NationStates Jolt Archive

...after their baby dies of malnutrition from being fed soy milk and apple juice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574603/?GT1=9951

Although the life sentences were automatic, Sanders and Thomas begged for leniency before sentencing. Sanders urged the judge to look past his “perception” of the couple.

“I loved my son — and I did not starve him,” she said.

The baby weighed 3.5 lbs at six weeks old, and they didn't notice anything was wrong. They refused to take him to a doctor, according to the article.

I'm starting to re-think the idea of being somehow qualified to become a parent...

good. Let them rot there.

...after their baby dies of malnutrition from being fed soy milk and apple juice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574603/?GT1=9951



The baby weighed 3.5 lbs at six weeks old, and they didn't notice anything was wrong. They refused to take him to a doctor, according to the article.

I'm starting to re-think the idea of being somehow qualified to become a parent...

They should have given him real milk, and maybe meat if he really needed it. A baby is to be cared for, not indoctrinated into one's philosophies until later in life.

They should have given him real milk,
Vegan crackpots.

and maybe meat if he really needed it.
He was six fucking weeks old.

Incompetent crackpots shouldn't be allowed to have dogs, much less children.

why didn't they breastfeed him?

One wonders what the vegan menu in prison is like?

But that's why there are regular checkups for newborns and why you listen to your wife's mother and why you feed babies certain things that are good for them. It's just not that hard, speaking as one with grown children.

They should have given him real milk, and maybe meat if he really needed it. A baby is to be cared for, not indoctrinated into one's philosophies until later in life.
Newborns don't get cow's milk for a while. I'm going to be soy milk doesn't do the trick, either.

Maybe vegan mothers don't have the right nutrition to make milk? And some women don't make enough anyway.

why didn't they breastfeed him?
They probably should have. It's quite possible for someone to grow up vegan, but soy milk and apple juice are not precisely a functional substitute for mother's milk.

They should have given him real milk, and maybe meat if he really needed it. A baby is to be cared for, not indoctrinated into one's philosophies until later in life.
What the hell is a baby going to do with meat?
And how do you feel about baptism, if you're going to condemn early indocrination?

The mother should have just breastfed the baby, there is nothing about being a vegan that says you can't milk yourself.

Perhaps life in a loony ward would be more appropriate. Or at least stick them in one 'til they learn to tell the real from the imagined, then throw them in prison.

Anyway, I don't get it. We vegans seem to be burdened with quite a bit more than our fair share of insane fools. Why is it so attractive to be a herbivore when you're cracked? I mean, seriously.. It's just a diet, not a fucking religion.

They probably should have. It's quite possible for someone to grow up vegan, but soy milk and apple juice are not precisely a functional substitute for mother's milk.
And there are many commercial substitutes for mother's milk, as well.

OMG, it says right on the bottle not to substitute for baby formula. These 'people' deserve life in prison.

I should start a Vegan Crusade RP...

Newborns don't get cow's milk for a while. I'm going to be soy milk doesn't do the trick, either.

Maybe vegan mothers don't have the right nutrition to make milk? And some women don't make enough anyway.

Not sure if this is the case or not, but regardless of whether a mother can produce milk, there is such a thing as "Baby Formula", that I'm sure these crackpots have heard of.

I'm guessing the problem with soy milk is that due to your body not being able to actually break down plant material very well(Probably even worse so in the case of a baby), the baby just wasn't breaking down the food they were feeding it efficiently enough to sustain itself.

That's my main problem with veganism: Your body just isn't efficient at breaking food down to began with, and even less so with plant materials(such as soy products and such). You have to eat ALOT of plant protein just to get a sufficient amount as compared to meat(Of course, eating massive amounts of meat is bad for you, as well).

These types of people make the rest of us look bad. I'm a non-meat eater (I refuse to call myself a vegetarian because of shit like this).

I didn't think it was anti-vegan to feed your baby breast milk, unless somehow that is now cruelty to animals as well, seeing how humans are a type of animal.

There are plenty of good alternatives to meat out there, but you want until the kid is eating fucking solids before you do stupid shit like this.

why didn't they breastfeed him?
I'm guessing that they figured if animal milk wasn't okay for their baby to drink neither was human milk. After all, we're really just animals, too.

NOT saying anything about Vegans in general. I know they're not usually that stupid.

I think life imprisonment is a bit harsh, it's not as if they are a threat to society. Also it wasn't a "murder", if you know what I mean, they didn't intend for the baby to die.

This is awful! :(

These idiots should have never tried to raise a child. Babies are not supposed to be vegan, they'll miss out on a lot of important stuff. poor baby :(

Seriously, if stupid people were banned from having children, we'd solve overpopulation and many other problems, too.

Maybe vegan mothers don't have the right nutrition to make milk?Normally, cows are pretty vegan. And they make quite a lot of milk, don't they?

Forgot to say that I think a life sentence for this is way beyond appropriate (depending on what "life" means here, but since it's the US, probably fucking long)

The couple were found guilty May 2 of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children. A jury deliberated about seven hours before returning the guilty verdicts.Malice murder? I've only seen the article but what in there sounds like malice?

I'm guessing that they figured if animal milk wasn't okay for their baby to drink neither was human milk. After all, we're really just animals, too.

NOT saying anything about Vegans in general. I know they're not usually that stupid.

QFT.

I don't have a problem with vegans either, I don't have a problem with anybody until they do stupid stuff like this. :(

Normally, cows are pretty vegan. And they make quite a lot of milk, don't they?
Pff, that's what you think. Dairy cows are second only to 6-week-old babies in their consumption of meat and milk.

...after their baby dies of malnutrition from being fed soy milk and apple juice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574603/?GT1=9951



The baby weighed 3.5 lbs at six weeks old, and they didn't notice anything was wrong. They refused to take him to a doctor, according to the article.

I'm starting to re-think the idea of being somehow qualified to become a parent...

Listen, there are many vegetarian mamals, but not a single vegan mamal. That, after all, is what in part defines us as mamals.

One wonders what the vegan menu in prison is like?


I hear they like their salads tossed...

I think life imprisonment is a bit harsh, it's not as if they are a threat to society. Also it wasn't a "murder", if you know what I mean, they didn't intend for the baby to die.

We need to make a law against criminally negligent stupidity. Penalty is sterilization.

Pff, that's what you think. Dairy cows are second only to 6-week-old babies in their consumption of meat and milk.OK, I should've said naturally instead of normally...

Forgot to say that I think a life sentence for this is way beyond appropriate (depending on what "life" means here, but since it's the US, probably fucking long)

Life means life. As in, you die there. It is not a set number of years. You spend your life in prison.

Malice murder? I've only seen the article but what in there sounds like malice?

The law doesn't use the word malice like you use malice.

in law, an intentional violation of the law of crimes or torts that injures another person. Malice need not involve a malignant spirit or the definite intent to do harm. To prove malice, it is sufficient to show the willful doing of an injurious act without what is considered a lawful excuse. A malicious state of mind may be inferred from reckless and wanton acts that a normal person should know might produce or threaten injury to others. Malice aforethought is a technical element of murder

We need to make a law against criminally negligent stupidity. Penalty is sterilization.What about religious stupidity?

Not sure if this is the case or not, but regardless of whether a mother can produce milk, there is such a thing as "Baby Formula", that I'm sure these crackpots have heard of.

I'm guessing the problem with soy milk is that due to your body not being able to actually break down plant material very well(Probably even worse so in the case of a baby), the baby just wasn't breaking down the food they were feeding it efficiently enough to sustain itself.

That's my main problem with veganism: Your body just isn't efficient at breaking food down to began with, and even less so with plant materials(such as soy products and such). You have to eat ALOT of plant protein just to get a sufficient amount as compared to meat(Of course, eating massive amounts of meat is bad for you, as well).
Actually, meat tends to be more chemically complicated, and in many cases (e.g., look at plant vitamin A vs animal vitamin A) more dangerous. When a baby starts weaning...

... well, let's go look at the commercial giant dominating the sector:

Baby's 1st foods (http://www.gerber.com/prodcat?catid=508) introduces fruits and vegetables.
Baby's 2nd foods (http://www.gerber.com/prodcat?catid=511) mixes in some cereals.

They start introducing kids to meat products in their third foods. (http://www.gerber.com/prodcat?catid=520)

Someone who never eats vegetables will typically experience a little gas when they start eating vegetables (because they haven't been digesting complex carbohydrates). Someone who never eats meat will typically ralph it back up when they start eating meat (because their body has no idea how to digest that stuff.)

Now, if you're raising a kid vegan, you have to watch the B12, but it's quite possible if you're not stupid about it.

We need to make a law against criminally negligent stupidity. Penalty is sterilization.

Yeah, I kind of like that idea. But theres something about it that just irks me. I mean sterilization? *cough* genocide *cough*. Not that it is of course, it just makes me feel that way for some reason.

I think life imprisonment is a bit harsh, it's not as if they are a threat to society. Also it wasn't a "murder", if you know what I mean, they didn't intend for the baby to die.

Good point. Why isn't this limited to involuntary manslaughter, or some sort of aggravated child abuse? The guilty verdicts were rendered on charges of "...malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children."

I don't think the prosecutor involved is running for any higher office, so I'm not sure what prompted the homicide charges.

Normally, cows are pretty vegan. And they make quite a lot of milk, don't they?

Couple differences:

1) Cows are naturally more efficient at breaking down plant material than humans.

2) Cows eat an ass-ton of food a day.

3) Dairy cows are fed special grains and such(As well as differing types of plants) which makes them produce more milk.

4) Dairy cows are bred specifically for high-yields of milk.

Humans not so much on any of those. Not saying that vegans can't produce milk, just pointing out that Cows producing a lot of milk and humans producing milk is not a 1:1 argument. There are many factors involved.

Listen, there are many vegetarian mamals, but not a single vegan mamal. That, after all, is what in part defines us as mamals.
IIRC, most vegans don't count the milk of the mother. Go into an organic grocery store and look at the magazines in the checkout aisle. Odds are at least half of them will be geared towards vegetarians or the "organic lifestyle," and you'll probably notice at least 2-3 mentioning breastfeeding on the front cover.

I think life imprisonment is a bit harsh, it's not as if they are a threat to society.
As long as they can conceive they are a threat to some one it looks like. Life in jail or surgery to permanently relieve them of the ability to procreate. And since the latter is considered cruel and cannot be given as a punishment..

What about religious stupidity?

People are free to be as religiously stupid as they like. As long as they're not harming anyone else with it.


Vote me as President for Life!

IIRC, most vegans don't count the milk of the mother. Go into an organic grocery store and look at the magazines in the checkout aisle. Odds are at least half of them will be geared towards vegetarians or the "organic lifestyle," and you'll probably notice at least 2-3 mentioning breastfeeding on the front cover.

Alright then, it's nothing against vegans. Two loonies incapable of raising a child. They were more worried about their complicated sense of diet then their kid's life.

Couple differences:

1) Cows are naturally more efficient at breaking down plant material than humans.
At breaking down cellulose in particular. Not plant material in general. Cows' digestive systems are optimized for grazing.
2) Cows eat an ass-ton of food a day.

3) Dairy cows are fed special grains and such(As well as differing types of plants) which makes them produce more milk.

4) Dairy cows are bred specifically for high-yields of milk.
And human babies don't need high yields of milk.
Humans not so much on any of those. Not saying that vegans can't produce milk, just pointing out that Cows producing a lot of milk and humans producing milk is not a 1:1 argument. There are many factors involved.
The short of it is that there's nothing about a vegan diet that inhibits milk production.

People are free to be as religiously stupid as they like. As long as they're not harming anyone else with it.But that would require that they never talk to anybody.

Yeah, I kind of like that idea. But theres something about it that just irks me. I mean sterilization? *cough* genocide *cough*. Not that it is of course, it just makes me feel that way for some reason.

Anything that ends in -cide is a form of killing. Not sterlization.

Anything that ends in -cide is a form of killing. Not sterlization.

Fine, 'eugenics' then

But that would require that they never talk to anybody.

That doesn't count as harm.

Good point. Why isn't this limited to involuntary manslaughter, or some sort of aggravated child abuse? The guilty verdicts were rendered on charges of "...malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children."

I don't think the prosecutor involved is running for any higher office, so I'm not sure what prompted the homicide charges.

Homicide is, by definition, the killing of a person by another person. So murder, manslaughter, anything in which someone is charged with killing another person is a homicide charge.

That being said, in pretty much any state, it is considered murder, not just manslaughter but murder, if, as a result of another underlying criminal act, someone dies.

