Rachel and Joshua Piland let their baby girl die from jaundice rather than take her to a doctor. A judge just sentenced them to at least 20 years behind bars.
Thank you. My father used to tell my sister and I the story of how he had to go get blood at the blood bank. These days that condition is treated with antibiotics, but in 1970 treatment was very crude.
Not as serious, granted, but my daughter had chicken pox when she wasn't even one year old. I got to take care of her, Aveeno baths and the whole nine yards, until that cleared up.
And now she is a sharp and beautiful young woman ... and I'm one proud dad!
Both my children had jaundice right after their birth. My eldest spent several days under the bili lamps. For my second child, I was told to feed her and keep her in the sun as much as possible. Both recovered quickly.
My grandson was born with multiple issues including jaundice. He spent a week in the NICU under lights. We have photos from that time that we call “Disco Baby”.
If you believe in God: God made the Doctor who could have saved your daughter; God made the medical researcher who developed the treatment; God gave you free will to determine that taking your daughter in for treatment would be an act of faith for God's other acts.
Even their damned church washed their hands off the argument by saying their churchlings are free to go to a doctor if they want to despite their church's religionite doctrine against it.
When I was in college, one of the campus maintenance guys had a horrible accident with a large post hole augur and lost both his arms.
But, the arms were wrapped up and taken on the helicopter, and the doctors wanted to try and reattach, but he was a Jehovah's Witness and they don't believe in blood transfusions and he refused the surgery.
At that point the man ought have been considered incapable of a reasonable response, sedated even against his will, and given treatment.
While in college in the 80's, I was friends with a 1-armed army veteran, who lived in a van by the river. He too was very religious, refused any type of aid, though he clearly needed it. During cold weather he heated the van by burning stuff inside the van. He ended CO poisoning & burning himself to death.
This is my belief exactly. When I was a young teenager, my friend's brother died of a strep throat. I asked her why they didn't give him penicillin and she responded that they were Christian Science and weren't allowed to have medicine. It perplexed me, even at my young age.
I looked up the couple and, back when the kid died and the other kids were taken away, the court offered them a safety plan to keep the other kids. The other kids were not returned to the parents because the parents refused to stop beating the children ("physical discipline") as the safety plan instructed.
Thanks for the extra info. In the U.K. we would have done exactly the same. (UK family lawyer here). But 150 years ago they would have been hailed as ideal parents.
Thanks for this additional info. Your comment prompted me to reread the original post more closely to understand what happened to the other kids - in particular, the babies. So here's what I've gleaned:
Baby Abigail died because her parents, the Pilands, deliberately withheld medical care based on their crazy religious beliefs. They were initially charged with manslaughter.
After their arrest, the Pilands lost custody of their two other children because they refused to stop beating them. Nevertheless, during the period between their arrest and conviction, the Pilands had two additional babies (!!!!!) - both of whom are apparently inflicted w/the same medical condition as Abigail. Both babies were removed from the home. *Unless the Pilands had twins, that means they had one baby who was removed from their home & then a second!!!* (Is that possible? Am I reading that right?)
I can't help but wonder if the Pilands killed other babies prior to Abigail's death.
If the law is the same as in England and Wales they would not have released info about other children who died in similar circs during the trial without very strong evidence that it was so similar that it was more probative than prejudicial - we call that “similar fact”.
But after the trial that doesn’t apply.
Given that they have now mentioned other children being removed because they were being hit or were at risk of death or injury at the hands of the parents I think that we can take it that there weren’t any earlier children involved thank goodness.
U.S. criminal law (state & federal) is the same/similar: In general, "prior bad acts" are inadmissible at trial to prove that a defendant committed the crime for which he/she has been charged. There are exceptions in both state & federal law - but they're complex.
I suspect such evidence is more likely to be admitted at trial when defendants are poor (or have crappie lawyers) than when they are rich. I can't say for certain without doing research. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but rather, a civil litigator who no longer practices.
I, too, am thankful that only 2 other children were apparently subjected to that horrible & perhaps criminal treatment. All I meant to say (& didn't articulate well) is that, if I were to learn that these parents allowed other babies to die in the years prior to their arrest, I wouldn't be shocked - whether or not evidence of those deaths was admissible. The fact that these parents had 2 new babies (apparently one after the other!) - both of whom (if my understanding is correct) had the same medical condition of the baby who died & had to be removed from their custody - diring the pendency of the manslaughter/murder charges against them AND after they'd already lost custody of 2 children strikes me as uber strange. Obviously, the law can't prohibit people from having sex or force them to use birth control. So is this what happened while the charges were pending? They had a new baby who was taken from their custody after which they had yet another baby who was taken from their custody?! And what does it mean if my understanding is correct and both babies did, in fact, have the same medical condition as the baby who died? Does that increase the likelihood that other babies produced by these parents might have the same condition? (I have no idea.) And then there's the father's testimony ... Didn't he testify that he wouldn't have sought treatment for the 2 babies that were removed from their custody?
