Yeah.......No! A practice of neglecting children as a part of religion, is neglecting children. Our society protects children that cannot protect themselves, until they are capable of protecting themselves. What they are doing is abuse.

@micktoz That is an argument made ideological stand point. Which is why it fails to encompass the other persons belief system. As such you haven't shown case of abuse other than simply not using your preferred method of healing over theirs.

Given your base argument I could then extend it to say anytime something has statistically better come outcomes by a subjective stand point I could claim you failed to perform correctly. Citing liability, abuse, and or neglect.

Any attempt to force a person to use a medicine or treatment simply because it statistically has a higher level of performance is stripping the person of their freedom of religion. The same freedom of religion that allows you to be Agnostic.

@Biosteelman Yeah, go ahead and idealogue freedom of religion. Abuse of someone who can't protect themselves based on religion is still abuse. Freedom of religion does not include freedom abuse.

@micktoz it's not abuse. Stretching words to fit your desired meaning doesn't make them more true. There is a reason why sugar pills are used when showing comparative advantage of a medicine. The person's pure belief that they will live has proven to be effective against some illness.

[health.harvard.edu]

Let's not say there is a god. Trying to logic with bullshit is buying into bullshit. Just have to admit that in their belief system, their god is an arsehole, and they are a likeness to their imaginary god

@BookDeath That's fine. You cannot possibly believe that people who are completely nonfunctional are better off because they can breathe with a machine always attached to their body.

@PhoebeCat I don't think this was the case... If it was I agree with you...