For instance, if I commit a robbery with a partner, and the guy I am robbing takes out a gun and shoots my partner, I am guilty of murdering him, even if I didn't do a thing against him. It is because I was involved in a felony that lead to the death of a person. Ergo I am guilty of murder.

When that happens it is refered to as "felony murder", which is to say, murder brought about by a death caused by a comission of a felony.

Now what specific crimes for which, if a death occurs, makes it felony murder, varies by state. HOwever it is certainly not unheard of that child endangerment is one of them. So basically what it means is, if you commit child endangerment, and that child dies as a result, you are guilty of felony murder.

Fine, 'eugenics' then

Well, yeah, but it wouldn't be a racist form of eugenics, like the Nazis were into.

Well, yeah, but it wouldn't be a racist form of eugenics, like the Nazis were into.

But I see a slippery slope leading to the apartheid of vegans :eek:

But I see a slippery slope leading to the apartheid of vegans :eek:

"Slippery slopes" are just fearmongering.

Soy milk or cows milk better for baby under 1 year old? Neither: http://parenting.ivillage.com/baby/bnutrition/0,,4570,00.html

Breast milk or formula (soy or dairy based) are the options to choose from. After 1 year is reached it's merely a matter of preference.

Homicide is, by definition, the killing of a person by another person. So murder, manslaughter, anything in which someone is charged with killing another person is a homicide charge.

That being said, in pretty much any state, it is considered murder, not just manslaughter but murder, if, as a result of another underlying criminal act, someone dies.

For instance, if I commit a robbery with a partner, and the guy I am robbing takes out a gun and shoots my partner, I am guilty of murdering him, even if I didn't do a thing against him. It is because I was involved in a felony that lead to the death of a person. Ergo I am guilty of murder.

When that happens it is refered to as "felony murder", which is to say, murder brought about by a death caused by a comission of a felony.

Now what specific crimes for which, if a death occurs, makes it felony murder, varies by state. HOwever it is certainly not unheard of that child endangerment is one of them. So basically what it means is, if you commit child endangerment, and that child dies as a result, you are guilty of felony murder.
But there is still the difference in what the law allows and what justice requires. It's a tough call. These people were clearly negligent, but just as clearly are very distraught over the death. My doubt is whether sending them to jail for the rest of their lives is any more effective than sending them to jail for a lesser period.

Life means life. As in, you die there. It is not a set number of years. You spend your life in prison.Oh. I always thought that just applied when it was called "Life without parole".

This is even worse than I thought.


The law doesn't use the word malice like you use malice.Wow, I read your quote, I had no idea (well, to be fair, I never came across this "malice" thing in a legal context before). That seems very... odd to call it malice when it's in fact nothing of the sort.

For instance, if I commit a robbery with a partner, and the guy I am robbing takes out a gun and shoots my partner, I am guilty of murdering him, even if I didn't do a thing against him. It is because I was involved in a felony that lead to the death of a person. Ergo I am guilty of murder.

When that happens it is refered to as "felony murder", which is to say, murder brought about by a death caused by a comission of a felony.:eek: ZOMG, now you're blowing my mind. I always thought it was only felony murder when, say, it's a murder *I* commit while *I* am robbing someone. Not if I commit the robbery and someone else shoots someone else! How can I possibly get prosecuted for murder then?! What if I didn't even have a gun?!

Oh. I always thought that just applied when it was called "Life without parole".

Well parole is another matter. Parole is not gaurenteed. The base sentence for life is life. As standard, they don't get out. IF they get parole then perhaps they will, but that is not a given.

Wow, I read your quote, I had no idea (well, to be fair, I never came across this "malice" thing in a legal context before). That seems very... odd to call it malice when it's in fact nothing of the sort.

It's one of those annoying lawyer things.

:eek: ZOMG, now you're blowing my mind. I always thought it was only felony murder when, say, it's a murder *I* commit during a robbery. Not if I commit the robbery and someone else shoots someone else! How can I possibly get prosecuted for murder then?! What if I didn't even have a gun?!

Doesn't matter. If you are involved in the comission of a felony*, and someone dies as a result of that felony, you, and everyone else involved, is guilty of murder. Even if you didn't have a weapon. Even if you didn't kill him. Even if in fact the guy you were comitting the crime against killed them.

You are guilty of felony murder

* not ALL felonies, states specifically list those felonies for which this applies. Typically class B felonies and above, or "violent" felonies.

They should have given him real milk, and maybe meat if he really needed it. A baby is to be cared for, not indoctrinated into one's philosophies until later in life.
It's six weeks old. It doesn't have teeth to eat meat with.

It should have been breast fed.

That's my main problem with veganism: Your body just isn't efficient at breaking food down to began with, and even less so with plant materials(such as soy products and such). You have to eat ALOT of plant protein just to get a sufficient amount as compared to meat(Of course, eating massive amounts of meat is bad for you, as well).
You really have no clue what you're talking about.
The onyl advantage of meat protein over plant protein is that you don't have to work as hard to balance it and make sure you get whole protein since meat contains whole protein while vegetables contain incomplete proteins. However, it's easy to mix your protein sources, better for the environment and better for your health to abstain from meat.

Veganism unless done properly is not a good thing. Humans need vitamins and minerals that are almost always only found in animal products as well as vegetables... I've never known a healthy vegan that did not take some kind of suppliment.

Those to flopheads decided to try and indoctrinate thier newborn child into thier lifestile... it doesn't work that way. Babies need just the right balance of nutrition to grow properly and soy milk and apple juice have none of that. Regardless of whether YOU want animal products in your diet you child MUST HAVE the fats and vitamins provided by animal products... or for christ sakes at least baby formula.

What they did might not have been intentional but it was wrong... I think they shoud just be mandatroily sterilized for stupidity instead of being sent to prison.

What they did might not have been intentional but it was wrong... I think they shoud just be mandatroily sterilized for stupidity instead of being sent to prison.
Like I said, it's either life in prison or sterilization, but since we can't do the latter...

I wouldn't consider sterilization, but they refuse to admit they did anything wrong.

Veganism unless done properly is not a good thing. Humans need vitamins and minerals that are almost always only found in animal products as well as vegetables... I've never known a healthy vegan that did not take some kind of suppliment.
The only vitamin you can't get from just plants is B12 and if you didn't have to wash your produce to remove pesticides and the like you could get that from plants too.

Those to flopheads decided to try and indoctrinate thier newborn child into thier lifestile... it doesn't work that way. Babies need just the right balance of nutrition to grow properly and soy milk and apple juice have none of that. Regardless of whether YOU want animal products in your diet you child MUST HAVE the fats and vitamins provided by animal products... or for christ sakes at least baby formula.
Those animal products don't have to come from different species. The mother could have breast fed. Or, as another poster mentioned, they coudl have fed their baby soy based baby formula and avoided animal products entirely. You don't need cow's milk to properly raise a kid.

But...Veganism is a healthy lifestyle that would help the nutrition of all!

Okay, seriously. Veganism is a choice, one that is in my opinion stupid, that ADULTS should make. People with fully developed bodies. When you try to force those ideals on babies-who need substances found in milk, paticularly human milk, you don't get good results.

Humans need vitamins and minerals that are almost always only found in animal products as well as vegetables... I've never known a healthy vegan that did not take some kind of suppliment.
I have. The only "vitamin or mineral" not found in vegetables but found in animals is B12.

... but in the long term, you can't count on the bacteria in your gut to manufacture all the B12 you need, and if you're deficient over a long enough time, it will catch up with you in a nasty fashion. Hence B12 (or just multivitamin, which tend to be around the same cost) supplements a good idea.

Frankly, it's harder to have a healthy vegan diet than (say) a healthy vegetarian diet, because you have to balance things so much more carefully, but it's quite possible in the short term.

I'm guessing that they figured if animal milk wasn't okay for their baby to drink neither was human milk. After all, we're really just animals, too.

Proving once again that something can be logical and still be pretty stupid.

The only vitamin you can't get from just plants is B12 and if you didn't have to wash your produce to remove pesticides and the like you could get that from plants too.
Just eat the damn pesticides. You breath in many worse chemicals, one more ain't gonna hurt you.

Just eat the damn pesticides. You breath in many worse chemicals, one more ain't gonna hurt you.

QFT

Although having said that. You can make a case that pesticides harm the environment. A counter would be that without them, we would have to do a shitload more of outsourcing since food production would be vastly more inneficient.

Just eat the damn pesticides. You breath in many worse chemicals, one more ain't gonna hurt you.


so a larger intake of cancer causing substance(s) isn't going to increase ones risk of getting cancer?

These types of people make the rest of us look bad. I'm a non-meat eater (I refuse to call myself a vegetarian because of shit like this).

I didn't think it was anti-vegan to feed your baby breast milk, unless somehow that is now cruelty to animals as well, seeing how humans are a type of animal.

There are plenty of good alternatives to meat out there, but you want until the kid is eating fucking solids before you do stupid shit like this.

Breastfeeding is natural. If it were cruel then one or other of the animals performing the act would try and keep it from being performed, don't you think? Honestly, humans are the only animals I've found that are stupid enough to skip it. Granted, yes, not all persons are designed to be great breast feeders, but those who are should. Formula is always recommended as a last resort if breastfeeding can be properly performed.

I think life imprisonment is a bit harsh, it's not as if they are a threat to society. Also it wasn't a "murder", if you know what I mean, they didn't intend for the baby to die.

I don't know, not taking the baby to a doctor when it was clearly suffering from malnutrition smacks to me of murder. I know kids in kindergarten who are smart enough to know that it's something that the kid should have been taken to the doctor for.

On matters of sterilizing them rather than prison, all I have to say is "how does that fucking stop them from adopting?"

The only vitamin you can't get from just plants is B12 and if you didn't have to wash your produce to remove pesticides and the like you could get that from plants too.

You could grow your own.

Well parole is another matter. Parole is not gaurenteed. The base sentence for life is life. As standard, they don't get out. IF they get parole then perhaps they will, but that is not a given."As standard, they don't get out"?? So the actual Life without Parole is not different in effect from the majority of all life sentences in the US? Holy crap.


Doesn't matter. If you are involved in the comission of a felony*, and someone dies as a result of that felony, you, and everyone else involved, is guilty of murder. Even if you didn't have a weapon. Even if you didn't kill him. Even if in fact the guy you were comitting the crime against killed them.

You are guilty of felony murder

* not ALL felonies, states specifically list those felonies for which this applies. Typically class B felonies and above, or "violent" felonies.Yeah. I understand it but I don't want to believe it. I actually saw a case like that in some TV show once and was annoyed enough by what I considered the outlandish unfactualness (that's not a word, is it?) of it to still remember it today...

Seriously, does anybody think that is NOT fucked up?

Just eat the damn pesticides. You breath in many worse chemicals, one more ain't gonna hurt you.
Dude, I've forgotten to wash fruit before and I've tasted pesticides... they're not pleasant.

Dude, I've forgotten to wash fruit before and I've tasted pesticides... they're not pleasant.

Meh, grow up surrounded by farms, you get used to it.

You could grow your own.
You could, but I think that taking a pill every once in a while is easier, especially if one lacks a garden.

Dude, I've forgotten to wash fruit before and I've tasted pesticides... they're not pleasant.

I have honestly never been able to taste it.

"As standard, they don't get out"?? So the actual Life without Parole is not different in effect from the majority of all life sentences in the US? Holy crap.

Well yes, it is. Both have the same default constructor, but one has an escape condition.

so a larger intake of cancer causing substance(s) isn't going to increase ones risk of getting cancer?

Okay. Look at the news. EVERYTHING causes cancer, including bunnies, happiness, love, and Chuck Norris.

Wow... people really should need a licence for raising a kid...

I don't really have any personal thoughts on veganism, other than it seems like way more of a hassle than it's worth. I'm an incredibly lazy person, and the instant I have to start balancing out everything I eat and substituting one thing for another to stay healthy, it doesn't last too long with me.

But that's neither here nor there. The fact is, that these people killed their baby. Whether it was intentional or not -might- matter if it was an accident like... say... they left the baby unattended in the bathwater and it drowned. Could happen to any new parent with a lack of knowledge (and it does) HOWEVER. The kid was what.... 6 months old and it weighed 3lbs? Does this not set off warning bells to any caring parent? The thing must have been skin and bones. Any proper doctor would have been able to diagnos malnurishment. I think they deserve their life sentance for allowing the continued suffering, and then death of their baby. It's probably the thing that I hate most about religion/lifestyle fanatics: They have to press it on their kid like it would be the end of the world if they believed something else.

