Thursday, June 19, 2008 | Reason : Religion as Child Abuse | print version

Print | Comments |

Teen's death blamed on faith healing

by CNN

Thanks to Bernie Brocklehurst for the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/faith.healer.deaths.ap/index.html

Teen's death blamed on faith healing

GLADSTONE, Oregon (AP) -- Authorities say a teenager from a faith-healing family died from an illness that could have been easily treated, just a few months after a toddler cousin of his died in a case that has led to criminal charges.

Tuesday's death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, however, may not be a crime because Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment.

"All of the interviews from last night are that he did in fact refuse treatment," police Sgt. Lynne Benton said Wednesday. "Unless we can disprove that, charges probably won't be filed in this case."

An autopsy Wednesday showed that Beagley died of heart failure caused by a urinary tract blockage.

He probably had a congenital condition that constricted his urinary tract where the bladder empties into the urethra, and the condition of his organs indicates that he had multiple blockages during his life, said Dr. Clifford Nelson, deputy state medical examiner for Clackamas County.

"You just build up so much urea in your bloodstream that it begins to poison your organs, and the heart is particularly susceptible," Nelson said.

Nelson said a catheter would have saved the boy's life. If the condition had been dealt with earlier, a urologist could easily have removed the blockage and avoided the kidney damage that came with the repeated illnesses, Nelson said.

Benton said a board member of the Followers of Christ church contacted the authorities after Beagley died at his family's home. The teen had been sick about a week, and church members and his family had gathered to pray Sunday when his condition worsened, Benton said.

In March, the boy's 15-month-old cousin Ava Worthington died at home from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection.

Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington, also belong to the church. They have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated that they will use a religious freedom defense.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.

Members and former members of the church in Oregon City have told The Oregonian newspaper that the congregation has 1,200 people. It has no apparent ties to other congregations or any mainstream denomination.

Posted: Thursday, June 19, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 57 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #196342 by Musashi on June 19, 2008 at 6:11 pm

First time post. Love the site and the stories. What a tragedy. Two young peoples lives cut short over something so ridiculous and so easy to fix with todays medical technologies.

Other Comments by Musashi

2. Comment #196343 by Al420 on June 19, 2008 at 6:14 pm

All I can say is that it's fucking child abuse. Even though a 14 year old is legally allowed to decide these things for themself, this boy wasn't able to decide, he was denied the tools needed to make a decision. Freedom of (and from) religion applies to your children too.

Other Comments by Al420

3. Comment #196344 by isThereaClaw? on June 19, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Another unnecessary loss of life. Religious objections to medical treatments, blood transfusions etc should only be permisssable by adults in relation to themselves.
Parents should not have the "right" to dictate what treatment their children receive based on religion. Governments need to be strong and ensure every citizen (under 18) is entitled to, and receives, equal medical treatment regardless of religion.
Those than reject lifesaving medical treatment based on religious beliefs should be automatically nominated for that year's Darwin awards.

Other Comments by isThereaClaw?

4. Comment #196349 by MarcLindenberg on June 19, 2008 at 6:36 pm

That's a terrible story :(

It's so frustrating that children are just forced to do what their parents think is right.

The kids probably didn't have ANY choice what-so-ever in their healthcare...

The parents probably don't feel bad at all either, because their kids are in a "better place"

A hole in the ground is better than the deluded life they were being forced into apparently.

Other Comments by MarcLindenberg

5. Comment #196350 by hmcook87 on June 19, 2008 at 6:37 pm

In my country hospitals can request to have the families wishes overridden for people under 18 in matters of life and death. Is that not the case here? They have to do what the parents say even if it means death for the kid?