Maybe I've watched too much Law & Order ... but when I read that snippet of testimony in context, I immediately thought: "Oh no ... In years past, these parents might've allowed other babies to die without anyone noticing or reporting it."
Admittedly, the other thing that crossed my mind when I read about their extremist religious fervor and the 2 new babies was: "How much you wanna bet their religion - at least as they interpret it or, more specifically, as the man/father conveniently interprets it - prohibits or frowns upon birth control?" (Sorry. Not sorry. It's not unusual, after all, for a religion to strip women of any reproductive freedom/agency. Just sayin'.)
Okay ... Enough already. I had no intention of subjecting anyone/everyone to my stream of consciousness ramblings. 🙄Please forgive me.
I looked up the two churches and both appear to be operating out of people's houses. I hope to see more secular/atheist analysis of the home church movement; I've heard it's been growing and it seems like it could be a fertile ground for extremism and abuse.
And this is also a major problem with home schooling. Many of them use the Bible as their only textbook and source for education. Obviously that excludes science and assorted other subjects they disagree with. I love getting these kids in my public school classroom after they’ve spent years listening to their crazed parents educating them. This would explain how 1/3 of the US society is so gullible and stupid.
Oh believe me, I was homeschooled for a few years and it was wild. At the time I was presenting as a girl still and at so many (ostensibly nonreligious!) homeschool extracurricular activities I would be the only girl wearing pants. I did like a week long chemistry lab thing, and at lunch on the first day one girl suggests going around the room and talking about how you came to know Jesus as an icebreaker.
Also, the homeschool lobby is terrifying and insane. HSLDA has convinced everyone that if the state does basic rudimentary checks on if the children are learning and not being abused it means CPS is literally going to steal and sell your children. It's very revealing how they harp on about how they don't want their kids to be "government property"---it's because they see their kids as their property, akin to a car or a tv or jewelry, and can only understand kids through that lens. Anybody who tries to advocate for the children's welfare becomes somebody trying to take their property rights away---the children are not conscious human beings to these people. Abigail Piland is not the only child who's died from that mindset.
“Homeschooled.” Just a terrible idea. Ignorant parents teaching the gospel of FAUX News. What could go wrong?
Homeschooled kids receive no socialization. They don’t have to work at “getting along” with others. As a result, many never do get along with others, cannot reason and wind up under a big flat rock somewhere…with the rest of the MAGATS. Homeschool 😂😂😂
When I was of school age DM had the choice between homeschool and board school, she choose the latter. She even managed to put me in kindergarten (not every day) for 6 months prior first grade. Not an easy feat for a nomadic family back in the 80's.
Gods of Olympus, please don't take this as advocacy, but the following were all homeschooled (at least early on, they were). They are, in no particular order:
Abraham Lincoln, Taylor Swift, Agatha Christie, John Adams, Thomas Edison, Theodore Roosevelt, Mozart, Alexander Graham Bell, Einstein, da Vinci and Thomas Jefferson.
(they get review bombed on google by crazy people because they advocate things like "the state should check that homeschooled kids can read" and "parents shouldn't homeschool if they don't have at least a high school diploma")
Sorry, has to be said— For the majority of your examples to be homeschooled way back in the early days of our nation was TOTALLY different than being homeschooled today by crazed MAGAt and/or religious extremist parents. When the majority of your examples were homeschooled that was the norm. Unfortunately today’s homeschooled children get home schooled for all the wrong reasons and end up being poorly educated and socially awkward after having their crazed parents backwards beliefs shoved down their throats. Many children are put at a significant disadvantage by their homeschooled curriculum. And of course depending on the situation, every child’s homeschooled experience will vary. Why do we require our educators to have a university degree & license but let anyone homeschool? Most parents aren’t qualified to help with public school homework let alone conduct homeschooling in every subject at every grade level.
There are many legitimate reasons to home school & then, there are some crazy ones, like religious fervor.
Among legitimate reasons to home school are public schools with chronic problems, such as schools that tolerate bullying, schools that don’t control violence, schools with abysmal academic records, schools that pose physical hazards due to maintenance failures, and schools that don’t have adequate resources to educate children with learning differences.
Oversight of homeschooling varies from state to state. Some states require homeschoolers to submit their lesson plan and meet state curricula requirements, as well as meet at the end of each school year with an academic advisor. The advisor reviews students’ achievements to ensure they are on target to graduate when they should and suggests plans for the following year.
For those seeking to truly educate, rather than indoctrinate, their children, there are many resource’s available. Field trips and other events planned among home schoolers may be helpful to socialize children, but in many cases, children who do not ‘fit in’ because of learning differences or physical or behavioral characteristics that set them apart won’t benefit from attending events where they will be ostracized again.