I have honestly never been able to taste it.
It might have been that they used a different kind on the nectarine that I ate, but it tasted awful.

What the hell is a baby going to do with meat?
And how do you feel about baptism, if you're going to condemn early indocrination?

The mother should have just breastfed the baby, there is nothing about being a vegan that says you can't milk yourself.

I understand what you say about the meat, and I'm an atheist. I don't like baptism.

It might have been that they used a different kind on the nectarine that I ate, but it tasted awful.

I think that might be the nectarine, and not the pesticides.

why didn't they breastfeed him?

Because she's so malnurished she didn't produce any.




That's just a guess...

Wow... people really should need a licence for raising a kid...

I don't really have any personal thoughts on veganism, other than it seems like way more of a hassle than it's worth. I'm an incredibly lazy person, and the instant I have to start balancing out everything I eat and substituting one thing for another to stay healthy, it doesn't last too long with me.

But that's neither here nor there. The fact is, that these people killed their baby. Whether it was intentional or not -might- matter if it was an accident like... say... they left the baby unattended in the bathwater and it drowned. Could happen to any new parent with a lack of knowledge (and it does) HOWEVER. The kid was what.... 6 months old and it weighed 3lbs? Does this not set off warning bells to any caring parent? The thing must have been skin and bones. Any proper doctor would have been able to diagnos malnurishment. I think they deserve their life sentance for allowing the continued suffering, and then death of their baby. It's probably the thing that I hate most about religion/lifestyle fanatics: They have to press it on their kid like it would be the end of the world if they believed something else.

QFT: Except the baby was six weeks, not months...but that's still bad enough.

On matters of sterilizing them rather than prison, all I have to say is "how does that fucking stop them from adopting?"
You have to run adoptions past the government. They'll look at your file and see "Oh, this person has been sterilized for starving their last baby. DENIED!"

I think that might be the nectarine, and not the pesticides.
Nah, it was only the nectarine skin that was bitter. The rest of it was delicious.

Well yes, it is. Both have the same default constructor, but one has an escape condition.
Yeah, I just never knew that the average life sentence handed down in the US actually meant life. I thought different states would likely have different lengths of prison terms for a life sentence, like we do here, where a "life sentence" usually means 15 years, IIRC.

I also (wrongly) considered the mere existence and popularity of the "Life without Parole" sentence in capital trials and in commutations of death sentences to mean that "life" actually meaning life was in fact the exception rather than the rule.

You have to run adoptions past the government. They'll look at your file and see "Oh, this person has been sterilized for starving their last baby. DENIED!"

With how wonderfully (note the dripping sarcasm, please) the government manages everything in this fine country, why do you think they'd be able to manage that fine?

Okay. Look at the news. EVERYTHING causes cancer, including bunnies, happiness, love, and Chuck Norris.


But on a serious note, my wife has cancer and knowing the costs of treatment and lost income from not being able to work, I think I might try to avoid those things which are known to cause cancer.

It's not about being able to live forever, it's about trying to avoid ending life in a wheelchair and diapers. Quality of life improves with health. I know because I've gone thru many dramatic changes in my diet and have seen the health benefits and feel so much better than than I did in my 20's.

The type of cancer my wife has is suspected to be caused by things such as pesticides and pollution. Yes there is always a risk of anyone catching cancer but are you honestly trying to say that it's dumb to avoid things which increase ones risk of catching it?

They should have given him real milk, and maybe meat if he really needed it. A baby is to be cared for, not indoctrinated into one's philosophies until later in life.

Meat? To a six week old? Yeah.

One wonders what the vegan menu in prison is like?

But that's why there are regular checkups for newborns and why you listen to your wife's mother and why you feed babies certain things that are good for them. It's just not that hard, speaking as one with grown children.

It sounds like they weren't feeding the baby enough, period. Babies are amazingly resiliant, even on a substandard diet...IF they are getting enough calories. Meaning, the nutrition might not be enough, and may cause problems later on, but they shouldn't just outright die of starvation absent actual starvation. Which leads me to believe...they were restricting the amount.

Life means life. As in, you die there. It is not a set number of years. You spend your life in prison. Odd. Here, even first degree murder gets you 'life' with the chance of parole after 25 years, or less with the 'faint hope clause'. Second degree murder gets you 'life' with chance of parole after 10 years. Life rarely means life in Canada. Annoyingly enough.

Odd. Here, even first degree murder gets you 'life' with the chance of parole after 25 years, or less with the 'faint hope clause'. Second degree murder gets you 'life' with chance of parole after 10 years. Life rarely means life in Canada. Annoyingly enough.

yes, but that's my point.

"Life" is a default. You get a CHANCE at parole. Not a gaurentee. You might not get it. As such, Life, as default, means life.

it is not a GAURENTEE of life, but it is a default of life.

It sounds like they weren't feeding the baby enough, period. Babies are amazingly resiliant, even on a substandard diet...IF they are getting enough calories. Meaning, the nutrition might not be enough, and may cause problems later on, but they shouldn't just outright die of starvation absent actual starvation. Which leads me to believe...they were restricting the amount.

Indeed, and the article indicates they had their child at home, by themselves, and refused to take the baby to a doctor...

Meat? To a six week old? Yeah.I'm choosing to believe a lot of people didn't really notice the age...

Anyway, there's no conflict between breastfeeding, baby formulas and veganism. There's no problem raising kids of any age on a vegan diet either. At least not 'til they're teenagers and start demanding burgers, but even then it's still not a health issue.

You just have to know what you're doing. That's all there is to it. You'd need the same on any other diet, only a broad diet of common foodstuffs, is good enough for people not to know what they're doing. Blame the supermarket for you lot not being dead of malnutrition, because it's their doing, not yours. They just don't cater to vegans, so we have to know.

That said, you have to be a fucking retarded insane person, if you can be the parent of a newborn and not notice it's dying of something. And any doctor could easily have told those two sods what were wrong... If they hadn't had some irrational fear of having a doctor check out the baby.

I don't know if live in prison really is life. In these parts, it's a couple of decades, and you'd have to kill more than one kid deliberately to get a sentence like that. Whatever the case may be, it sounds like the two idiot psychopaths would be far better served with hospitalisation, because.. Well.. Sane people don't watch their offspring die a slow, agonising death without at least trying to do something about it.

But on a serious note, my wife has cancer and knowing the costs of treatment and lost income from not being able to work, I think I might try to avoid those things which are known to cause cancer.

It's not about being able to live forever, it's about trying to avoid ending life in a wheelchair and diapers. Quality of life improves with health. I know because I've gone thru many dramatic changes in my diet and have seen the health benefits and feel so much better than than I did in my 20's.

The type of cancer my wife has is suspected to be caused by things such as pesticides and pollution. Yes there is always a risk of anyone catching cancer but are you honestly trying to say that it's dumb to avoid things which increase ones risk of catching it?

I apologize, I was making a joke and was unaware of your personal tragedy.

They just don't cater to vegans, so we have to know.
Veganism is the most absurd stretching of vegetarianism there is. Unless you somehow have a medical ailment where you can't even have animal related products, you should be smacked upside the head. I doubt any store outside of the more hippie areas of California would make any money with vegan products.

Veganism is the most absurd stretching of vegetarianism there is. Unless you somehow have a medical ailment where you can't even have animal related products, you should be smacked upside the head. I doubt any store outside of the more hippie areas of California would make any money with vegan products.

Well, some places around here have vegan products (But it's mostly like vegan cinnamon rolls and hummus and such that I've seen.)

Doesn't the mom have some organs for feeding babies?

Doesn't the mom have some organs for feeding babies?

Yes, but the mother wouldn't feed her child other kidns of milk, so presumably she though her own milk wouldn't be any better.

Veganism is the most absurd stretching of vegetarianism there is. Unless you somehow have a medical ailment where you can't even have animal related products, you should be smacked upside the head. I doubt any store outside of the more hippie areas of California would make any money with vegan products.
Umm... most stores around here have vegan products. If by vegan products you mean a produce section, tofu, a wide variety of soy-based meat and cheese products, fake eggs et c.

And veganism is technically better for the environment than vegetarianism. Technically we're not exactly naturally supposed to consume the milk of other species either.

Veganism is the most absurd stretching of vegetarianism there is. Unless you somehow have a medical ailment where you can't even have animal related products, you should be smacked upside the head. I doubt any store outside of the more hippie areas of California would make any money with vegan products.

Or Washington, or Oregon, or even here in Arizona...

I apologize, I was making a joke and was unaware of your personal tragedy.

:) No worries, things are looking up right now. She is finishing radiation this month and there is like a 99% chance that she will not see it a recurrence. Although, she is at a much higher risk of breast cancer now apparently because of the radiation. :rolleyes:

:) No worries, things are looking up right now. She is finishing radiation this month and there is like a 99% chance that she will not see it a recurrence. Although, she is at a much higher risk of breast cancer now apparently because of the radiation. :rolleyes:

They...cure cancer by risking a different kind?

:headbang:

I'm choosing to believe a lot of people didn't really notice the age...

Anyway, there's no conflict between breastfeeding, baby formulas and veganism. There's no problem raising kids of any age on a vegan diet either. At least not 'til they're teenagers and start demanding burgers, but even then it's still not a health issue.

Indeed. I just did a very quick google search and got all sorts of pages on proper vegan diets for infants and toddlers. One of the things the first link I found was absolutely clear on was the fact that soy milk will not suffice as a milk substitute. If a mother cannot or will not breastfeed, formula of some sort is a must.

Umm... most stores around here have vegan products. If by vegan products you mean a produce section, tofu, a wide variety of soy-based meat and cheese products, fake eggs et c.
Until you get to the stupid cheese and egg replacement, it has nothing to do with veganism.

And veganism is technically better for the environment than vegetarianism. Technically we're not exactly naturally supposed to consume the milk of other species either.
Yeah I'm sure that's what all the propaganda in-circle literature says.
Naturally, we are supposed to eat fucking meat. Omnivores are naturally predisposed to eat whatever they damn well please. Vegans don't even eat products produced by animals, much less the animal.

They...cure cancer by risking a different kind?

:headbang:

I feel ya

Not so much cure, the oncologists stray far from that word, but it's a tough decision to say no I don't want radiation because of the increased risk of breast cancer when it leaves the risk even higher that your other type of cancer might still be alive and ready to grow again.

:) No worries, things are looking up right now. She is finishing radiation this month and there is like a 99% chance that she will not see it a recurrence. Although, she is at a much higher risk of breast cancer now apparently because of the radiation. :rolleyes:

And there's also the wonderful side-effects of drugs that you have to take with the chemotherapy...it really does never end.

Glad to hear things are looking up for her, though! :)

One of the things the first link I found was absolutely clear on was the fact that soy milk will not suffice as a milk substitute. If a mother cannot or will not breastfeed, formula of some sort is a must.
And you can get baby formula made from soy rather than milk. It's often used by parents of colicky babies because colic reduces their ability to digest dairy sugars.

Though, soy formula does constipate babies, so you need to cut it with prune juice if you're using it long term.

Until you get to the stupid cheese and egg replacement, it has nothing to do with veganism.
What the hell do you think vegans eat?

Produce (fruits, veggies, legumes), nuts, pasta... pretty much what anyone else eats but without the animal products. Also, many vegans don't eat the stupid cheese and egg replacements.

Yeah I'm sure that's what all the propaganda in-circle literature says.
Naturally, we are supposed to eat fucking meat. Omnivores are naturally predisposed to eat whatever they damn well please. Vegans don't even eat products produced by animals, much less the animal.
:rolleyes: I didn't say a damn thing about eating meat. I said that consuming milk from another species is not natural. Cow milk is technically for baby cows.

I'm not a vegan though, and I do drink milk and consume dairy products (sparsely), but I can admit that it's not really natural. But then neither is this computer.

Anyway, I don't get it. We vegans seem to be burdened with quite a bit more than our fair share of insane fools. Why is it so attractive to be a herbivore when you're cracked? I mean, seriously.. It's just a diet, not a fucking religion.

Indeed. But there are idiots everywhere.

It's the problem with an individual always being seen, somehow, as representative of the minority group he's part of. Hence when a vegan does something dumb, the majority will stereotype vegans; when a meat-eater does something dumb, nobody says anything about meat-eaters in general. Same when you're black and not white, Muslim and not Christian, etc... The majority tend to view you as "typical" of your minority, absurd as that may be.

