to Tom Cruise and arrest him.

The law may impose CIVIL remedies to apply against the parent. But we aren't talking civil actions here.


Death through negligence is a crime.

Where we differ is that I don't accept refusing treatment is negiglent. In my example, JW's believe that the soul is more than the body. They believe they are condemning their child by doing a blood transfusion.

Essentially, by allowing the treatment they are being negligent.

And you are somehow saying your view on religion, on right and wrong, is somehow above theirs.

It doesn't really matter what you or the church believe is negligent, its what the law declares as negligent is what really matters here.
Once again religion doesn't circumvent law.

The point I'm making with the Scientology reference is the law dictates something the religion disagrees with. Despite what Scientology feels about the responsibility of the child, the law places responsibility with the parent, where as the religion places responsibility with the child. Law is the deciding factor here, so charges can still be brought against the parent.
Religion does not circumvent the law.

Also haven't there been cases where someone has killed their children out of fear for their souls, its still considered murder.

Okay, fair enough.

And the law states it is not negligence.

I am wondering...do you know how many states even allow the government/society to override the decisions of a parent in this situation?

Charges can NOT be brought against the parent. None. Zero.

I would suggest you actually investigate what it takes for a crime...and how what you suggest is completely ignorant.

Great point.

Let me distinguish between the 2 cases.

In the one, you have INTENT, and an action. They intended to kill the kid, and they ACTUALLY KILLED THE KID.

In the other, you have a parent that did not act. They refused others to act. Also, they don't have the intent for the kid to die. They may think that a miracle will happen. And there are times when miracles do happen.

In legal matters, those are a big difference.