It’s true that home schooled kids may lack social skills from lack of exposure but as they mature and get out into the world these skills can be picked up. It’s also true that some kids who go to public or private schools may lack social skills. Some of that has to do with family social skills and some to do with individual personalities.
If your child is in a detrimental public school setting or is being passed from grade to grade without being educated, home school can be a viable option. But it is HARD work, and whoever undertakes it has to be in a position to afford to be at home and engaged and needs, at times, the patience of a Saint.
The majority of children passed from grade to grade without being educated are passed on at the insistence of their parents so they can stay with their peer group no matter what they have learned and accomplished at each grade level. Most parents are reluctant to hold their child back to learn basic skills. It’s usually when these children reach the upper grades that we suddenly learn that they cannot read, think or function on their own. This little known fact has been covered up for years by the child & parent often til a child is about to graduate. By then it’s way late to fix the problem.
Though it's too late to help their daughter, at least their other children have been taken away. This is but one more in a long list of examples of what can be justified in the name of religion. Religion is a millstone around the neck of humanity.
Prison isn't good enough for these two. I say that as a father.
When my daughter burned herself cooking some Oodles of Noodles in the microwave, I vaulted out of my chair at work and shot posthaste to the hospital ER, where a friend of our family had taken her. I did not leave her side through the whole afternoon and evening. Luckily, the burns were very minor.
If you have kids, they come first. Especially their health.
These two are villains of the first order. If I believed in God and Satan, I'd pray they go to Hell.
Of course not. We care about PEOPLE, especially those close to us. We put our attention on things that ARE, and we're not much interested in things that ARE NOT.
That would be a waste of time, and time is the one thing you can never get back.
I have felt for years that parenthood should be a licensed activity. Anyone who is so suggestible they would allow a newborn infant to die of an easily treatable condition is truly a monster and should never be loose in society again.
The trouble then is how do you prevent an authoritarian regime, like the one trying to cement itself in power in this country right now, from using that licensing system as part of a eugenics program- which is something multiple people in this administration's orbit, including the President himself, have expressed interest in?
Education (on parenting techniques which put the child's interests first) and oversight (over all new parents up until their oldest child reaches a certain age), I'd think, would be a better and safer course. That's the harder mountain to climb, as it means undoing all the damage Republicans have done to the government's ability to provide either (and prying their grubby fingers off our government in the first place)... but we can't risk handing a government as inherently corruptible as ours has proven to be the power to decide who's allowed to have children and who isn't- because it's not murderous twits like these two who'd have that power used against them, not by 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 government.
Mandatory parenting classes in high school (freshman year) based on the science of child psychology and rearing (among other things, teach them better methods of discipline/behavior modification than spanking)
It is not practicable unless I get to make all the decisions... We could teach critical thinking skills and sex education and parenting skills, but human beings will push any system to its breaking point.
It appears the state took custody of the subsequent babies immediately after they were born as they should have. While these religious beliefs have devastating consequences people can and do change their beliefs. While I don’t see losing ones ability to reproduce as any kind of tragedy, forced sterilization has an ugly history and if laws allowed it today for someone’s beliefs or even behavior the targets would not be white Christians however “fringe” their religious beliefs.
I've listened to a mind-numbing number of Christians insist that they are the ones who value life the most, that children are precious to them, that these are 'Christian values' or 'family values', and so on. Yet here we are, reading an article where Christian parents kill their helpless infant because "God makes no mistakes." Abigail isn't the first child to die thanks to that idea, and she probably won't be the last, either; funny how the parents always seem to get medical care, but the kids don't. Responsible, loving, ethical Christians would have put a stop to that idea centuries ago, but here we are in the new millennium still dealing with the same idiocy.
Valuing life is not forcing people to have babies by law. Valuing life is protecting the most vulnerable members of society from the predations of sickness, injury, trauma, and other curve balls life throws at humanity. Valuing life means sometimes insisting parents of sick children seek lifesaving medical care for those children rather than allowing said parents to pretend what they're doing is acceptable; and if/when said parents refuse, providing some form of discipline within the religious community rather than just a shrug and a "what can you do? -type comment.
Remind me again. Why are atheists considered the monsters in the US?
As always, the burden of proof is on the one who claims there is an extant god. It is not up to the atheist to "prove a negative," which is both impossible and insane.
Also, imo, laws need to change so that, instead of charging parents after the fact, children can be taken for immediate medical care regardless of what the parent says. Fuck your "parent's rights" if you're gonna withhold medical care (which ranges from emergency life saving care to blood transfusions to vaccines to psychiatric care to birth control, abortion, and gender affirming care).
We do, indeed, need to reverse our thinking on parenthood as a society. While there's good reason to deny a child certain things until they've reached a certain level of maturity- chiefly voting, driving, and military service- there are many other areas in which the child should in fact have 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 rights than their parents. A child having the right to medical care, regardless of the parents' beliefs, would be a good place to start; a right to comprehensive and factually-sound education would be a great next step.