QFT: Except the baby was six weeks, not months...but that's still bad enough.

Ah~ Thankie

... still.... kids are usually born 7-8lbs... was it born under sized, or did it just lose that much weight?

The majority tend to view you as "typical" of your minority, absurd as that may be.

Well, if you don't know any, it's hard to know whether or not all of them are like that. For example, very few of us know Scientologists, but we view them as stupid. Likewise, back in the early 1900s, very few people knew Chinese outside of the west coast, so the only exposure most people had to Chinese people were exaggerated accounts of how awful Chinese immigrants were, something that probably very well led to the Chinese Exclusion Act.

And there's also the wonderful side-effects of drugs that you have to take with the chemotherapy...it really does never end.

Glad to hear things are looking up for her, though! :)


Thankies! :fluffle:

Yeah she'll take the side effects of radiation (peinful to swallow so far and possibly some fatigue near the end) anyday over what she went thru with chemo.

What the hell do you think vegans eat?

Produce (fruits, veggies, legumes), nuts, pasta... pretty much what anyone else eats but without the animal products. Also, many vegans don't eat the stupid cheese and egg replacements.


:rolleyes: I didn't say a damn thing about eating meat. I said that consuming milk from another species is not natural. Cow milk is technically for baby cows.

I'm not a vegan though, and I do drink milk and consume dairy products (sparsely), but I can admit that it's not really natural. But then neither is this computer.


Do you ever feel like you are being treated like you think the world is flat when you mention anything about vegetarianism or veganism on this message board? :p

Ah~ Thankie

... still.... kids are usually born 7-8lbs... was it born under sized, or did it just lose that much weight?

The article doesn't say, just that he was 3.5 upon his death. My stepmother's chihuahua weighs that much.

yes, but that's my point.

"Life" is a default. You get a CHANCE at parole. Not a gaurentee. You might not get it. As such, Life, as default, means life.

it is not a GAURENTEE of life, but it is a default of life.
Ah, gotcha. Though I don't know what a 'gaurentee' is :D

What the hell do you think vegans eat?

Produce (fruits, veggies, legumes), nuts, pasta... pretty much what anyone else eats but without the animal products. Also, many vegans don't eat the stupid cheese and egg replacements.
Well considering most people eat those because the standard for people is that of an omnivore.

I didn't say a damn thing about eating meat. I said that consuming milk from another species is not natural. Cow milk is technically for baby cows.
On what grounds is it not natural? Absurd technicality? Milk from other animals is a natural source of various nutritional elements. I'm sure herders have been drinking it for centuries.

[Whine..Gibber]Grow up you silly ****. Nobody's changing their way of life just because you can't handle it's not identical to yours, and nobody's getting slapped around either. Pull your head out of your ass, brush your teeth and take a deep breath.

Little NSG wannabe-fascists.. Don't ever change :D

Do you ever feel like you are being treated like you think the world is flat when you mention anything about vegetarianism or veganism on this message board? :p

I don't think vegetarians are weird or insane (Though the ones who get some kind of sick pleasure from describing in graphic detail what happens to meat are as annoying as fuck.), but vegans are a little more out there. I kind of view them as mildly, but harmlessly, unhinged. Like Lunatic Goofballs, only less amusing.

Do you ever feel like you are being treated like you think the world is flat when you mention anything about vegetarianism or veganism on this message board? :p
No, I feel more like I'm trying to explain that the Earth is an oblate spheroid to someone who thinks that not only is it flat, but you'll fall off the edge if you go too far.

Grow up you silly ****. Nobody's changing their way of life just because you can't handle it's not identical to yours, and nobody's getting slapped around either. Pull your head out of your ass, brush your teeth and take a deep breath.

Little NSG wannabe-fascists.. Don't ever change :D
Besides that being abject bullshit flaming. I was stating my opinion about "ethical" veganism. Point out where I said people should be forced to not do it?

Well considering most people eat those because the standard for people is that of an omnivore.
Umm... no, most vegans eat produce, legumes, nuts et c to fullfill their daily caloric and nutritional requirements.

On what grounds is it not natural? Absurd technicality? Milk from other animals is a natural source of various nutritional elements. I'm sure herders have been drinking it for centuries.
On the grounds that milk is for baby mammals, not adult mammals of other species. And just because it's been going on for centuries doesn't make it natural... when we're talking about natural we're going back more than centuries. Try before the advent of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

Umm... no, most vegans eat produce, legumes, nuts et c to fullfill their daily caloric and nutritional requirements.
Which has what to do with the fact those being standard food products that would exist without vegetarianism/veganism?

On the grounds that milk is for baby mammals, not adult mammals of other species.
Absurd technicality, I see you agree with me.

No, I feel more like I'm trying to explain that the Earth is an oblate spheroid to someone who thinks that not only is it flat, but you'll fall off the edge if you go too far.

I was about to give you props for calling it an oblate spheroid, and then remembered you were in physics.

I've never really been able to wrap my head around veganism. I think it has to do with the fact that the few times I've been exposed to people trying to convince me to be a vegan, it was through what can only be called shock treatment.

Honestly, I don't care what a cow looks like in a factory farm.

Which has what to do with the fact those being standard food products that would exist without vegetarianism/veganism?
Nothing... I'm saying that vegans don't just eat these particular foods because they're standard omnivore fare, they eat these foods because they have to eat something...

Absurd technicality, I see you agree with me.
I would hardly call that an absurd technicality. I would call it the very definition of unnatural.

Nowhere did I say that unnatural = bad... wearing clothes and typing away at this computer aren't natural either.

And veganism is technically better for the environment than vegetarianism.
Except for all the leather products they can't use, instead using plastic replacements, which, I might add are made from fossil fuels. Veganism isn't just about diet.

Thankies! :fluffle:

Yeah she'll take the side effects of radiation (peinful to swallow so far and possibly some fatigue near the end) anyday over what she went thru with chemo.

Yeah, my mom also had fatigue, and got congestive heart failure from one of the drugs...I think it was Tamoxafin, but I'm not sure. She still said it was better than having to drink that barium swill...


Do you ever feel like you are being treated like you think the world is flat when you mention anything about vegetarianism or veganism on this message board? :p

If man were meant to be vegetarian, then cows wouldn't be made of meat. :D

I would call it the very definition of unnatural.

Unnatural means that which does not exist in nature. Humans exist in nature and drink milk from other animals. That's natural right there.

I was about to give you props for calling it an oblate spheroid, and then remembered you were in physics.
w00t for physics!

I've never really been able to wrap my head around veganism. I think it has to do with the fact that the few times I've been exposed to people trying to convince me to be a vegan, it was through what can only be called shock treatment.

Honestly, I don't care what a cow looks like in a factory farm.
I dunno, I almost stopped being vegetarian at some point because of some vegan websites and the way they went on... at any rate, vegans I've actually met aren't total assholes like the Peta type people. Those people tend to be douchebags.

Normally, cows are pretty vegan. And they make quite a lot of milk, don't they?Cows also have several billion stomachs (a slight exageration), and puke back up into their mouths to chew their food some more after its been in their stomachs a while.

If man were meant to be vegetarian, then cows wouldn't be made of meat. :D
Damn straight.

Except for all the leather products they can't use, instead using plastic replacements, which, I might add are made from fossil fuels. Veganism isn't just about diet.
I suppose that's true. I guess I'm just used to my bf, he's a dietary vegan (except that he'll eat honey) and tends to wear leather over plastic (for the reasons you mentioned).

Personally, I tend to buy canvas shoes with rubber soles instead of plastic and a fabric belt... neither made of plastic/fossil fuels.

Cows also have several billion stomachs (a slight exageration), and puke back up into their mouths to chew their food some more after its been in their stomachs a while.
Yeah, and people dont' eat grass. Your point?

Besides that being abject bullshit flaming. I was stating my opinion about "ethical" veganism. Point out where I said people should be forced to not do it?Hmm.. You wanting to see us slapped around, perhaps?

Your opinion as stated in the post I quoted (click the arrow), is factually wrong from first to last. There's nothing not entirely wrong about it, apart from the spelling. I don't know your opinion on "ethical" veganism. I don't even know what "ethical" veganism is supposed to be, nor did you mention it earlier.

I didn't flame you. I just told you that despite your charming little fascist streak, nobody's gonna change their way of life to make you feel better, and nobody's gonna suffer any sort of corporeal punishment for failing to please you.

Now either move on or call a mod. There's no reason to derail the thread with pointless bickering.

Unnatural means that which does not exist in nature. Humans exist in nature and drink milk from other animals. That's natural right there.
In our natural state we didn't drink milk. We started to drink milk after we started to domesticate animals there's a reason a large % of the adult human population is lactose intolerant.

Unnatural means that which does not exist in nature. Humans exist in nature and drink milk from other animals. That's natural right there.

That's entirely too loose a definition. Humans exist in nature and use computers. Is that natural too?

Yeah, and people dont' eat grass. Your point?Cows and Humans aren't very similar, and the cow digestive system is more effcient than the human digestive system.

Cows and Humans aren't very similar, and the cow digestive system is more effcient than the human digestive system.
Yes, which is why human vegans eat foods that are entirely different from the foods cows consume.

Cows and Humans aren't very similar, and the cow digestive system is more effcient than the human digestive system.For eating grass, yes. Ours is far more efficient at handling raisins, for example.

Well, if you don't know any, it's hard to know whether or not all of them are like that. For example, very few of us know Scientologists, but we view them as stupid. Likewise, back in the early 1900s, very few people knew Chinese outside of the west coast, so the only exposure most people had to Chinese people were exaggerated accounts of how awful Chinese immigrants were, something that probably very well led to the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Indeed.

On that latter topic, I know there were a variety of reasons why the Chinese were strongly discriminated against in Australia around the time of Federation in 1901. One reason was that the Chinese were seen as working too hard, and thus driving wages down and providing too much competition for white workers. But the whole thing was fuelled by stereotypes and prejudice, which came from lack of knowledge. As stereotypes generally do.

It's that reflex so many people have. "Oh, well he's vegan; what do you expect?" or "Oh, well he's black; I'm not surprised." The individual, when at fault, is seen as "typical" of his minority group. Whereas no white meat-eater would ever say "Oh, well he's a meat-eater/white; what do you expect?" If you're part of the majority and you do something wrong, the majority will not see you as a "typical" representative of itself.

Yeah, my mom also had fatigue, and got congestive heart failure from one of the drugs...I think it was Tamoxafin, but I'm not sure. She still said it was better than having to drink that barium swill...

eeep! :(



If man were meant to be vegetarian, then cows wouldn't be made of meat. :D

hehe - thats my favorite joke as a vegetarian that I like to share with those meat eaters who insist on making fun of me so I just join them. Usually it calms most people down and helps them realize I'm not a militant vegetarian bent on changing the diets of others.

Damn straight.

Don't tell me you took that as a serious point.

In our natural state we didn't drink milk. We started to drink milk after we started to domesticate animals there's a reason a large % of the adult human population is lactose intolerant.
Because it is pretty hard to get milk from undomesticated creatures. There is some obvious in there. You can suckle any creature on about any other creature that will let it. Sounds natural to me.

And you might want to familiarize yourself with facts instead of probable booklet propaganda before arguing things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance


Don't tell me you took that as a serious point.
Did you?

Damn straight.

It was meant in jest...I personally don't have a problem with vegans/vegetarians, I just know I would miss meat too much to do it myself. It's these particular people I have a problem with, and not so much as they're vegans, but as they're ignorant on how to successfully raise a child.

If man were meant to be vegetarian, then cows wouldn't be made of meat.

Humans are made of meat. Cats are made of meat.

Should we start getting worried about you? ;)

(And yes, I know you're not being serious. But I couldn't resist the obvious response. ;))

Humans are made of meat. Cats are made of meat.

Should we start getting worried about you? ;)
Cats are all lean.
Except for meat cat, he's meaty.

http://usera.imagecave.com/christincook/huge_cat.jpg

Humans are made of meat. Cats are made of meat.

Mmm...tastes like chinchilla...

Should we start getting worried about you? ;)

You mean you weren't already? :eek:

That's entirely too loose a definition. Humans exist in nature and use computers. Is that natural too?
Yes.

There's nothing wrong with the definition. What's wrong is your preconception.

some women can't breastfeed.

the baby should have been given soy formula not soy milk, babies don't need apple juice and in fact it will make them sick, and it's the parent's fault for not seeking medical care for their child.

I have no problems with vegans, I used to be one (back when I was slightly more quirky than I am now) but I do have a very real problem with irresponsible and neglectful parents.

