Herbert and Catherine Schaible asked God to heal their 8-month-old baby son with magic while he spent days struggling to breathe. He died last week. They were still on probation for manslaughter after letting their two-year-old son die of pneumonia in 2009 under similar circumstances: they sought the aid of supernatural beings with magical powers rather than doctors with medical degrees. 

Imagine Herbert and Catherine Schaible had killed a toddler in 2009 with a savage beating or by neglecting it in favor of watching Star Trek DVDs for a week straight while it coughed itself to death. Would they have gotten probation for that or would they still be sitting in prison today? How likely is it that, once placed in the hands of a jury, Herbert and Catherine Schaible will ever spend time in prison for killing the second of two small children with religiously motivated medical neglect?

You might want to Google similar cases before you post your thoughts on the matter.

Tags: medical, motivated, neglect, religiously

Views: 909

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This may sound cruel and insensitive, but isnt this an effective way to let religious fanaticism literally die out?

These maniacs will not spread their DNA. Their faith is killing them and their culture of faith.

They walk the walk and provide an accurate example of the power of faith.

Even though it is certainly vile and counter intuitive to allow children to die, maybe those who would pray themselves into oblivion should be allowed to do so.

This may sound cruel and insensitive, but isnt this an effective way to let religious fanaticism literally die out?

No. The ranks of the irreligious in the United States are comprised overwhelmingly of the formerly religious. Look at profiles on TA and you'll see numerous examples. These were not religiously fanatical children. They were the children of religiously fanatical parents. Now they'll never have the chance to grow up.

These maniacs will not spread their DNA.Their faith is killing them and their culture of faith. They walk the walk and provide an accurate example of the power of faith.

Religion spreads by proselytization and upbringing not DNA. Remove an 8-month-old baby boy from his murderously religious parents, place him in the care of proper adoptive parents (ones who will seek medical attention when he falls ill) and he'll grow up alive and well, DNA and all. 

Even though it is certainly vile and counter intuitive to allow children to die, maybe those who would pray themselves into oblivion should be allowed to do so.

Or maybe not. I just wish judges and juries would stop saying "I respect your beliefs" and start saying "Your beliefs are fucked up". Kill yourself with hocus pocus? Fine. Kill your baby with it (twice)? The soft gloves need to come off.

You have to wonder why all the "pro-life" fanatics aren't picketing the court.

The point I was trying to make is you cant brain wash a dead child into becoming a fanatic.

Fanaticism does not 'die out', it just finds new victims. If the victims are very young, they cannot easily find an advocate, unless someone is watching. The fanatics do not have an 'off switch' once they get on a roll, everything is used to validate their ideology.

Ideology does not need 'genetics' per say, only another mind to express it. 

Just out of sheer curiosity, has it been conclusively proven that genetics have no influence on an affinity for fundamentalism? For the record I do not identify myself as an atheist, only a human being who does not subscribe to fairytale s and bullshit.

I expect that given enough 'culling' from the ranks of religious folks, by discrimination, child murder/killing, etc, there could be a genetic drift/specialization into a small genetic pool. How it would be expressed is unclear. But maybe:

Small heads, big mouths, reduced intellectual ability/intelligence, increased sensitivity to the words 'science', 'fact', 'evidence' , 'Darwin', reduced functional vocabulary, reduced attention span for social connections, increased litter size due to reduced viability, and a preference for dark confined places near government buildings. In short something similar to morlocks, but without the technical skills...;p)   

Just out of sheer curiosity, has it been conclusively proven that genetics have no influence on an affinity for fundamentalism?

You mean as opposed to affinity for a non-fundamentalist religion like atheistic Wicca?

No, but you've got it twisted around, M.M. It falls to you as the claimant to prove conclusively that religious fundamentalism spreads via DNA (as you originally claimed) not to the dubious to prove that it does not.

Besides, even if DNA is involved, how is excusing religiously-motivated infanticide more effective at preventing the perpetrators from reproducing than putting them prison? It's rather difficult for Mom or Dad to produce more kids or raise any surviving kids in a fundamentalist tradition while behind bars. In contrast, an excused Mom and Dad are free to have 'replacement' kids or raise fully indoctrinated surviving kids, thus reinforcing DNA nature with fundamentalist nurture. 

Re read my original post. At no time did I claim fanaticism is spread by DNA. I only said those that kill their children will not spread their DNA. Or, if we are fortunate, their CULTURE of faith.

But let me ask this, if someone makes a statement of fact disputing anothers statement, the disagreeing party does not have to provide factual evidence regarding that statement?

That sounds like bullshit.

And a cop out.

Re read my original post. At no time did I claim fanaticism is spread by DNA.

You wrote: "[...] but isnt this an effective way to let religious fanaticism literally die out? These maniacs will not spread their DNA."

When questioned on this you later added "...has it been conclusively proven that genetics have no influence on an affinity for fundamentalism?"

So, according to you, in writing these words you were NOT referring to religious fanaticism and religious fundamentalism spreading by DNA? You were referring to some OTHER (still unnamed) undesirable DNA-driven trait that thankfully will not be able to spread now that two babies are dead? 

That sounds like bullshit. And a cop out.

And that sounds like phony outrage and intellectual dishonesty.

I only said those that kill their children will not spread their DNA. Or, if we are fortunate, their CULTURE of faith.

Where did you mention CULTURE in those statements? You didn't. You said DNA and genetics specifically. So that is what I responded to.

Really, M.M. I might have believed a "Gosh, I wrote DNA but I meant culture not genetics". But to come at me with a flat denial in one hand and a "you're full of shit" in the other? A complete reversal of roles, as though I'm the one who misrepresented what was said, despite the transcript which shows otherwise?

Hawk it all you want, M.M. but I'm not buying it.

re re read my first post. it is in there.

"These maniacs will not spread their dna. Their faith is killing them and their culture of faith" That is verbatim from my first post.

You even reprinted this in your first reply.

One method (if not the primary method) of perpetuating a culture is through family members.

No family members, no traditions passed down, their culture begins its decline..

That is exactly what I meant. My fault for not spelling it out. I am not a writer. It is on me for not expressing my ideas clearly and concisely and a main reason I dont enjoy posting anything on this site outside of my little record group.

And any time someone says "no thats not true"

regardless if it is what I meant specifically, if it is something I genuinely dont know but would like to find out I will ask that person if they know what they are talking about. And usually they do not. They simply disagree and try to pass off their opinion as fact.

I'm not outraged, only calling bullshit when I hear it.

So it is not a cop out to disagree and have absolutley no facts to back up that which one is claiming to be untrue?

"It is not true because I say so." and thats enough?

That is what I am calling bullshit. It sounds like a rule of engagement made up by one who does not want to lose the argument but has nothing to refute the others side except NO it isnt "Razz Berry."

How is that not intellectual dishonesty?

Intellectual dishonesty. Really?

Trying to paint me as a liar is the way you respond to people?

That is revealing. Thank you.

And no thank you.

RSS

Forum

where when how who why ?

Started by aubrey knows nothing * in Small Talk. Last reply by Karlee 3 hours ago. 2 Replies

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Cato Rigas 5 hours ago. 34 Replies

Blog Posts

coexist

Posted by aubrey knows nothing * on October 23, 2014 at 9:25pm 1 Comment

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 7 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service