The child was, after all, not the one who asked to be brought into the world, and is absolutely helpless in that world for years after birth. Responsibility for another's life needs to come with accountability, and no small measure of 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. Once you've become a parent, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 should exist to serve your 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥- not the other way around.
The judge did not. Sure, he could have made the sentences shorter. But he did not, because he saw the seriousness. However, we need to ask why he did not give the maximum. Three words: Christian Fucking Privilege. The couple is willfully ignorant. They have refused to learn. They have refused to even consider the idea that their God may want them to use modern medicine to prevent their infants from dying. But, sinced their willful ignorance is rooted in their sect of Christianity, the judge chose to give them the opportunity to leave prison in 20 years. If he had made the sentences consecutive instead of concurrent, then maybe it would have satisfied justice. The only thing that might now is the parole board denying them until the full 45 years is up.
For the life of me, I can’t understand the willingness of judges to give sentencing breaks to pedo’s. The news is filled with stories of probation and concurrent sentences for those that have abused our children. Is there anything more important to protect than our kids? WTAF is going on with these judges?
The oldest (crazy) woman who had given birth was at least 70. For once the prohibiting cost of medical care in your country should prevent her to have more in case she have a revelation that doctors are actually sent by her god.
It is next to impossible to turn religious fundamentalists into atheists. With this story, you can at least try to persuade them to seek professional help when their children get sick.
I know Seth and he was into it. Also the co-president of FFRF was a hard core evangelist and missionary, and was described as the kind of guy you would not want to sit next to on a bus back then. They both realized that there was no rational basis for what they had been indoctrinated into when young. Same with Matt Dillahunty.
He doesn't, eh? Okay, let me ask you, then: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗛𝗘𝗟𝗟 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗞𝗜𝗗??? Your god apparently allowed your child to acquire this disease. It could just as easily have cured it, but it DIDN'T. Your god took NO ACTION for your child, AND NEITHER DID YOU, though curative action was utterly available. Yet you cling to your deity and insist it can do no wrong.
And now you both will have a considerable amount of time to think about the massive mistake you made. Make good use of it.
OMG! My twin sister and I were born with that condition in 1970. We are alive today because my parents listened to the doctors back then.
Wow! Glad you made it!
Thank you. My father used to tell my sister and I the story of how he had to go get blood at the blood bank. These days that condition is treated with antibiotics, but in 1970 treatment was very crude.
Not as serious, granted, but my daughter had chicken pox when she wasn't even one year old. I got to take care of her, Aveeno baths and the whole nine yards, until that cleared up.
And now she is a sharp and beautiful young woman ... and I'm one proud dad!
Both my children had jaundice right after their birth. My eldest spent several days under the bili lamps. For my second child, I was told to feed her and keep her in the sun as much as possible. Both recovered quickly.
The crucial point is, that you took your children to see a medic and followed the medic’s advice.
My youngest did too, a mild case, same treatment, same result.
My grandson was born with multiple issues including jaundice. He spent a week in the NICU under lights. We have photos from that time that we call “Disco Baby”.
I too, am glad your parents sought medical attention for you both.
"God makes no mistakes."
He allowed YOU two to bring a baby into this world, didn't he? No mistakes? Read Genesis 6:6.
If you believe in God: God made the Doctor who could have saved your daughter; God made the medical researcher who developed the treatment; God gave you free will to determine that taking your daughter in for treatment would be an act of faith for God's other acts.
Exactly!!
It's like the guy stuck on a tree in the middle of a flooded river.
A helicopter comes by, and they call out to him. He tells them "God will save me, I don't need your help."
A man on a boat comes by and tries to rescue him. He tells him "God will save me!"
The man on the boat goes off and eventually the man tires and lets go, and drowns.
When he comes to the Pearly Gates he says "God, why didn't you save me??"
God replies "I sent a helicopter and a boat, what more did you need?"
As an Agnostic I don't understand people who think they know the Will of God, or God's Plan.
They’re just demonstrating lazy thinking.
Those very same people also sincerely believe that prayer will somehow change “God’s Plan”.
That says that either “god” doesn’t actually have a plan, or it is sadistic and enjoys seeing us beg first.
Even their damned church washed their hands off the argument by saying their churchlings are free to go to a doctor if they want to despite their church's religionite doctrine against it.
Did the church say that before or after the kid died?
Very crucial distinction.
Veeeeery crucial. The article didn't say. Wouldn't surprise me if AFTER. Those churchly skinflints would want to escape any financial responsibility.
When I was in college, one of the campus maintenance guys had a horrible accident with a large post hole augur and lost both his arms.
But, the arms were wrapped up and taken on the helicopter, and the doctors wanted to try and reattach, but he was a Jehovah's Witness and they don't believe in blood transfusions and he refused the surgery.