Other Comments by hmcook87

6. Comment #196351 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 6:39 pm

When a company makes a product, and the intended use of that product causes the user's death, the company gets sued for millions. Yet when a religious teaching is carried out exactly the way it has been taught, the parents get sued (and rightfully so), but the church carries on.
"Yes, sir, we told the people to put a fuse in their gas tank and light it. But they're responsible if they actually do it. Of course we also told them God would punish them if they didn't. But it's not our fault God wrote that down."
I have no words for the pernicious rationalizations they engage in. They tell the people that this is God's Law, and any disobedience will have the gravest consequences imaginable, and then evade responsibility when people die because they follow that Law. Isn't instigation of manslaughter a crime too? It's high time proper consequences are drawn.

Other Comments by black wolf

7. Comment #196352 by TeraBrat on June 19, 2008 at 6:43 pm

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.

So after all those kids died and the law was finally changed these people still didn't get it. Stupid people.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

8. Comment #196353 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 6:48 pm

hmcook87,
note that the kid chose not to be treated himself. Some countries can declare someone to be of unsound mind or insane, and then carry out the medical treatment. But if, as the report indicates, he didn't go see a doctor because of his faith, there was no opportunity to file for state custodianship until it he was dead. The only way to save the children of this church of fucktardary is to declare the whole membership insane and take the children away from them. But apparently religious freedom is still more valuable than the life of several hundreds of children (and insane adults).

Other Comments by black wolf

9. Comment #196354 by Celandine on June 19, 2008 at 6:53 pm

If he had repeated blockages earlier in life that went untreated, thus leading to his death now, it seems as if that would constitute a criminal failure to get him treated back then, for which his parents should be prosecutable.

Other Comments by Celandine

10. Comment #196357 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Hitchens said of religion that it has 'that secret death wish. The secret yearning for all of this to be gone, to move to the next level.'

As callous as I may sound, I welcome published stories like this. Such despicable events are no doubt as frequent as they are unreported. At some point in such raising consciousness to the happening of such acts, some theistic parents may turn round and say 'hey, you know? I want our little Janie to live'.

Having said this, the above case is a clear case of manslaughter. Prison should follow. It's about time for some punishment not in hell, but in the fucking here and tangible now.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

11. Comment #196358 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 7:01 pm

addendum: I just looked it up. Abetting suicide (in my un-lawyerly opinion clearly the case here) is a crime. The parents and the church could not have known if there was a terminal illness or not, or if it was untreatable or not. Since they clearly state anyway that no illness, terminal or otherwise, is permitted to be treated as per God's decree, they are guilty in my opinion. I think the main reason for the state's inconsequential treatment of this sort of religious views is the fear to put the validity or veracity of Biblical scripture into question.

Other Comments by black wolf

12. Comment #196359 by Saerain on June 19, 2008 at 7:01 pm

My thought upon reading the title alone was to the effect of: 'Yawn, there goes another. No surprise,' and I then caught myself. It is infuriating that this is so common that I can even approach such apathy about it.

Other Comments by Saerain

13. Comment #196361 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Comment #196359 by Saerain on June 19, 2008 at 7:01 pm

I recommend you have a little natter with irate_atheist.

You'll be back on track in no time.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

14. Comment #196362 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 7:14 pm

"Instead, some jurisdictions require a person who attempts suicide to undergo temporary hospitalization and psychological observation."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suicide

Is leaving an apparently grave illness untreated attempted suicide? I think that when an available medical treatment is denied for religious reasons, that religious belief should be considered as equivalent to schizophrenia and manic depression. This justifies declaring a person to be of unsound mind and treated against his will.
Now since such a treatment would almost certainly put the person in severe mental stress for violating God's commandment, which would de-stabilize him further, institutionalization would be in order. Again, the state would be very reluctant to carry this through, because they'd either have to declare the church's teachings false (thus violating freedom of religion), or try to educate what the Bible 'really' means (thus endorsing one religious view over another).
What a clusterfuck.

edit: quote fixed

Other Comments by black wolf

15. Comment #196368 by Frankus1122 on June 19, 2008 at 8:03 pm

their defense attorneys have indicated that they will use a religious freedom defense.

