Shouldn't this couple be tried for first degree murder?

First Degree Murder? No. They didn't intentionally try to kill the child and there was no premeditation to kill the child. But they should be tried for child neglect & endangerment, resulting in a death...ie, negligent homicide.

I need to say something about Ann's answer. She made an outrageous claim and didn't back it up with any proof. First of all she said that the child "would have probably died without a transfusion." (Not the child you mentioned, but another case) How does she know that? Often even the doctors involved in the cases don't know the impact for good or bad that the tranfusion has made. She certainly doesn't.

But the main thing that I am concerned about is that she said the parents later rejected the kid over it and put him in a foster home. Jehovah's Witnesses are never counseled to do anything like that. Maybe there were untrue rumors floating around the town such as that. Whenever there is a high profile story the rumors start flying.

She didn't back up that claim with any source and she doesn't accept emails either. Some of the people who say the most controversial things don't allow email. I wonder why. I don't want to jump to conclusions about her but without supplying proof she leaves me no choice.

Many people lie about us, esp on this site. Maybe she is doing that or passing on an a lie she heard and believes.

Even if the couple did that, they would not be practicing the JW faith and would be acting contrary to our beliefs. That would make them only professed JWs.

Now for your own question. The Bible supports medicine in general, Even the apostle Luke was a physician. That couple has not done thorough research of the Bible but taken the word of their religion as gospel.

But it isn't first degree murder as defined by the law.

I just wish everyone would value their children's lives and not feed them junk food, give them little attention, yell at them and neglect them in other ways. There is too much finger pointing. And abortion is first degree murder.

I'd also like to see more people refuse to go to war and kill each other and fellow believers on the battlefield. Don't have a blind sense of loyalty for your government. Do you even know how corrupt it is?

I agree,

it is murder.

This sort of thing has been

going on for far too long,

and it's going to continue until

someone does something about it.

Usually, insane religious beliefs

are pretty harmless and entertaining,

but when innocent infants and children die,

and continue to die, that's when

we need to step in and take precautions

so that it doesn't happen again.

We have to protect those nutbags

and their children from themselves.

Well, at least the infants and children.

If that means stiffer laws,

then I'm all for it.

It's about time we put those

faith-healing con artists

out of business anyway..

I won't go so far as defend them, because they are responsible for the care of these children.

I would however defend a persons' individual right to let nature take it's natural course at the end of life. I can, if I choose, ethically refuse cancer treatment if I wish, withholding necessities like food and water is a different story.

These people are wackos as you suggest.

It comes down to a matter of "freedom of religion". I remember that years ago, we had a "scandal" in the little town where I lived. There was a family of Jehovah's Witnesses (who don't believe in blood transfusions) who had a child who was gravely injured when he was struck by a car. He was rushed to a hospital in the nearby city and into surgery. The parents refused to allow him to have a blood transfusion, so in an emergency move, the county judge ruled that the child was to be declared "a ward of the court". He then got the transfusion (and several others) which probably saved his life. While he was recovering, his parents said that they could no longer accept him as a member of their family, because he had been "tainted by receiving foreign blood". They saw that as an abomination to their faith. They gave up their parental rights, and refused to have anything to do with the child. He was put into the foster system, and eventually adopted. People who subscribe to Christian Science also do not go to physicians, but try to let their "readers" heal children through reading scriptures and praying over them. This really doesn't have anything to do with pro-lifers. They object to abortions, rather than "after the fact" incidents. There have been incidents of parents taking their children out of hospitals, who are getting chemotherapy. The courts seek to protect the rights of the children, who can't fight for themselves in court.

Praise that god damned lord for showing the stupidity of religion yet again.

Technically it's just man slaughter.

But consider this. We are all born atheist and then our family forces us into their religion. And most religions require a new formal joining ceremony during puberty to confirm it.

So, if that child could be considered still an atheist, wasn't the child's religious freedom being violated by family AND court?

No, because they believed it would save their child's life. It's an honest mistake, even though it's stupid. Insanity is a viable defence against murder and criminal responsibility.

Pro-lifers are strange people. They think their beliefs are Biblical when the Bible is fine about abortion.

Some people view it as if you take an action then you've done wrong, but failure to take action doesn't count.

I don't subscribe to this way of thinking....just have noticed it in some areas of life...

Then you have the sticky wicket of: if I interfere with "their" religious freedoms, somebody could interfere with mine.....

Sad.

i just know that if the parents had a bad enough toothache, they WOULD seek the medical help of a dentist.

and it's too bad they didn't seek treatment for their now dead baby.

How fcuking stupid do you have to be to kill a second child by relying on prayers when you already killed one by praying?

They need life with no chance of parole. They need to be removed from society.