I always wondered if he regretted that decision.
At that point the man ought have been considered incapable of a reasonable response, sedated even against his will, and given treatment.
While in college in the 80's, I was friends with a 1-armed army veteran, who lived in a van by the river. He too was very religious, refused any type of aid, though he clearly needed it. During cold weather he heated the van by burning stuff inside the van. He ended CO poisoning & burning himself to death.
This.
This is my belief exactly. When I was a young teenager, my friend's brother died of a strep throat. I asked her why they didn't give him penicillin and she responded that they were Christian Science and weren't allowed to have medicine. It perplexed me, even at my young age.
More totally irrational behaviour as the result of religious cultism.
I looked up the couple and, back when the kid died and the other kids were taken away, the court offered them a safety plan to keep the other kids. The other kids were not returned to the parents because the parents refused to stop beating the children ("physical discipline") as the safety plan instructed.
Thanks for the extra info. In the U.K. we would have done exactly the same. (UK family lawyer here). But 150 years ago they would have been hailed as ideal parents.
Thanks for this additional info. Your comment prompted me to reread the original post more closely to understand what happened to the other kids - in particular, the babies. So here's what I've gleaned:
Baby Abigail died because her parents, the Pilands, deliberately withheld medical care based on their crazy religious beliefs. They were initially charged with manslaughter.
After their arrest, the Pilands lost custody of their two other children because they refused to stop beating them. Nevertheless, during the period between their arrest and conviction, the Pilands had two additional babies (!!!!!) - both of whom are apparently inflicted w/the same medical condition as Abigail. Both babies were removed from the home. *Unless the Pilands had twins, that means they had one baby who was removed from their home & then a second!!!* (Is that possible? Am I reading that right?)
I can't help but wonder if the Pilands killed other babies prior to Abigail's death.
If the law is the same as in England and Wales they would not have released info about other children who died in similar circs during the trial without very strong evidence that it was so similar that it was more probative than prejudicial - we call that “similar fact”.
But after the trial that doesn’t apply.
Given that they have now mentioned other children being removed because they were being hit or were at risk of death or injury at the hands of the parents I think that we can take it that there weren’t any earlier children involved thank goodness.
U.S. criminal law (state & federal) is the same/similar: In general, "prior bad acts" are inadmissible at trial to prove that a defendant committed the crime for which he/she has been charged. There are exceptions in both state & federal law - but they're complex.
I suspect such evidence is more likely to be admitted at trial when defendants are poor (or have crappie lawyers) than when they are rich. I can't say for certain without doing research. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but rather, a civil litigator who no longer practices.
I, too, am thankful that only 2 other children were apparently subjected to that horrible & perhaps criminal treatment. All I meant to say (& didn't articulate well) is that, if I were to learn that these parents allowed other babies to die in the years prior to their arrest, I wouldn't be shocked - whether or not evidence of those deaths was admissible. The fact that these parents had 2 new babies (apparently one after the other!) - both of whom (if my understanding is correct) had the same medical condition of the baby who died & had to be removed from their custody - diring the pendency of the manslaughter/murder charges against them AND after they'd already lost custody of 2 children strikes me as uber strange. Obviously, the law can't prohibit people from having sex or force them to use birth control. So is this what happened while the charges were pending? They had a new baby who was taken from their custody after which they had yet another baby who was taken from their custody?! And what does it mean if my understanding is correct and both babies did, in fact, have the same medical condition as the baby who died? Does that increase the likelihood that other babies produced by these parents might have the same condition? (I have no idea.) And then there's the father's testimony ... Didn't he testify that he wouldn't have sought treatment for the 2 babies that were removed from their custody?
Maybe I've watched too much Law & Order ... but when I read that snippet of testimony in context, I immediately thought: "Oh no ... In years past, these parents might've allowed other babies to die without anyone noticing or reporting it."
Admittedly, the other thing that crossed my mind when I read about their extremist religious fervor and the 2 new babies was: "How much you wanna bet their religion - at least as they interpret it or, more specifically, as the man/father conveniently interprets it - prohibits or frowns upon birth control?" (Sorry. Not sorry. It's not unusual, after all, for a religion to strip women of any reproductive freedom/agency. Just sayin'.)
Okay ... Enough already. I had no intention of subjecting anyone/everyone to my stream of consciousness ramblings. 🙄Please forgive me.
Exactly. Just because someone decides their psychotic delusion is from “God” or their“Christian faith” doesn't mean it is.
I looked up the two churches and both appear to be operating out of people's houses. I hope to see more secular/atheist analysis of the home church movement; I've heard it's been growing and it seems like it could be a fertile ground for extremism and abuse.