Good. I hope the courts deal with this as it should be dealt with.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer.

Because the idea that prayer works is so incredibly and demonstrably stupid, there is a law against it.
This is significant in my view.
There is a law that basically says, 'prayer does not work'.
I like the law. The law, generally deals with real things. It weeds out bullshit.
If only there could be more laws that prevent the harmful effects of religious belief.

Although I am not quite sure. I am for as much personal freedom as possible. However, I also think that certain laws that curtail my personal freedom benefit society as a whole.

Perhaps joining a religion should be something that you are only allowed to do once you have reached the age of majority. That and mandatory religious studies education ala Dan Dennett.
I like that idea.
(Frankus high fives himself).

Imagine that you have to register your religion when you turn 18 or 21 or whatever. Maybe you would have to write a test of some kind indicating that you are aware that you are willfully leaving the realm of justified rational thought.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

16. Comment #196374 by 8teist on June 19, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Fuckwits
sacrificed a child ...for what? to show how devout they are to their fellow fucktards in christ. What type of cretin would let a child suffer like this ? Their own children ! Inhuman ,I guess the 14 year old boy wasn`t christian enough.
Yes high 5 Frankus , tho I say age of consent should be once diagnosed with dementia

Other Comments by 8teist

17. Comment #196377 by dragonfirematrix on June 19, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Faith healing is BS.

The parents should be tried, found guilty, and executed for teaching their child god BS that the child believed would save him.

With all reason on the table, why do we tolerate the religious for committing acts against humanity in the name of their obviously imaginary gods?

WHY?

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

18. Comment #196379 by 8teist on June 19, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Or perhaps religion should only be available to those unable to breed.

Other Comments by 8teist

19. Comment #196386 by adk on June 19, 2008 at 8:46 pm

So many of my friends are Christian, and one of them finds faith healing so amazing. She'll tell me stories she's heard from so-and-so who heard from someone else who was there that God gave an amputtee legs by the end of the service, or fingers, or whatever. I'm like, are you kidding! I don't at all understand how she can at all think that actually happens - and she's a science major like me!

Other Comments by adk

20. Comment #196397 by mordacious1 on June 19, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Most religious people say that their god answers prayers. These guys only seem crazy because they actually believe it.

Other Comments by mordacious1

21. Comment #196399 by mordacious1 on June 19, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Frankus1122

Podaar. Is that you?

Other Comments by mordacious1

22. Comment #196414 by Roy_H on June 19, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Have you ever noticed something?
He died = "It was God's will"
He survived = "A miracle! The Lord be praised"
They will always make excuses for the non existent.

Other Comments by Roy_H

23. Comment #196415 by King of NH on June 19, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Can the parents now sue Christ for malpractice, since the creator of the universe seems to have screwed up something a first year med student could have fixed? And isn't a 'religious belief' defense being used here like a 'mental incompetence' defense? And how is it someone can't have a beer before 21, yet they can slowly and painfully die for Jesus at 14? Somebody needs to be talked to. This is insanity!

Other Comments by King of NH

24. Comment #196416 by 8teist on June 19, 2008 at 11:11 pm

JESUS loves me ,this i no cos the booble tells me so.....................yeah right

Other Comments by 8teist

25. Comment #196417 by 8teist on June 19, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Funny how the faithheads try to prove their faith by letting their children suffer agonising pain.
Perhaps these ignorant fuckwits should look up FAITH in the dictionary, but probably don`t have 1 in the house.

Other Comments by 8teist

26. Comment #196439 by urn on June 20, 2008 at 12:59 am

Sigh... They probably wouldn't even be able to read it if they did...

Other Comments by urn

27. Comment #196442 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 1:25 am

Urn

I think most of them don't read the dictionary, they are waiting for the movie to come out.

G of course.