Very good. I love it when baby killers get their just rewards, I just wish they could die a painful death...

It's six weeks old. It doesn't have teeth to eat meat with.

It should have been breast fed.

Meat? To a six week old? Yeah.

Look, I realize the foolishness of my statements, so don't reply again. Thank you.

Infants while quite resilient when it comes to food, actually need to have a precisely balanced diet until there about 8 years old.
If the kid eats too much above, or too much below a narrow strip of food mass, than it lead to either
a) childhood obesity and an increase chance of lifelong obesity on the order of nearly 9.5 times above average,
or b) Obesity in adolsence and a life long obsession with food, as well as growth problems, especially height.

Ironically I live in a city whose most often featured on so called Current Affairs shows, for the fact that in one of the most Obese countries (Australia) we have some of the worst and most infamous cases of Anorexia in all the fat and sweaty land of Oz.;)

As for Vegans and Vegetarians, well I know people from both groups. The vegeterians eat well, are quite healthy, and generally lead the most active lifestyles of all my friends. 3 out of the 5 vegans I know are sickly pale, close to being anorexic and have many health problems because they refuse to supplement their diets.

My own experiences as vegan lasted only for a month. I was sick, had numerous problems requiring hours on the can, and in generally had farts potent enough to make my housemate's dog whimper.:D

Normally, cows are pretty vegan. And they make quite a lot of milk, don't they?Only pretty vegan...They'll eat meat if they have access to it, like many other plant eating animals: Digesting meat doesn't need special bowels while digesting plant material effectively does.

My own experiences as vegan lasted only for a month. I was sick, had numerous problems requiring hours on the can, and in generally had farts potent enough to make my housemate's dog whimper.:D
You know, if you cook beans in a certain way you can avoid being terribly gassy.

Yeah, and people dont' eat grass. Your point?

But people smoke grass...

Only pretty vegan...They'll eat meat if they have access to it, like many other plant eating animals: Digesting meat doesn't need special bowels while digesting plant material effectively does.
...Oh yes, you don't need any special enzymes to digest meat, not at all. :rolleyes:

And you know, having long intestinal tracts where raw meat can decompose along the way is always a plus.

But people smoke grass...
Different kind of grass. :P

If cows regularly ate that kind of grass, drinking milk would be a much more entertaining experience I bet.

I think life imprisonment is a bit harsh, it's not as if they are a threat to society. Also it wasn't a "murder", if you know what I mean, they didn't intend for the baby to die.

Drunk drivers don't "intend" to kill someone.

why didn't they breastfeed him?

My thought exactly...I've never met a Vegan who didn't breastfeed...usually extended well into the second year of life.

Anyway...in the US, you need a license to own a dog, yet they let anyone have a kid...seems wrong.

...Oh yes, you don't need any special enzymes to digest meat, not at all.

And you know, having long intestinal tracts where raw meat can decompose along the way is always a plus.I was referring to overall complexity of efficient (relative concept) herbivore's digestive system vs meat eaters one, eg. human can't cope with grass alone even if the digestive system is that of an omnivore.

And what I said is true: If a cow or other ruminant encounters appropriate source of meat it can eat it - They're also able to digest meat well enough, considering cattle can be fed residual waste left over from the various stages of meat processing (preventing Mad Cow's disease primarily affected this part of their diet).

M
Anyway...in the US, you need a license to own a dog, yet they let anyone have a kid...seels wrong.
And have as many kids as they can pop out.

I was referring to overall complexity of efficient (relative concept) herbivore's digestive system vs meat eaters one, eg. human can't cope with grass alone even if the digestive system is that of an omnivore.
We're not grazers, of course we don't eat grass.

And we can and do get along just fine not eating meat.

The article doesn't say, just that he was 3.5 upon his death. My stepmother's chihuahua weighs that much.

Excuse me? It would practically be skeletal. How the fuck did they not realize something was wrong?

Okay, wanting to have a baby free of chemicals and other things is all well and good. Denying the truth to get this result is negligent and stupid.

You know, if you cook beans in a certain way you can avoid being terribly gassy.

Something I learnt the hard way...:D

We're not grazers, of course we don't eat grass.Aye, our digestive system is much more at home with a varied diet.

And we can and do get along just fine not eating meat.This simply isn't true, or rather the whole truth: While it's true that with a certain type of plant diet a human can survive, a human in general - without knowledge and availability of speficific nutritional sources - can't survive prolonged lengths of time without resorting to eating 'animal kingdom' - fish, insects, eggs, milk, meat - because human body isn't able to synthesize certain vitamins almost completely absent from general plant life.

Infact your statement is "less true" than this:
And we can and do get along just fine not eating plants.

why didn't they breastfeed him?

Because breast milk comes from an animal. Dur.

Once again, stupidity wins. This time from the vegan court.

On a side note...


“I’m dying every day in there,” he said, “and that could take three years.”


Good. The faster he dies, the less chance there is of him inflicting more stupidity on another kid.

This simply isn't true, or rather the whole truth: While it's true that with a certain type of plant diet a human can survive, a human in general - without knowledge and availability of speficific nutritional sources - can't survive prolonged lengths of time without resorting to eating 'animal kingdom' - fish, insects, eggs, milk, meat - because human body isn't able to synthesize certain vitamins almost completely absent from general plant life.

Infact your statement is "less true" than this:
And we can and do get along just fine not eating plants.
Daikini seems to like busting out random vegetarian/vegan propaganda.

I'm tired of these asshole parents that think they know better than the pediatricians and experts and do shit like refusing to have immunizations administered and this kind of crap. "Oh, I don't want my kid to go to school with other kids...I do alternative medicine with my kid...I don't want her to have this operation on her hernia cause it would disturb her chakra..." Fuck you, people.

This simply isn't true, or rather the whole truth: While it's true that with a certain type of plant diet a human can survive, a human in general - without knowledge and availability of speficific nutritional sources - can't survive prolonged lengths of time without resorting to eating 'animal kingdom' - fish, insects, eggs, milk, meat - because human body isn't able to synthesize certain vitamins almost completely absent from general plant life.

Infact your statement is "less true" than this:
And we can and do get along just fine not eating plants.
Not true. The only thing we can't get from non-plant sources is B12 (as mentioned earlier in the thread) and if we didn't wash produce before consuming it, we could obtain B12 through traces of soil on the food.

Really, learn something about vegetarian and vegan diets before you go about making such stupid statements, please. ALso, yeah, people do really well without veggies... good luck with colon cancer.

This simply isn't true, or rather the whole truth: While it's true that with a certain type of plant diet a human can survive, a human in general - without knowledge and availability of speficific nutritional sources - can't survive prolonged lengths of time without resorting to eating 'animal kingdom' - fish, insects, eggs, milk, meat - because human body isn't able to synthesize certain vitamins almost completely absent from general plant life.


Nonsense. Certain Indian communities have been vegetarians for milleniums now and they seem to do just fine. They drink milk, but absolutely no meat including fish and eggs.

Daikini seems to like busting out random vegetarian/vegan propaganda.
No, Dakini seems to have been a vegetarian for six years who has done research on her diet and is healthier than before becoming a vegetarian. She also eats a greater variety of food and spends less on groceries.

While I may not be a vegan, I have done research into vegan diets and actually *gasp* spoken to vegans instead of sitting about judging them and dismissing them nut jobs.

Not true. The only thing we can't get from non-plant sources is B12 (as mentioned earlier in the thread) and if we didn't wash produce before consuming it, we could obtain B12 through traces of soil on the food.

Really, learn something about vegetarian and vegan diets before you go about making such stupid statements, please.

How often do vegans or vegetarians eat their food without washing it, though? And how many fun microbes might you get otherwise.

The fact is, a healthy vegetarian diet - and especially a healthy vegan diet - would be very difficult (if even possible) to maintain without the availability of supplements and easy access to foods grown around the world.

ALso, yeah, people do really well without veggies... good luck with colon cancer.

Not to mention scurvy (assuming we're leaving out fruits as well here), unless you're eating an awful lot of raw fish.

Because breast milk comes from an animal. Dur.
Yet most vegans breastfeed. Funny...

No, Dakini seems to have been a vegetarian for six years who has done research on her diet and is healthier than before becoming a vegetarian. She also eats a greater variety of food and spends less on groceries.

Me too. :)

I used to eat anything that moves. I am veggie (not vegan, I do drink milk - organic though) for about two years now and I am healthier in every sense than before. Yep - it is also cheaper (even not considering the health costs imposed by meat-eating) and tastier, I might add.

How often do vegans or vegetarians eat their food without washing it, though? And how many fun microbes might you get otherwise.

The fact is, a healthy vegetarian diet - and especially a healthy vegan diet - would be very difficult (if even possible) to maintain without the availability of supplements and easy access to foods grown around the world.
In the modern world most people wash their food. In the modern world, there are supplements.
If you don't live in the modern world, you probably don't wash your food as thoroughly and you don't have access to supplements.

Not to mention scurvy (assuming we're leaving out fruits as well here), unless you're eating an awful lot of raw fish.
I'm sure there are other things one can get with various vitamin deficiencies...

Something I learnt the hard way...:D

We Indians have known that trick for centuries. Now if only just one of them had told me that before I started living (and cooking) on my own. :mad: :p

Yet most vegans breastfeed. Funny...

Those are vegans with a functional brain. Not these retards.

In the modern world most people wash their food. In the modern world, there are supplements.
If you don't live in the modern world, you probably don't wash your food as thoroughly and you don't have access to supplements.


I'm sure there are other things one can get with various vitamin deficiencies...

And I would like to point out that other than a multi-vitamin (which is useful even if you're not a vegetarian/vegan) is all I need to maintain the level of healthy vegetarian that I have.

Granted, I'm shifting in the opposite direction (I've acquired a fondness for sushi, among other things)

No, Dakini seems to have been a vegetarian for six years who has done research on her diet and is healthier than before becoming a vegetarian. She also eats a greater variety of food and spends less on groceries.

While I may not be a vegan, I have done research into vegan diets and actually *gasp* spoken to vegans instead of sitting about judging them and dismissing them nut jobs.
When the "facts" that support a position are ill informed and still continually pointed to support that position, I can dismiss whoever I want as nutjobs.

And you likewise have repeated at least twice improper facts in support of vegetarianism/veganism.

Those are vegans with a functional brain. Not these retards.
Yes. This would be true.

Yep - it is also cheaper (even not considering the health costs imposed by meat-eating) and tastier, I might add.

Where do you live? I nearly go broke buying fresh food (and not even organic) I do eat meat...lean beef, as well as chicken. I find that filling my grocery cart with fresh fruits and veggies is a strain. (I only shop the "outside" of the grocery store: produce, meats, dairy, frozen and bakery)

Odd. Here, even first degree murder gets you 'life' with the chance of parole after 25 years, or less with the 'faint hope clause'. Second degree murder gets you 'life' with chance of parole after 10 years. Life rarely means life in Canada. Annoyingly enough.

An A1 felony in NY gets you 25-life also. Which is why sometimes they give consecutive sentences. I think it's the federal system that has a mandatory life w/o parole. (Which obviously wouldn't actually apply here).

Even then, it's unusual for people not to be released at some point. Like when they are all old and crap. Well, except for in Alabama.

And I would like to point out that other than a multi-vitamin (which is useful even if you're not a vegetarian/vegan) is all I need to maintain the level of healthy vegetarian that I have.

Granted, I'm shifting in the opposite direction (I've acquired a fondness for sushi, among other things)
I don't take multivitamins. I occasionally pop vitamin C, but that's usually just if I feel a cold coming on.

And there's lots of veggie sushi (which is very yummy).

Where do you live? I nearly go broke buying fresh food (and not even organic) I do eat meat...lean beef, as well as chicken. I find that filling my grocery cart with fresh fruits and veggies is a strain. (I only shop the "outside" of the grocery store: produce, meats, dairy, frozen and bakery)
Yeah, who knows in what Bizarro world fruit and vegetables is cheaper than meat.

Where do you live? I nearly go broke buying fresh food (and not even organic) I do eat meat...lean beef, as well as chicken. I find that filling my grocery cart with fresh fruits and veggies is a strain. (I only shop the "outside" of the grocery store: produce, meats, dairy, frozen and bakery)

The produce section at most grocery stores is crappy anyways. If there's a farmer's market near you, chances are high that you can get better produce at lower prices.