And this is also a major problem with home schooling. Many of them use the Bible as their only textbook and source for education. Obviously that excludes science and assorted other subjects they disagree with. I love getting these kids in my public school classroom after they’ve spent years listening to their crazed parents educating them. This would explain how 1/3 of the US society is so gullible and stupid.
Oh believe me, I was homeschooled for a few years and it was wild. At the time I was presenting as a girl still and at so many (ostensibly nonreligious!) homeschool extracurricular activities I would be the only girl wearing pants. I did like a week long chemistry lab thing, and at lunch on the first day one girl suggests going around the room and talking about how you came to know Jesus as an icebreaker.
Also, the homeschool lobby is terrifying and insane. HSLDA has convinced everyone that if the state does basic rudimentary checks on if the children are learning and not being abused it means CPS is literally going to steal and sell your children. It's very revealing how they harp on about how they don't want their kids to be "government property"---it's because they see their kids as their property, akin to a car or a tv or jewelry, and can only understand kids through that lens. Anybody who tries to advocate for the children's welfare becomes somebody trying to take their property rights away---the children are not conscious human beings to these people. Abigail Piland is not the only child who's died from that mindset.
👆🎯
“Homeschooled.” Just a terrible idea. Ignorant parents teaching the gospel of FAUX News. What could go wrong?
Homeschooled kids receive no socialization. They don’t have to work at “getting along” with others. As a result, many never do get along with others, cannot reason and wind up under a big flat rock somewhere…with the rest of the MAGATS. Homeschool 😂😂😂
When I was of school age DM had the choice between homeschool and board school, she choose the latter. She even managed to put me in kindergarten (not every day) for 6 months prior first grade. Not an easy feat for a nomadic family back in the 80's.
Gods of Olympus, please don't take this as advocacy, but the following were all homeschooled (at least early on, they were). They are, in no particular order:
Abraham Lincoln, Taylor Swift, Agatha Christie, John Adams, Thomas Edison, Theodore Roosevelt, Mozart, Alexander Graham Bell, Einstein, da Vinci and Thomas Jefferson.
Sorry. Had to be said. :)
You might be interested in the advocacy work of the Coalition for Responsible Home Education :)
https://responsiblehomeschooling.org/
(they get review bombed on google by crazy people because they advocate things like "the state should check that homeschooled kids can read" and "parents shouldn't homeschool if they don't have at least a high school diploma")
Mozart and de Vinci shouldn't be in this list. Schools were rare and expensive at their time, plus de Vinci was an illegitimate child.
Homeschooled is homeschooled, whatever the circumstance. :)
Nero and Caligula were homeschooled too then.
Sorry, has to be said— For the majority of your examples to be homeschooled way back in the early days of our nation was TOTALLY different than being homeschooled today by crazed MAGAt and/or religious extremist parents. When the majority of your examples were homeschooled that was the norm. Unfortunately today’s homeschooled children get home schooled for all the wrong reasons and end up being poorly educated and socially awkward after having their crazed parents backwards beliefs shoved down their throats. Many children are put at a significant disadvantage by their homeschooled curriculum. And of course depending on the situation, every child’s homeschooled experience will vary. Why do we require our educators to have a university degree & license but let anyone homeschool? Most parents aren’t qualified to help with public school homework let alone conduct homeschooling in every subject at every grade level.
There are more kids being internet schooled then home schooled who have almost as little socialization
The socialization of our children is every bit as important as “Reading, Writing and Arithmetic.” Home schooling 😂
How this critical component for successfully developing our children could be ignored by the Department of Education is crazy.
There are many legitimate reasons to home school & then, there are some crazy ones, like religious fervor.
Among legitimate reasons to home school are public schools with chronic problems, such as schools that tolerate bullying, schools that don’t control violence, schools with abysmal academic records, schools that pose physical hazards due to maintenance failures, and schools that don’t have adequate resources to educate children with learning differences.
Oversight of homeschooling varies from state to state. Some states require homeschoolers to submit their lesson plan and meet state curricula requirements, as well as meet at the end of each school year with an academic advisor. The advisor reviews students’ achievements to ensure they are on target to graduate when they should and suggests plans for the following year.
For those seeking to truly educate, rather than indoctrinate, their children, there are many resource’s available. Field trips and other events planned among home schoolers may be helpful to socialize children, but in many cases, children who do not ‘fit in’ because of learning differences or physical or behavioral characteristics that set them apart won’t benefit from attending events where they will be ostracized again.
It’s true that home schooled kids may lack social skills from lack of exposure but as they mature and get out into the world these skills can be picked up. It’s also true that some kids who go to public or private schools may lack social skills. Some of that has to do with family social skills and some to do with individual personalities.
If your child is in a detrimental public school setting or is being passed from grade to grade without being educated, home school can be a viable option. But it is HARD work, and whoever undertakes it has to be in a position to afford to be at home and engaged and needs, at times, the patience of a Saint.