Other Comments by mordacious1

28. Comment #196448 by dj2baduk on June 20, 2008 at 1:55 am

Just to ditto the child-abuse comments; No parent should be allowed to adversely affect the mental or physical health of their child under any circumstances, regardless of religion or anything else. It should be illegal for a parent not to seek medical treatment should their child become ill. It should also be illegal for a parent to so warp their child's mind that they refuse treatment themselves when they become ill.

This makes me sick. I hope they kick the legal shit out of these amoral backwards fucktards!

Other Comments by dj2baduk

29. Comment #196453 by CraigB on June 20, 2008 at 2:08 am

...natural selection in action...

Other Comments by CraigB

30. Comment #196468 by Szkeptik on June 20, 2008 at 2:39 am

"...natural selection in action..."

Exactly what I was thinking. It's a good thing to have evolution selecting out these nutjobs. If they avoid all medical help, then more than 35% of their children should die before adulthood.

Other Comments by Szkeptik

31. Comment #196470 by Sturmia on June 20, 2008 at 2:41 am

Hi, this is my first post and I wish it was somewhat more articulate but this article had my blood boiling. I find this just as unbelievable as blowing up a bus or a plane and see these parents as nothing other than terrorists of their own children.

Having said that, I want to say that I have been coming to this site for a long time now and enjoy all the discussions and arguments (some more than others of course) and it strengthens me to see that not all of the world as gone totally insane as sometimes seems the case.

Kind regards from the Netherlands (that could do with a less Christian inclined governement)

Sturm

Other Comments by Sturmia

32. Comment #196484 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 3:10 am

For interest, when it comes to medical treatment, the UK, and some other countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, have a less rigid, more meaningful test. It is called "Gillick competence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.... The Gillick standard should be contrasted with the stricter age-limit approach used in the US.

It is important not only what the child says, but whether the child actually comprehends the nature of the decision being made. S/he has to understand the consequences either way of the decision in order for their decision to be accepted. I guess that would mean that the child would have to understand that saying "no" meant dying, and dying was final.

"Gillick competence" normally applies to cases where the child is at odds with the parents, which is not the case here. But it could be extended to the case where the child is at odds with (say) local authorities.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

33. Comment #196485 by Logicel on June 20, 2008 at 3:18 am

Agree with Frankus, The Followers of Sh*t Church should be slapped with criminal charges, and it is not even being considered because it is a religious organization. The members of a law-abiding society are all subject to its laws and its taxes, but apparently you are exempt when religious.

Other faith-heads, the so-called moderate ones, won't even realize the dangers their own faith may cause, because they believe it is the correct faith, so dipshits like DR can spread psychological terror with its related damage and guilt while rationalizing/ignoring the wrong that they do by simply clinging to the error of thinking their faith is the true one.

Other Comments by Logicel

34. Comment #196486 by Logicel on June 20, 2008 at 3:19 am

Have I said lately, that Faith sucks?

Other Comments by Logicel

35. Comment #196488 by Logicel on June 20, 2008 at 3:22 am

And it is always a joy when lurkers and first-time posters post. We always are in need of fresh blood here.

Other Comments by Logicel

36. Comment #196491 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 3:26 am

Frankus1122 said: Perhaps joining a religion should be something that you are only allowed to do once you have reached the age of majority.... Imagine that you have to register your religion when you turn 18 or 21 or whatever. Maybe you would have to write a test of some kind indicating that you are aware that you are willfully leaving the realm of justified rational thought.

I hold the view that "religions are OK when practised by consenting adults in private". But I now feel that is inadequate, and without qualification it is unlikely to be taken seriously by most people. I can't justify it in that form as a realistic policy. However much we might want a zero-tolerance approach where children are concerned, it won't be accepted.

I now believe that by realising that religious practices (customs and rituals) are hobbies, we have the means to analyse where the boundaries of religions' roles should be, using existing well-understood examples that successfully allow lots of disparate communities to coexist. It is a model that can't be criticised as totalitarian or untried or contrary to human rights.