My children's pediatrician said that if you feed your children a varied diet, all multivitamins will do is give you expensive pee

When the "facts" that support a position are ill informed and still continually pointed to support that position, I can dismiss whoever I want as nutjobs.
What?

And you likewise have repeated at least twice improper facts in support of vegetarianism/veganism.
Actually, I haven't. You and several others have made several false statements about vegetarianism and veganism (i.e. you can't live without meat).

I don't take multivitamins. I occasionally pop vitamin C, but that's usually just if I feel a cold coming on.

And there's lots of veggie sushi (which is very yummy).

I can't stand veggie sushi (kelp and rice rolls bleh). I've had salmon, spicy salmon, unagi (eel), shrimp sushi, it's all surprisingly tasty.
Hmm...not that I think about it, I had a hotdog a few weeks back. It tasted like crap. Last time I do that.

Yeah, who knows in what Bizarro world fruit and vegetables is cheaper than meat.
You mean the real world?

I went grocery shopping with one of my roommates, I spent half as much as she did and walked away with twice as much stuff and she didn't even buy that much meat.

My children's pediatrician said that if you feed your children a varied diet, all multivitamins will do is give you expensive pee

An excellent bit of advice.

My kids eat very little animal protein. Mostly legumes, squash and corn in addition to fruits/nuts. It covers pretty much all the bases. Not to mention, we manage to grow most of it ourselves.

You mean the real world?

I went grocery shopping with one of my roommates, I spent half as much as she did and walked away with twice as much stuff and she didn't even buy that much meat.

Actually, decent vegetables in the tri-state area are a fortune. But in principle you are correct.

Yeah, who knows in what Bizarro world fruit and vegetables is cheaper than meat.

You have a knack for saying the most ridiculous things.

Where do you live? I nearly go broke buying fresh food (and not even organic) I do eat meat...lean beef, as well as chicken. I find that filling my grocery cart with fresh fruits and veggies is a strain. (I only shop the "outside" of the grocery store: produce, meats, dairy, frozen and bakery)

We get our produce from Shoprite, and it's still not that expensive. Though mind you, we don't do organic, mostly fresh fruits and frozen veggies.
We get our fresh vegetables from one of the several indian stores in our area, which are significantly cheaper than they are at supermarkets.

And during the summer we get our fruits from the farmers market a few minutes out.

Then again our definitions of expensive probably differ.

You have a knack for saying the most ridiculous things.

I try.

I can't stand veggie sushi (kelp and rice rolls bleh). I've had salmon, spicy salmon, unagi (eel), shrimp sushi, it's all surprisingly tasty.
Hmm...not that I think about it, I had a hotdog a few weeks back. It tasted like crap. Last time I do that.
Avocado rolls are good, carrots in sushi are also good, mango rolls are actually surprisingly very yummy. I can't remember what else I've had... I went to a sushi place and had a bunch of things (it was an all you can eat sort of deal where you'd pick stuff off the menu and a waitress would get it for you). Quite good, imo.

Avocado rolls are good, carrots in sushi are also good, mango rolls are actually surprisingly very yummy. I can't remember what else I've had... I went to a sushi place and had a bunch of things (it was an all you can eat sort of deal where you'd pick stuff off the menu and a waitress would get it for you). Quite good, imo.

That actually does sound really tasty.
The all-you-can-eat sushi place I went to in Philly was almost exclusively meat sushi. The veggie sushies were cucumber and carrot sushi and they didn't taste as good. Then again the salmon had a really salty taste, and I'm the kind of person who puts a half-shaker of salt on everything.

I'll have to find out of the one near where I live now does decent veggie sushi.

Actually, decent vegetables in the tri-state area are a fortune. But in principle you are correct.
That doesnt' seem to make much sense... you say tri-state area so I assume you're american, I live in Canada where there are shorter growing seasons and probably more imported foods... in theory your produce should be cheaper than mine or at least similarly priced.

That doesnt' seem to make much sense... you say tri-state area so I assume you're american, I live in Canada where there are shorter growing seasons and probably more imported foods... in theory your produce should be cheaper than mine or at least similarly priced.

Yah, I know. I haven't always lived here. Just if you want to buy fresh veg at my local stores it's like $5.99 a pound for peppers, $2.99 for green beans, and fruit is usually >$4.00. (Depends on the season).

Even frozen veg runs about $4.00 a pound.

On the other hand they run a lot of low grade meat at low prices. I.e. <$2.00 a pound. (I should know I drive past the inevitable 'chicken 89c a pound' sign at least twice a year).

I do understand that this is not always the case however.

OMG, it says right on the bottle not to substitute for baby formula. These 'people' deserve life in prison.
Yep. This is the price you pay when you mix negligence, cruelty and stupidity.

Where do you live? I nearly go broke buying fresh food (and not even organic) I do eat meat...lean beef, as well as chicken. I find that filling my grocery cart with fresh fruits and veggies is a strain. (I only shop the "outside" of the grocery store: produce, meats, dairy, frozen and bakery)

Redwood city, CA. I buy groceries from Indian stores and farmer's market. I guess it is cheap because of all the lentils and pulses that I cook apart from cooking just vegetables and eating fruits.

One bag of wheat flour is less than $10 - and it will give me enough rotis for 15 days. All I have to do is cook some daal/pulse/curry - and i am done. i can pick the seasonal vegetable for cheap and cook that or i can pick the dry lentil or pulse stuff from indian stores and cook that. My grocery bills are about $150 or so.

Seriously, if stupid people were banned from having children, we'd solve overpopulation and many other problems, too.

Unless China and India are collectively stupid, I don't think that'll do the trick.

Ah, gotcha. Though I don't know what a 'gaurentee' is :D

OMG, I totally laughed at him in a TG for that - and I hadn't even noticed that "e" instead of an "a", was just laughing because of the "au". :p

You mean the real world?

I went grocery shopping with one of my roommates, I spent half as much as she did and walked away with twice as much stuff and she didn't even buy that much meat.

But how much food was it? A pound of meat has more nutrition than a pound of virtually any plant matter. And smaller amounts make you feel more full for longer.

The couple were found guilty May 2 of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children.

This is absurd. "Malice murder," you did it because you wanted to cause suffering, and "involuntary manslaughter," you did it because it was impossible not to are mutually exclusive. Just goes to show how stupid groups of people can become when your cause has a poster child.

Yes, it's fucked up that a kid died, but it was an accident. These people didn't know any better. They delivered at home for fuck's sake.

“No matter how many times they want to say, ‘We’re vegans, we’re vegetarians,’ that’s not the issue in this case,” said prosecutor Chuck Boring. “The child died because he was not fed. Period.”

No, he didn't die because he wasn't fed. He died because the parents didn't know what to feed him. Should we arrest people who raise their kids on baloney sandwiches that kill them at the age of 40 from diabetes and hypertension instead of malnutrition at 6 weeks?

This prosecutor, and his persecutorial ilk are the cause of so much pain in the world it really makes me sick that they make the bulk of the voting public.

Can anyone imagine having the name "Chuck Boring"?

Anyway, the real issue at hand is not that they are vegans - babies don't eat meat either for crying out loud! The real problem is, as the article made clear:

“The child died because he was not fed. Period.”

Something I learnt the hard way...:D

You learned to cook beans in such a way that they become non-gassy "the hard way?"

Had you planned on going to some sort of boring party and making a scene farting, only to discover that you had accidentally discovered the non-gassy cooking method?

Can anyone imagine having the name "Chuck Boring"?

Anyway, the real issue at hand is not that they are vegans - babies don't eat meat either for crying out loud! The real problem is, as the article made clear:

Originally Posted by Chuck Boring
“The child died because he was not fed. Period.”




Very good point! Too bad some people saw this as an appropriate occasion to blame vegans for who knows what. :rolleyes:

The multivitamins were mentioned earlier...I noticed that some of these pills actually contain gelatine. Wonder why...

Can anyone imagine having the name "Chuck Boring"?

Anyway, the real issue at hand is not that they are vegans - babies don't eat meat either for crying out loud! The real problem is, as the article made clear:

A point I quoted and addressed in the post immediately above yours. What Chuck said isn't true. The baby was fed, just wrong.

Yes, they were stupid for failing to understand that neonatal nutrition is not just adult nutrition in smaller portions. But we don't arrest parents who are too stupid to check behind them before backing out of their driveways. We don't arrest parents who fail to learn the Heimlich maneuver. But for some reason, we arrest people who do not know how to feed their kids.

No, wait! We don't arrest people who give their kids too much fat and protein and end up with 85 pound 2 year olds on Maury Povich's talk-show. Just the ones who follow a diet perceived as being too "hippy-peacenick" in Christian Conservative states.

The thing that really makes me sick here is that this is the same side of the political isle than opposes funding for programs to teach new mothers about infant care, but favors programs to create more uninformed mothers by preventing education about birth-control.

OK, they were vegans, right? Whole natural eating thing, no meat products and what-not.

So why the fuck wasn't the child breast fed? It is the most natural and by far healthiest way to feed an infant. :confused:

OK, they were vegans, right? Whole natural eating thing, no meat products and what-not.

So why the fuck wasn't the child breast fed? It is the most natural and by far healthiest way to feed an infant. :confused:

Yeah, but milk is an animal product.

Some people will take anything too far. Honey is out of bounds for vegans, yet it's completely natural and does no harm to the bees.

I think there's an additional issue here: The baby wasn't gaining weight, and apparantly was actually losing quite a bit of weight. And they didn't know enough to be concerned about that? It's something they drill into you at your early pediatrician visits, if not sooner (it was actually covered in our natural childbirth class): The baby should start gaining weight within a few days of birth. A little weight loss is natural in the first couple of days, but after that, if the baby isn't gaining weight, you see the pediatrician, pronto. Every first-time parent I know (and I know quite a few, being one myself) knows this. Hell, lots of non-parents know enough to know this. It takes some severe stupidity not to recognize that extreme weight loss in a newborn is a bad thing.

I'm tired of these asshole parents that think they know better than the pediatricians and experts and do shit like refusing to have immunizations administered and this kind of crap. "Oh, I don't want my kid to go to school with other kids...I do alternative medicine with my kid...I don't want her to have this operation on her hernia cause it would disturb her chakra..." Fuck you, people.
you don't like homeschoolers?

and btw who are you to say what I do or how I raise my kids as long as they aren't being abused? there are optional vaccines that I opted not to get for my kids, there are doctors recommendations that I have ignored because I felt like the doctor is wrong, and there will continue to be decisions I make for my kids that are none of your business. As long as they are not being abused, how is it any of your business?

I think there's an additional issue here: The baby wasn't gaining weight, and apparantly was actually losing quite a bit of weight. And they didn't know enough to be concerned about that? It's something they drill into you at your early pediatrician visits, if not sooner (it was actually covered in our natural childbirth class): The baby should start gaining weight within a few days of birth. A little weight loss is natural in the first couple of days, but after that, if the baby isn't gaining weight, you see the pediatrician, pronto. Every first-time parent I know (and I know quite a few, being one myself) knows this. Hell, lots of non-parents know enough to know this. It takes some severe stupidity not to recognize that extreme weight loss in a newborn is a bad thing.

and the fact that the kid would be lethargic, and not have many diapers. They tell you to expect about 6-8 diapers a day from a newborn, a malnourished newborn will not have that many, after the first day or two of the really rancid diapers, they tend to pee a lot, I am pretty sure this baby didn't.

This is absurd. "Malice murder," you did it because you wanted to cause suffering, and "involuntary manslaughter," you did it because it was impossible not to are mutually exclusive.

Um....neither of those are the proper legal definition. Involuntary manslaughter doesn't mean it was impossible not to. Involuntary manslaughter means that you did not intend to do it, but it would have still be completely avoidable.

Moreover I have already provided the legal definition of malice, which is not as you are using it, but here again:

in law, an intentional violation of the law of crimes or torts that injures another person. Malice need not involve a malignant spirit or the definite intent to do harm. To prove malice, it is sufficient to show the willful doing of an injurious act without what is considered a lawful excuse. A malicious state of mind may be inferred from reckless and wanton acts that a normal person should know might produce or threaten injury to others.

Note the bolded part.

...after their baby dies of malnutrition from being fed soy milk and apple juice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574603/?GT1=9951



The baby weighed 3.5 lbs at six weeks old, and they didn't notice anything was wrong. They refused to take him to a doctor, according to the article.

I'm starting to re-think the idea of being somehow qualified to become a parent...

Yeah, they didn't notice that his bones could be counted through his skin.

I hope they spend the rest of their lives in prison, forced to eat meat.