The majority of children passed from grade to grade without being educated are passed on at the insistence of their parents so they can stay with their peer group no matter what they have learned and accomplished at each grade level. Most parents are reluctant to hold their child back to learn basic skills. It’s usually when these children reach the upper grades that we suddenly learn that they cannot read, think or function on their own. This little known fact has been covered up for years by the child & parent often til a child is about to graduate. By then it’s way late to fix the problem.
👆🎯
Could be? It most definitely is.
Homechurching. Because there aren't enough of them to fill the pews in even the smallest church building. At least, I hope that's the case.
God obviously wants them in prison.
So appealing their case would be contravening the will of their gawd.
Though it's too late to help their daughter, at least their other children have been taken away. This is but one more in a long list of examples of what can be justified in the name of religion. Religion is a millstone around the neck of humanity.
Imagine a child’s home life being so mismanaged that being sent into foster care is preferable. Those kids have their work cut out.
Let just hope they don't end in fundies foster homes.
Prison isn't good enough for these two. I say that as a father.
When my daughter burned herself cooking some Oodles of Noodles in the microwave, I vaulted out of my chair at work and shot posthaste to the hospital ER, where a friend of our family had taken her. I did not leave her side through the whole afternoon and evening. Luckily, the burns were very minor.
If you have kids, they come first. Especially their health.
These two are villains of the first order. If I believed in God and Satan, I'd pray they go to Hell.
I have a nephew with asthma, I would never have wiholded his medication.
Of course not. We care about PEOPLE, especially those close to us. We put our attention on things that ARE, and we're not much interested in things that ARE NOT.
That would be a waste of time, and time is the one thing you can never get back.
I have felt for years that parenthood should be a licensed activity. Anyone who is so suggestible they would allow a newborn infant to die of an easily treatable condition is truly a monster and should never be loose in society again.
The trouble then is how do you prevent an authoritarian regime, like the one trying to cement itself in power in this country right now, from using that licensing system as part of a eugenics program- which is something multiple people in this administration's orbit, including the President himself, have expressed interest in?
Education (on parenting techniques which put the child's interests first) and oversight (over all new parents up until their oldest child reaches a certain age), I'd think, would be a better and safer course. That's the harder mountain to climb, as it means undoing all the damage Republicans have done to the government's ability to provide either (and prying their grubby fingers off our government in the first place)... but we can't risk handing a government as inherently corruptible as ours has proven to be the power to decide who's allowed to have children and who isn't- because it's not murderous twits like these two who'd have that power used against them, not by 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 government.
Mandatory parenting classes in high school (freshman year) based on the science of child psychology and rearing (among other things, teach them better methods of discipline/behavior modification than spanking)
It is not practicable unless I get to make all the decisions... We could teach critical thinking skills and sex education and parenting skills, but human beings will push any system to its breaking point.
Me too, no “oops no abortions in our state, so I guess you have to have that kid you can’t afford to raise.”
And they were on bond for eight years even though they had shown they were a danger to society? I can’t even.
And they were allowed to have two more kids!
Justice in action!
It appears the state took custody of the subsequent babies immediately after they were born as they should have. While these religious beliefs have devastating consequences people can and do change their beliefs. While I don’t see losing ones ability to reproduce as any kind of tragedy, forced sterilization has an ugly history and if laws allowed it today for someone’s beliefs or even behavior the targets would not be white Christians however “fringe” their religious beliefs.
Sanctity of life, indeed.
I've listened to a mind-numbing number of Christians insist that they are the ones who value life the most, that children are precious to them, that these are 'Christian values' or 'family values', and so on. Yet here we are, reading an article where Christian parents kill their helpless infant because "God makes no mistakes." Abigail isn't the first child to die thanks to that idea, and she probably won't be the last, either; funny how the parents always seem to get medical care, but the kids don't. Responsible, loving, ethical Christians would have put a stop to that idea centuries ago, but here we are in the new millennium still dealing with the same idiocy.
Valuing life is not forcing people to have babies by law. Valuing life is protecting the most vulnerable members of society from the predations of sickness, injury, trauma, and other curve balls life throws at humanity. Valuing life means sometimes insisting parents of sick children seek lifesaving medical care for those children rather than allowing said parents to pretend what they're doing is acceptable; and if/when said parents refuse, providing some form of discipline within the religious community rather than just a shrug and a "what can you do? -type comment.
Remind me again. Why are atheists considered the monsters in the US?
Because we refute that there is a god who lacks in empathy, compassion, common sense and we won’t take its crap advice
We (atheists) have a Sisyphean task:
Proving the absence of something (a deity) that does not exist.
As always, the burden of proof is on the one who claims there is an extant god. It is not up to the atheist to "prove a negative," which is both impossible and insane.
Sisyphean: denoting or relating to a task that can never be completed.