We should ask "what would be our attitude if a child dies practising their parents' hobby?"

I'm still developing the following page - I'll give this some thought:
"Religions are hobbies":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

37. Comment #196500 by Frankus1122 on June 20, 2008 at 3:56 am

The law should be applied equally to all.
The law ought to be based on reality, not made-up beliefs. Generally, the law tries to be reasonable. This precludes a lot of religious belief and practice.

In Canada there was some controversy a while back about Sihks carrying kirpans (ceremonial daggers) in school. The Supreme Court said students were allowed to wear kirpans in school because it was reasonable to accommodate this religious practice.
In Denmark they said the opposite.
I don't think a student should be allowed to carry a knife to school.
I don't care what his made-up beliefs are. They are made-up.
The law should apply equally to all.
Or Rastafarians should be allowed to smoke pot wherever and whenever they want and I start growing dreads tomorrow :)

Other Comments by Frankus1122

38. Comment #196505 by Frankus1122 on June 20, 2008 at 4:12 am

Barry Pearson,
I just skimmed through your 'religions are hobbies' writings.
High five for Barry Pearson.
I am going to think on this further. It sounds like a promising idea.
I have one not-fully-thought-out thought: hobbies are generally seen as secondary to your main work whereas religion plays a central all-consuming role in the life of some practitioners.
But I know a guy who is consumed by his passion for model trains. It is what he lives for. And many people are only nominally religious.
I like your hobby idea.
Most hobbiest do not believe that everyone in the world should share in their passion. If you are a stamp collector and decide to take up photography the stamp collectors do not label you as an apostate and try to kill you.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

39. Comment #196513 by Hobbit on June 20, 2008 at 4:52 am

Tuesday's death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, however, may not be a crime because Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment.

WTF!

Hang on a minute.

Your NOT old enough to vote.

Your NOT old enough to drink.

In fact your not old enough to do most things by yourself or without your parents consent .........EXCEPT TO DETERMINE WHICH TYPE OF MEDICAL TREATMENT IS RIGHT FOR YOU.... OR IN THIS CASE REFUSE MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR SOME HOCUS POCUS BULLSHIT (sorry for yelling but this crap really upsets me).

This is not only child abuse, this is state sanctioned child abuse.

Not only should the parents be charged, every politician who voted for this ridiculus law should be implicated in this murder (or at the very least manslaughter).

Where is the outrage in the US against these dipshit lawmakers and religious morons.

What a bunch of backwards fuckwits!

Other Comments by Hobbit

40. Comment #196514 by Hobbit on June 20, 2008 at 4:58 am

Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington, also belong to the church. They have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated that they will use a religious freedom defense.

They may have religious freedom, but their toddler did not.

There is no defence for abuse. I don't support the death penalty but these idiots really push that with me.

Other Comments by Hobbit

41. Comment #196518 by noamzur on June 20, 2008 at 5:04 am

As awful and "inhuman" as this might sound - I'm trying and actually managing to see some good in this. At least there is one less person in the next generation who will perpetuate this silly, infuriating and dangerous meme to his own children! And maybe, just maybe, some other backwards-thinker will wake up. Well - even as reality based as I am, I haven't given up all hope just yet...

Other Comments by noamzur

42. Comment #196519 by 8teist on June 20, 2008 at 5:05 am

How on earth could a brainwashed 14 year old give informed consent to refuse treatment? I`ll bet his parents are anti-euthanasia, but happy their child is now with their sky fairy moron god.
Suffer the little children FFS,what kind of twisted mind accepts that shit. Death cult for sure.

Other Comments by 8teist

43. Comment #196520 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 5:09 am

Frankus1122 said: I am going to think on this further. It sounds like a promising idea.... I like your hobby idea.