Yes, it's fucked up that a kid died, but it was an accident. These people didn't know any better. They delivered at home for fuck's sake.



Stupidity, unlike insanity, is not a legal defense.

Stupidity, unlike insanity, is not a legal defense.

Neither is ignorance of the law, or medicine.

Neither is ignorance of the law, or medicine.

How do you mean "ignorance of medicine" is not an excuse.

I can think of several instances when it would be....

How do you mean "ignorance of medicine" is not an excuse.

I can think of several instances when it would be....

If you can see your infant's bones (all of them) through his skin, and he's that emaciated, ignorance of the fact that something is medically wrong is not an excuse. Especially in a country where you can take the kid to an emergency room.

Quoted from the Article

“No matter how many times they want to say, ‘We’re vegans, we’re vegetarians,’ that’s not the issue in this case,” said prosecutor Chuck Boring.

Maybe somebodies already beaten me to it or maybe not. But, uh, that's an interesting last name.

If you can see your infant's bones (all of them) through his skin, and he's that emaciated, ignorance of the fact that something is medically wrong is not an excuse. Especially in a country where you can take the kid to an emergency room.

the standard has always been that which a reasonable person would know in the circumstances.

Your words were ignorance of medicine IS NOT a defense. This is untrue. In many instances ignorance of medicine is a perfecty good defense, provided that a reasonable person similarly situated, would also be ignorant in those circumstances.

the standard has always been that which a reasonable person would know in the circumstances.

Your words were ignorance of medicine IS NOT a defense. This is untrue. In many instances ignorance of medicine is a perfecty good defense, provided that a reasonable person similarly situated, would also be ignorant in those circumstances.

In these circumstances, it is not. Clearly.

What was the baby's weight when it was born?!? How could one possibly think that 3.5 pounds was a healthy weight at six months? You know, Vegans have kids all the time. I pity them, but they do manage to grow up and become my college roommate where I teach them to love pepperoni pizzas, chinese food and Spicy Italian Subway sandwiches. :D

I digress. My point is that it's possible to raise a baby on a vegan diet. But to not consult a doctor at all, to not receive any advice at all (especially a first-time parent), and to not seek it when one's child is showing no signs of growth at all? That's neglect. Simple basic neglect.

And maybe I'm the wacko, but one would expect vegans to have a GREATER understanding of nutrition than a lesser one. It takes real work to avoid animal products. *nod*

And maybe I'm the wacko,

Maybe?

Maybe?

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-006.gif

What was the baby's weight when it was born?!? How could one possibly think that 3.5 pounds was a healthy weight at six months? You know, Vegans have kids all the time. I pity them, but they do manage to grow up and become my college roommate where I teach them to love pepperoni pizzas, chinese food and Spicy Italian Subway sandwiches. :D

I digress. My point is that it's possible to raise a baby on a vegan diet. But to not consult a doctor at all, to not receive any advice at all (especially a first-time parent), and to not seek it when one's child is showing no signs of growth at all? That's neglect. Simple basic neglect.

And maybe I'm the wacko, but one would expect vegans to have a GREATER understanding of nutrition than a lesser one. It takes real work to avoid animal products. *nod*

Well, apparently they managed to find a lawyer who was willing to stand up in court and say they had no fucking clue that anything was wrong.

Well, apparently they managed to find a lawyer who was willing to stand up in court and say they had no fucking clue that anything was wrong.

And they lost. Sometimes I'm amazed that Judges have the patience to hear these bullshit explanations. I'd get about twenty seconds into the opening argument and go, "WHAT THE FUCK?!?" ANd spend the rest of the trial throwing bricks at the defendants. :p

Not true. The only thing we can't get from non-plant sources is B12 (as mentioned earlier in the thread) and if we didn't wash produce before consuming it, we could obtain B12 through traces of soil on the food.Wikipedia disagrees with your viewpoint, with no less than 2 external sources:
Tempeh, seaweeds, spirulina, organic produce, soil on unwashed vegetables, and intestinal bacteria have not been shown to be reliable sources of B12 for the dietary needs of vegans.

Secondly, human teeth are not well suited to eating unwashed food: The Egyptian mummies had badly deteriorated teeth because of the sand particles they ate along with food.Really, learn something about vegetarian and vegan diets before you go about making such stupid statements, please.That was my point: I have to learn something about vegan diet in order to survive with it.

Look at this topic: A vegan couple who didn't *know* any better caused the death of a baby.
ALso, yeah, people do really well without veggies... good luck with colon cancer.Do you really think that wishing cancer to other human being makes you somehow morally superior?

Also, what is the prevalence of colon cancer in communities with predominantly 'animal kingdom' diets, like in Mongolia or with Inuits?

Besides, I thought colorectal cancers are more linked to fatty foods (especially grilled/fried/overcooked ones because of PAHs) & cigarette smoking than simply eating meat or dairy products.
Nonsense. Certain Indian communities have been vegetarians for milleniums now and they seem to do just fine. They drink milk, but absolutely no meat including fish and eggs.Yes, in India with a specific plant diet - A diet not naturally available, for example, in Arctic & sub-arctic regions, desert/savannah/pampa environment or South American & African jungles.

Besides, milk is a good source of minerals (like calcium) and certain vitamins (including vitamins B12, B2 and D) hard to obtain from herbal sources .

Well, apparently they managed to find a lawyer who was willing to stand up in court and say they had no fucking clue that anything was wrong.

A defense lawyer has to give the best possible defense. Apparently, all the couple (or their lawyer) had was, "We really didn't know!!" And the jury didn't buy it.

Of course, I don't buy it either, unless both parents are severely mentally retarded and thus probably shouldn't be allowed custody of a child anyways.

A defense lawyer has to give the best possible defense. Apparently, all the couple (or their lawyer) had was, "We really didn't know!!" And the jury didn't buy it.

Of course, I don't buy it either, unless both parents are severely mentally retarded and thus probably shouldn't be allowed custody of a child anyways.

Somehow I don't feel that it's a "best" defense.

I think he should have advised them to plead guilty, and express remorse, and hope the judge didn't fuck them too hard.

Somehow I don't feel that it's a "best" defense.

I think he should have advised them to plead guilty, and express remorse, and hope the judge didn't fuck them too hard.
He probably did and they kept up their bullshit story.

*Attorney listens to story*
Attorney: Either we can plead insanity and hope they buy it or you can plead guilty and throw yourself on the mercy of the court because no jury in the world is going to buy this bullshit about you "not knowing there was anything wrong" and they will probably recommend literally crucifying you.
Clients: We are innocent and didn't know any better and want to take our chances with the jury.
Attorney: Your funeral, I'm still getting paid.

^^^^ God damn you, pantless :p

Somehow I don't feel that it's a "best" defense.

I think he should have advised them to plead guilty, and express remorse, and hope the judge didn't fuck them too hard.

He may very well have advised them to do so. However I don't think (and you or Arthais will correctly me if I'm wrong) that he can submit a guilty plea without their consent. It's entirely possible he laid it out for them. "You guys are fucked, just show some remorse and admit you were wrong, and maybe they'll show some leniency." They could easily have gone "But we didn't know we were doing anything wrong. We're not pleading guilty." And he'd just shrug his shoulders and start working on a hopeless defense.

^^^^ God damn you, pantless :p
He may very well have advised them to do so. However I don't think (and you or Arthais will correctly me if I'm wrong) that he can submit a guilty plea without their consent. It's entirely possible he laid it out for them. "You guys are fucked, just show some remorse and admit you were wrong, and maybe they'll show some leniency." They could easily have gone "But we didn't know we were doing anything wrong. We're not pleading guilty." And he'd just shrug his shoulders and start working on a hopeless defense.

There are some attorneys out there who won't represent you if you aren't going to take their advice.

I think that a life sentence is needlessly harsh.

Prison time, yes. Life, no way.

But then again, the law seems to give little latitude...
Sentencing the couple, the judge said the murder verdict made the life sentence mandatory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6642543.stm
There are some attorneys out there who won't represent you if you aren't going to take their advice.

Many, actually.

Normally, cows are pretty vegan. And they make quite a lot of milk, don't they?

Probably the most moronic comparison ever. Humans != cows. Human milk is nothing like cow milk.

I think that a life sentence is needlessly harsh.

Prison time, yes. Life, no way.
For gross negligence resulting in the death of a six week old child? And then, asserting they did nothing wrong, even after being charged with half a dozen crimes for the child's death? You realize they can procreate again whenever they want, right?

I'll let them out of a life sentence, if they both agree to sterilization and are put on a list as to prevent them from legitimately adopting a child.

For gross negligence resulting in the death of a six week old child?
Yes. Gross negligence resulting in the death of a six week old child is not as bad as premeditated murder.

And then, asserting they did nothing wrong, even after being charged with half a dozen crimes for the child's death?
It's irrelevant really...

You realize they can procreate again whenever they want, right?
Yes. And next time they wouldn't do the same mistake again, would they?

I'll let them out of a life sentence, if they both agree to sterilization and are put on a list as to prevent them from legitimately adopting a child.
I'd give them... One year in prison, and one year probation each. No other illegal or inhumane terms (like sterilization).

Yes. Gross negligence resulting in the death of a six week old child is not as bad as premeditated murder.Causing a death because of personal preference - I do this because I want to feel good - is in my book much much much worse than any shooting spree in the heat of the moment, fully comparable to killing for personal, sexual pleasure.

For gross negligence resulting in the death of a six week old child? And then, asserting they did nothing wrong, even after being charged with half a dozen crimes for the child's death? You realize they can procreate again whenever they want, right?

I'll let them out of a life sentence, if they both agree to sterilization and are put on a list as to prevent them from legitimately adopting a child.


I fully agree with pantless here.

...after their baby dies of malnutrition from being fed soy milk and apple juice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574603/?GT1=9951



The baby weighed 3.5 lbs at six weeks old, and they didn't notice anything was wrong. They refused to take him to a doctor, according to the article.

I'm starting to re-think the idea of being somehow qualified to become a parent...

Send them back to Vega!:headbang:

Causing a death because of personal preference - I do this because I want to feel good - is in my book much much much worse than any shooting spree in the heat of the moment, fully comparable to killing for personal, sexual pleasure.

I don't see how you can say that. Did they not believe that their actions was to the benefit and helpful to the health of the child? Can you prove that they forced the child on a vegan diet because they would feel better about it? According to the defense, they did not realise that they placed their child in harms way... That's worse than going on a shooting spree, and on par with premeditated killing for personal sexual pleasure?

I cannot identify with your values and norms of ethics.

I fully agree with pantless here.
Well colour me surprised.

you know, i do agree with their sentence what they did was just friggin dumb. however i do think a good alternative for those that think life in prison is too cruel...the couple could just be forced to eat a rare steak once a day every day for the rest of their lives...however fun punishments like that dont happen in reality sadly

Yes. Gross negligence resulting in the death of a six week old child is not as bad as premeditated murder.
It is if they maintain they did nothing wrong.

It's irrelevant really...
Bullshit, it's the crux of the argument. A six week old died from negligent care and they assert they did nothing wrong, including their refusal to bring it to a doctor? These people are still able to reproduce and have seemingly learned nothing from the death of this child.

Yes. And next time they wouldn't do the same mistake again, would they?
How can you say shit like that? Oh yeah, because you dismissed the "they thought they were doing nothing wrong" out of hand.

I'd give them... One year in prison, and one year probation each. No other illegal or inhumane terms (like sterilization).
And I'd give it a 55+% chance we end up with another dead child.

Did they not believe that their actions was to the benefit and helpful to the health of the child?
And completely disregarding what would be very obvious signs of a progressive trend of worsening health. You don't die of negligence, and especially not starvation, in a single day - it's a process. The child would be losing weight; they would have to be changing less diapers. I would assume the child became more lethargic and cried less, even when it normally should cry.

According to the defense, they did not realise that they placed their child in harms way...
It's the defense's job to put forward asinine bullshit to prevent their clients from going to jail.

It is if they maintain they did nothing wrong.
No, no it is not. Not at all, actually.

In criminal law, neglect is not as bad as premeditation.

Bullshit, it's the crux of the argument. A six week old died from negligent care and they assert they did nothing wrong, including their refusal to bring it to a doctor? These people are still able to reproduce and have seemingly learned nothing from the death of this child.
So their actions would be less punishable if they did not assert their innocence after being charged?

Strange how that's the crux of the argument. I would have imagined the neglect itself would hold that position.

How can you say shit like that? Oh yeah, because you dismissed the "they thought they were doing nothing wrong" out of hand.
I would think losing a child and being sent to prison would be a good educator.

