2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

"Many people who think about the ethics of abortion don't see this as such a big line. The line at what point in pregnancy abortion should be allowed is also not clear."

Indeed but I don't think we can dismiss all discussions of child health and well being because it might impact the abortion debate. Taken on it's own merits, I think this is a clear cut case of child neglect and relgion is no excuse.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Venessa,

We already have rules about how children are raised and the point is that if your choices hurt your child, you cannot hide behind your religion. There are parts of the world where female castration is standard operating proceedure for young girls. It's unnacceptable here for any reason. Even if you think you are doing the right thing, you cannot give your baby kool-aid instead of a proper diet of breast milk or formula. Your ignorance is not protected by relgion and your child's health and well being trumps your belief.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I guess I'm confussed because a lot of people seem to think that child abuse is bad and cannot be justified but a child's preventable death is just an "oh well, it happens" sort of situation.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Freedom of religion also means you get no special treatment BECAUSE you are relgious. If you simply neglect your child with no relgious justification, that's no better or worse than doing it in name of a god.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Venessa,

I think that if you are speaking on behalf of a minor who is not in a place to make those choices for herself, it's your duty to protect her in any way you can, so yes, for a minor, you should seek every avenue possible to protect her. As for adults, I don't care if they let themselves die.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

You make a good point about abortion but I think it's causing you to throw the baby out with the bathwater (is that a poor choice of words?) For those of us who are pro-choice, we see a clear distinction between fetuses and children and once the child is born, we already have a clear policy of protecting the child's best interest.

Just because you don't intend to hurt a child, doesn't mean you haven't. If you were beaten during childhood and see it not as harm but as a lesson, that doesn't mean you are free of fault if you beat your own child.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

A child's life always trumps her parents beliefs. I really don't see how this can even be debated. A child is too young to make these decissions for herself. Had she been beaten or undernourished (for any reason) she would have been taken into the custody of the state. This should be no different.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context