"the pursuit of perfection is a Sisyphean task”
I'll decide when I get there
Also, imo, laws need to change so that, instead of charging parents after the fact, children can be taken for immediate medical care regardless of what the parent says. Fuck your "parent's rights" if you're gonna withhold medical care (which ranges from emergency life saving care to blood transfusions to vaccines to psychiatric care to birth control, abortion, and gender affirming care).
We do, indeed, need to reverse our thinking on parenthood as a society. While there's good reason to deny a child certain things until they've reached a certain level of maturity- chiefly voting, driving, and military service- there are many other areas in which the child should in fact have 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 rights than their parents. A child having the right to medical care, regardless of the parents' beliefs, would be a good place to start; a right to comprehensive and factually-sound education would be a great next step.
The child was, after all, not the one who asked to be brought into the world, and is absolutely helpless in that world for years after birth. Responsibility for another's life needs to come with accountability, and no small measure of 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. Once you've become a parent, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 should exist to serve your 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥- not the other way around.
A difference needs to be drawn between the parents' rights to their beliefs and the kid's right TO LIVE!!!
I still say, children have *RIGHTS*, parents have *RESPONSIBILITIES*
I've been saying that for at least as long as I've been a parent.
These delusional folks just want the right to decide who gets to live and who dies.
The pro life crowd.
More like the pro-do-nothing-intelligent-or-effective crowd. 😖
I like your nym...
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑟𝑑-𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑒, 𝑎𝑠 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡-𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑦 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑠, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠. 𝐵𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑝 𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑛.
The jury understood the assignment.
𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝐽𝑎𝑚𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑛’𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑚𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦’𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒.
The judge did not. Sure, he could have made the sentences shorter. But he did not, because he saw the seriousness. However, we need to ask why he did not give the maximum. Three words: Christian Fucking Privilege. The couple is willfully ignorant. They have refused to learn. They have refused to even consider the idea that their God may want them to use modern medicine to prevent their infants from dying. But, sinced their willful ignorance is rooted in their sect of Christianity, the judge chose to give them the opportunity to leave prison in 20 years. If he had made the sentences consecutive instead of concurrent, then maybe it would have satisfied justice. The only thing that might now is the parole board denying them until the full 45 years is up.
For the life of me, I can’t understand the willingness of judges to give sentencing breaks to pedo’s. The news is filled with stories of probation and concurrent sentences for those that have abused our children. Is there anything more important to protect than our kids? WTAF is going on with these judges?
Or any kind of rapists. Of course they will behave "well" if they have no one to rape/abuse 🙄
Christianity. It always comes down to Christianity. You know…the oh-so-very persecuted ones.
So much time, energy and resources spent on protecting the unborn. But the “born?” Shit oughta luck, my friend.
It's at least a fair bet that Rachel Piland won't be giving birth to any more kids. THAT at least is some comfort.
The oldest (crazy) woman who had given birth was at least 70. For once the prohibiting cost of medical care in your country should prevent her to have more in case she have a revelation that doctors are actually sent by her god.
And the media never reported that she died soon afterward, as did the husband that shamed her into giving birth at such an advanced age.
"... her parents put more trust in God than someone who could actually help"
God provided for doctors and hospitals to save the child, but they refused the help from God.
How do you possibly know that some God provided the doctors?? Seems to me that their parents and medical school provided them.
It's a variant of the drowning man story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_drowning_man
Another made up story to try to reinforce beliefs based on faith, no evidence insight.
It is next to impossible to turn religious fundamentalists into atheists. With this story, you can at least try to persuade them to seek professional help when their children get sick.
Try telling that to Seth Andrews. Then fasten your seatbelt, because he's got a bit of a story to tell.
I know Seth and he was into it. Also the co-president of FFRF was a hard core evangelist and missionary, and was described as the kind of guy you would not want to sit next to on a bus back then. They both realized that there was no rational basis for what they had been indoctrinated into when young. Same with Matt Dillahunty.
𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠.
He doesn't, eh? Okay, let me ask you, then: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗛𝗘𝗟𝗟 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗞𝗜𝗗??? Your god apparently allowed your child to acquire this disease. It could just as easily have cured it, but it DIDN'T. Your god took NO ACTION for your child, AND NEITHER DID YOU, though curative action was utterly available. Yet you cling to your deity and insist it can do no wrong.
And now you both will have a considerable amount of time to think about the massive mistake you made. Make good use of it.
But, you know, they won't. They will beat their chests and say 'see how I am persecuted'.
Satan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN7o6w-ST_w
Dana Carvey’s greatest role. How we used to look forward to his impersonations!
The Devil is a woman (AFAIK Juliette is an Atheist)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jCotvQZLjSY&pp=ygUganVsaWV0dGUgbGUgZGlhYmxlIGVzdCB1bmUgZmVtbWXSBwkJ3gkBhyohjO8%3D
But according to Christians, it's LGBTQs that are unfit to be parents.