And I'd give it a 55+% chance we end up with another dead child.
Based on the article alone, eh?

It is if they maintain they did nothing wrong.


So?


Bullshit, it's the crux of the argument. A six week old died from negligent care and they assert they did nothing wrong, including their refusal to bring it to a doctor? These people are still able to reproduce and have seemingly learned nothing from the death of this child.


You can't give people a life sentance based purely on principle. Thats a mockery of the justice system, people don't get sent to life in prison simply because they havn't "learnt their lesson".


How can you say shit like that? Oh yeah, because you dismissed the "they thought they were doing nothing wrong" out of hand.


And I'd give it a 55+% chance we end up with another dead child.

Even if they did have a child, the government can just take it away from the couple.

And completely disregarding what would be very obvious signs of a progressive trend of worsening health. You don't die of negligence, and especially not starvation, in a single day - it's a process. The child would be losing weight; they would have to be changing less diapers. I would assume the child became more lethargic and cried less, even when it normally should cry.
It took six weeks for the child to die. They should have gotten help, and they should have done so very much differently. And I agree that they should be punished.

Not life imprisonment though. Not by a longshot.

It's the defense's job to put forward asinine bullshit to prevent their clients from going to jail.
So it must indeed be a lie then. Gotcha. The statement can not in any way be an indication of their state of mind or imply that they didn't want the child to die.

For that matter, everything the prosecution says must be a lie too, since it's their job to put forward asinine bullshit to make sure the accused go to jail.

Did they not believe that their actions was to the benefit and helpful to the health of the child?I cannot feel that way - They chose to apply their view of the world to their child without considering its effects.

They basically tortured the baby from day 2-3 onwards: Killing by malnutrition, starvation is slow and painful way to die.Can you prove that they forced the child on a vegan diet because they would feel better about it?Yes - Their personal preference of not using any products of animal kingdom, including mother's milk, was clearly applied to the child. The only reason why the would do it because they gained satisfaction from the process: Finding out what such a diet causes to the baby didn't happen here because any such effects were considered secondary to applying personal motives and morals to the baby.
According to the defense, they did not realise that they placed their child in harms way... That's worse than going on a shooting spree, and on par with premeditated killing for personal sexual pleasure?One could argue that a rapist doesn't know the harm he or she causes to the target - that he or she is incapable of understanding the pain, suffering and humiliation he or she causes. Same, in my opinion, applies here.I cannot identify with your values and norms of ethics.The issue here is that I cannot understand applying my personal morals, my personal choices over the direct wellbeing of another human being.

I can relate to crimes of passion - snap, boom, bang - and I can also understand how someone's mind can be so fucked up that he/she gains satisfaction from committing a horrible act.
Well colour me surprised.You're not the only one who is surprised here: My reaction to this news is surprising to me - But a defenseless child tortured and killed because of the parents adamant wish of excercising moral superiority over common sense...?

I am simply incapable of understanding their motive here: They are vegans, they of all people should know the dangers of malnutrition their diet of choice can cause, yet they completely ignored the dangers and chose to pursue a personal preference for personal benefit.

You can't give people a life sentance based purely on principle. Thats a mockery of the justice system, people don't get sent to life in prison simply because they havn't "learnt their lesson".

That's why I'm on principle against mandatory minimums - especially if the mandatory sentence is life in prison.

So their actions would be less punishable if they did not assert their innocence after being charged?
If they showed that they understood what they did wrong as opposed to denying doing anything wrong at all, yes, it would be punishable by a lesser sentence.

I would think losing a child and being sent to prison would be a good educator.
Again, dismissing that they hold they did nothing wrong.

Based on the article alone, eh?
Based on a fact that you pretend doesn't exist.

You can't give people a life sentance based purely on principle. Thats a mockery of the justice system, people don't get sent to life in prison simply because they havn't "learnt their lesson".
No, of course you can't. But I'm pretty sure further threat can be considered in sentencing.

Even if they did have a child, the government can just take it away from the couple.
Assuming they know it exists. You don't need a license to have a child.
And before you start arguing that with me, let's look at facts..
They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.But prosecutors said the couple intentionally neglected their child and refused to take him to the doctor even as the baby’s body wasted away.What would happen with the next child? They bury it in the backyard instead of calling some one when it dies?


It took six weeks for the child to die. They should have gotten help, and they should have done so very much differently. And I agree that they should be punished.

Not life imprisonment though. Not by a longshot.
And I disagree that your absurdly mild punishment and think that it is itself a mockery of justice. Especially when they hold they did nothing wrong and "didn't know there was anything wrong with the baby." Horse shit, I'm pretty damn incompetent and I bet you I could tell when a child was starving to death.


So it must indeed be a lie then. Gotcha. The statement can not in any way be an indication of their state of mind or imply that they didn't want the child to die.
For that matter, everything the prosecution says must be a lie too, since it's their job to put forward asinine bullshit to make sure the accused go to jail.
To paraphrase the Blues Brothers: It wasn't a lie, it was bullshit. Just bullshit.
How utterly inept must you be to not realize your child is wasting away?

I cannot feel that way - They chose to apply their view of the world to their child without considering its effects.

They basically tortured the baby from day 2-3 onwards: Killing by malnutrition, starvation is slow and painful way to die.
But not intentionally so - and that is an important factor.
Had they intended to torture their child to death, it would have been a different story.


One could argue that a rapist doesn't know the harm he or she causes to the target - that he or she is incapable of understanding the pain, suffering and humiliation he or she causes. Same, in my opinion, applies here.
I disagree.

This is a case of gross negligence, not lack of empathy or understanding of other people's emotions. This would be the proverbial apples and oranges.


I can relate to crimes of passion - snap, boom, bang - and I can also understand how someone's mind can be so fucked up that he/she gains satisfaction from committing a horrible act.
You don't feel that it's worse to derive pleasure from the suffering of others or suffer from the lack of willpower and restraint nessesary to avoid snapping, compared to neglecting your child.

We have a different set of values here.

I am simply incapable of understanding their motive here: They are vegans, they of all people should know the dangers of malnutrition their diet of choice can cause, yet they completely ignored the dangers and chose to pursue a personal preference for personal benefit.
It's not their motive - it's that they didn't do any properly care for their child. I'm sure their motive was what was best for their child (as I have no indication that their motives was anything else), but they should have done it differently and properly. And gotten help sooner.

Assuming they know it exists. You don't need a license to have a child.

And before you start arguing that with me, let's look at facts..
What would happen with the next child? They bury it in the backyard instead of calling some one when it dies?



I think the law should be changed to stop certain people from reproducing. Or at least from having the child live with them. They can stop them by sending government inspectors around all the time to their house etc... It's quite easy to see when a women is pregnant.

It's quite easy to see when a women is pregnant.
Not always, but that is a different topic.
And court mandated inspections means jack squat. You can't sit there and tell me the government hasn't ever lost track of people. Hell, here the local news station is holding a series on finding child predators because the police lost track of them.

I would consider letting them go free with court mandated sterilization, but that's now how the system of "justice" works.

They basically tortured the baby from day 2-3 onwards: Killing by malnutrition, starvation is slow and painful way to die.So who is going to prison for all those children who die of malnutrition around the world everyday?

If they showed that they understood what they did wrong as opposed to denying doing anything wrong at all, yes, it would be punishable by a lesser sentence.
Not according to the law.
Again, dismissing that they hold they did nothing wrong.
No, believing that actually going to prison would show them that they actually had done something wrong.

Based on a fact that you pretend doesn't exist.
Which is?

And I disagree that your absurdly mild punishment and think that it is itself a mockery of justice. Especially when they hold they did nothing wrong and "didn't know there was anything wrong with the baby." Horse shit, I'm pretty damn incompetent and I bet you I could tell when a child was starving to death.
I could be persuaded to go higher, but as of now I don't see the point. What's the purpose of a severely strict sentence? Would 10 years make them realise that what they did was negligent, if one year doesn't? I don't see that they pose any danger to society that can't be handled through for example an active socal service or child welfare agency.

What would you give them? And why?

How utterly inept must you be to not realize your child is wasting away?
Grossly. Which is probably why they didn't even fully understand the charges against them:
According to the AP news agency, Lamont Thomas complained that he had not known he was being tried for a felony - rather than the lesser offence of a misdemeanour.

"We had no idea involuntary manslaughter was a felony. We were told for three years this was a misdemeanour," he reportedly said.

"It takes money to prove this wasn't a felony - money we don't have."

Not always, but that is a different topic.
And court mandated inspections means jack squat. You can't sit there and tell me the government hasn't ever lost track of people. Hell, here the local news station is holding a series on finding child predators because the police lost track of them.

I would consider letting them go free with court mandated sterilization, but that's now how the system of "justice" works.

Or you could just give them a shorter prison term untill they are too old to have children.

I don't see how you can say that. Did they not believe that their actions was to the benefit and helpful to the health of the child? Can you prove that they forced the child on a vegan diet because they would feel better about it? According to the defense, they did not realise that they placed their child in harms way... That's worse than going on a shooting spree, and on par with premeditated killing for personal sexual pleasure?

The only way they could have possibly not known that their child was in danger is if their mental capacity is on par with a very small child. Considering that no such mental deficiency was even suggested in court, I can only assume that they knowingly sat back and watched an infant starve to death.


And I disagree that your absurdly mild punishment and think that it is itself a mockery of justice. Especially when they hold they did nothing wrong and "didn't know there was anything wrong with the baby." Horse shit, I'm pretty damn incompetent and I bet you I could tell when a child was starving to death.

My husband has never spent much time around small children. He's never had a younger sibling and the few cousins he has who are younger than him are very close in age - so that he never really saw them taken care of as infants. But even my husband - who is terrified to even try and hold an infant because he thinks he might do it wrong -heard "6 weeks" and "3 1/2 pounds" and responded with, "And they claim they didn't know anything was wrong? Bullshit!"


But not intentionally so - and that is an important factor.
Had they intended to torture their child to death, it would have been a different story.

Unless they suffer from extremely severe mental deficiencies (which would have come up in court), intentional neglect is the only logical conclusion.

It's not their motive - it's that they didn't do any properly care for their child. I'm sure their motive was what was best for their child (as I have no indication that their motives was anything else), but they should have done it differently and properly. And gotten help sooner.

The facts of the case are clear indication that they didn't have what was best for their child in mind. No person can watch a child starve to death and then say, "Oh but I really had his best interests in mind!" and expect to be believed.

Not according to the law.

Actually, remorse might have lessened the sentence (motive and intent can be considered in sentencing) and might even have lessened the charges. Their total lack of remorse and their insistence that they did nothing wrong suggests that the actions they took were intentional, rather than simply a case of them being really, really, really stupid.

But not intentionally so - and that is an important factor.Intentionally yes: They chose to apply risky diet even if they themselves know the dangers and pitfalls of such a diet.

They were ignorant, yes, but the question is WHY they chose to be ignorant?
Had they intended to torture their child to death, it would have been a different story.The fact is they tortured the child, for 6 weeks.

They tortured the baby *willingly* and with *intent* because they chose to ignore the dangers of the diet because of personal views and wishes: They didn't *bother* to find out whether it suited the baby - They *experimented* with their baby.

You don't feel that it's worse to derive pleasure from the suffering of others or suffer from the lack of willpower and restraint nessesary to avoid snapping, compared to neglecting your child. I feel that deriving pleasure from hideous acts is not a choice a person can make, therefore it is less "evil" than choosing to apply personal choices to a child without bothering to find out whether they fit in anyway to a baby.

Also, shame-rage is one of the strongest, if not strongest, emotion human can go through - If you've ever done something out of anger or out of love then you must understand how someone can do an aboherent action because of an emotion.I'm sure their motive was what was best for their childThe child is dead, I find it hard to see how they could - in the first place - consider strict non-medically necessary diet good for a baby when it's not good - without knowledge and access to certain (exotic) foodstuffs - for an adult.

Their motive was to grow the child their way without any consideration how it suits the baby - They *knowingly* and with *intent* chose the diet. They were aware of the risks involved in non-rich vegan diet, they had to be because without such knowledge they themselves were in danger of being malnurished. Yet, they chose willingly and with intent to *force* the defenseless child to go through *their* wishes without taking into *any* consideration the nutritious aspect of their choice or the wellbeing of the child.

So who is going to prison for all those children who die of malnutrition around the world everyday?Nobody, because a) it happens without the freedom of choice and b) it happens 'over there' not 'over here'.