I reserve the right to steal your ideas (or anyone else's) and use them on that page! I have few original ideas, but I'm quite good at synthesising models that appear coherent. It comes from having been a computer geek:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/business/cv.htm

Some people practise a religion without believing in its god. Some people have a hobby based on strongly-held beliefs. It is hard to identify anything that definitively separates them.

If I have something substantial I can refer to, such as a web page rather than a post to a forum, I'll acknowledge your material. I certainly welcome anything you or anyone else says. (Thanks for your response).

I have a YouTube channel "just in case" although I have never made a video nor even commented on anyone else's. I wonder ....!
http://youtube.com/user/BarryCPearson

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

44. Comment #196523 by hungarianelephant on June 20, 2008 at 5:24 am

8teist - Is your avatar also a proposal for a revised Obama slogan later in the year?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

45. Comment #196568 by Lemniscate on June 20, 2008 at 7:06 am

"All of the interviews from last night are that he did in fact refuse treatment," police Sgt. Lynne Benton said Wednesday. "Unless we can disprove that, charges probably won't be filed in this case."

The truth is that the decision to refuse treatment was made for him by his parents when they indoctrinated him into their fatalist death-cult many years ago.

If the church and the parents are absolved of this atrocity, it'll confirm the privileged place faith holds above all other delusions.

I bet if the kid had said that Satan wanted him to refuse treatment it would have been different.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

46. Comment #196592 by foolish sea otter on June 20, 2008 at 7:33 am

Alot of people on this site seem to assume that the boy was already in the hospital. From my past xtian experiance, I don't think this child was taken to the hospital until it was already too late. I'm sure the parents just kept the boy in his bed until they had to get an outside agency to intervene. I don't think this kid had a choice, because he was not taken to the hospital until after death for the autopsy.

Other Comments by foolish sea otter

47. Comment #196623 by Big City on June 20, 2008 at 8:40 am

foolish sea otter:

From my past xtian experiance, I don't think this child was taken to the hospital until it was already too late.

It says that he died at his family's home, and that he had been getting worse the whole week leading up to his death.
So even though he was knocking on death's door, they just brought more people in to pray.

Other Comments by Big City

48. Comment #196640 by Stew282 on June 20, 2008 at 9:22 am

Had this child been an adult, I would have suggested he would make a good candidate for a Darwin Award (http://www.darwinawards.com/), However, in my far-from-humble opinion, he was a misguided child who was, to all intents and purposes, murdered by parental neglect.

New age pseudo-science is also rearing its ugly head in the UK with many parents electing not to have their children properly vaccinated, due to ungrounded fears based in non-scientific, muddled thinking. I recently read a newspaper article in which a couple of middle-class 'modern' parents had decided that rather than vaccinations, they would "build up their child's immune system through a healthy diet with lots of fruit and veg." Whilst this is undoubtedly good dietary advice, it isn't going to prevent infection by virulent diseases/viruses.

Other Comments by Stew282

49. Comment #196661 by Lucas on June 20, 2008 at 10:04 am

comment 11 - Hey, marv78rpm, go fuck yourself. Back off my state. I wasn't even born there, nor do I live there now, but back off nonetheless. Need I point out the stupidity of blaming the actions of the Followers of Christ on the state they live in? Wasn't there a problem in Minnesota recently? Splice in any geographic location and you would be wrong, and you would also be pissing off the people who live there or love the place. And as I've repeated many times, and apparently need to keep repeating, there is not a more affable and intellectually comfortable place for atheists in the US than Oregon. It's just too bad the economy sucks.

Other Comments by Lucas

50. Comment #196664 by Border Collie on June 20, 2008 at 10:06 am

Similarly idiotic to Muslim parents who beam with tears of ape-ish joy when their children go off to blow themselves to bits for Allah. Sorry folks, I don't care what Oregon says, fourteen year old kids are not old enough to make those decisions for themselves. And the parents escape into "religion" ... Hitchens is right. People with death wishes shouldn't have children.

Other Comments by Border Collie

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last