NationStates Jolt Archive

Vegans should be sectioned anyway under the Mental Health Act.

But not intentionally so - and that is an important factor.Infact...What if the child was older, say 3-4 year old, teenager or even an imprisoned or otherwise controlled adult?

Would forcing such a person to a death by a diet that cannot feed him or her count as premeditated murder? Why would the fact that a baby is basically defenceless be a *mitigating* factor?

Hmm... Seems I've missed a part of the article. Disregard my previous posts, as I messed up a bit ;)

I still think it's too strict to give them an automatic life sentence though. I'll change my reccomandation to 15-20 years.

*Flees*

Hmm... Seems I've missed a part of the article. Disregard my previous posts, as I messed up a bit ;)

I still think it's too strict to give them an automatic life sentence though. I'll change my reccomandation to 15-20 years.

*Flees*

I would go with the forced surgical sterilization, the removal of any children they may have from their care, forever, with no visitation, and a lifetime ban on any adoptions. If you think the life sentence is too stiff...

Vegans should be sectioned anyway under the Mental Health Act.Only if they are Christian.

Psshh, I say forcefully steralize them. It's not cruel. They proved that they are too incompetent to properly care for something that's very weak, defenceless, and helpless. It would be cruel to allow them to reproduce. If they can show competence, then let them adopt an orphan.

This is totally different from most cases of starvation-related deaths, which usually happen in places where access to food is severely limited, like in third world countries. They obviously lived in a first-world nation, such as Canadia, USia, or some Western Europeia nation, like Englandia or Francia or whathaveyou. They don't have the "we live in third world nation. We no have access to food or doctorman. Governmentman keep food from us" excuse. Only the "we are incompetent boobs who probably shouldn't reproduce" argument.

Wait, aren't Life in prison and the death penalty basically the same? Both get you out the same way. Only difference is the state helps you get out in the latter.

I would go with the forced surgical sterilization, the removal of any children they may have from their care, forever, with no visitation, and a lifetime ban on any adoptions. If you think the life sentence is too stiff...

I do, and I also don't agree to forced sterilization, nor do I agree to forced lobotomy, or cutting off limbs for theft. But hey, that's just me.

I do, and I also don't agree to forced sterilization, nor do I agree to forced lobotomy, or cutting off limbs for theft. But hey, that's just me.Yeah, sheesh, you silly Scandinavians, always being so lenient. Off with their heads, I say!

I do, and I also don't agree to forced sterilization, nor do I agree to forced lobotomy, or cutting off limbs for theft. But hey, that's just me.

I don't agree with forced sterilization, but every now and then a case like this comes along, and I can almost support it...

good. Let them rot there.

Agreed. Idiot vegans. Babies need milk not soy!

To all the people who are saying that Vegan's can't breastfeed because it's not vegan...just a quick search for vegan and breastfeeding yielded more sites than I could post.

The second one was from the Vegan Society

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/people/lifestyle/families/parenting/vegan_children/breastfeeding.php

Those who actually know anything about being Vegan recommend breastfeeding.

It just makes a stronger case that this wasn't about being Vegan, and more about being totally negligent, and abusive toward a baby that couldn't help itself.

Do they deserve life in prison, who knows, but they don't deserve to be allowed to walk free either.

Agreed. Idiot vegans. Babies need milk not soy!


If you mean cows milk, then that is also wrong. Also, there are soy based baby formulas which are just as good as dairy based if not better for some babies.

Well some children are born lactose-intolerant such as my father and in those cases mother's milk will kill so that is when other options such as soy milk come in but the correct dosage of nutrition must be upheld.

This case does sound rather far-fetched though. I remember hearing the same basic story several years back but it was with orange juice and rice 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...

It's very clear that what they did, though irresponsible, is not murder. Murder is defined as the willful and malicious act of taking another person's life. At most, they committed negligent homicide, which is usually a 5-10 year prison term. However, i think they've already suffered enough. Nothing could ever be done that would equal the punishment of losing a child.

It just makes a stronger case that this wasn't about being Vegan, and more about being totally negligent, and abusive toward a baby that couldn't help itself.

I agree that this is more of a case of idiocy than veganism, but it is also true that the situation was made worse by the veganism because such a choice requires more intelligence to be successful than normal dietary practices.

An analogy can be made to unassisted childbirth. For those who have done their research, unassisted childbirth (i.e. birth without the presence of a medical professional) is safer than birth in a hospital. But you have to do the research. If not, you are well and truly fucked if there are complications.

It would appear that, in this case, the parents did not do any research at all on parenting of a newborn or vegan diets for children. Consequently, their child died as a result of their ignorance.

Nothing could ever be done that would equal the punishment of losing a child.

How 'bout being forced to realize it was because you were stupid and in denial that your lifestyle could possibly be bad for the baby?

Maybe that'll sink in after a while.

If you mean cows milk, then that is also wrong. Also, there are soy based baby formulas which are just as good as dairy based if not better for some babies.But isn't breastfeeding cheaper and much less of an effort?

However, i think they've already suffered enough. Nothing could ever be done that would equal the punishment of losing a child.

Nuh uh. They didn't think they did anything wrong. That means they'll repeat the same retarded mistakes again with their next kid. Like starving him with wrong foods and not looking for a doctor when it's clear something's wrong.

Life in prison works if we can't euthanize the idiots.

A vegan diet is difficult, almost impossible, to follow and maintain any sort of health. Unless you know what foods have what proteins and how to combine them, it's just not going to work - few, if any, people know how to do this. To impose this sort of regimen on an infant is criminal. To neglect to take the child to the doctor is criminal. This is depraved indifference and deserves prison.

If a person feels the need to be a vegetarian, the best approach is lacto-ovo vegetarianism - this includes animal products like milk (not soy milk!), cheese, eggs etc. Better yet would be piscatorian - i.e. including fish.

The human body is very specific in its nutrition requirements and, while meat is not something you need to have in large amounts or every day, including meat in the diet is the most effective way to meet these needs.

But isn't breastfeeding cheaper and much less of an effort?

I always thought so...always there, always sterile, always the right temperature...and my husband says it also comes in attractive containers.


(of course, not all women can, or should breastfeed...but if you can't, an acceptable alternative should be found. There IS a Vegan formula out there, and very little research showed me that)

But isn't breastfeeding cheaper and much less of an effort?

as long as your milk supply is good, then yeah, it's pretty easy and very convenient.

I do, and I also don't agree to forced sterilization, nor do I agree to forced lobotomy, or cutting off limbs for theft. But hey, that's just me.
Slippery slope. The degrees of difference are massive.
Forced sterilization - you can't have kids.
Forced lobotomy/limb removal - you can't perform everyday tasks like you could before.

Slippery slope. The degrees of difference are massive.
Forced sterilization - you can't have kids.
Forced lobotomy/limb removal - you can't perform everyday tasks like you could before.

and yet, in either instance, the ability of one to use his body as he, or she, would wish, is compromised by the will of the state.

and yet, in either instance, the ability of one to use his body as he, or she, would wish, is compromised by the will of the state.

Are you saying murderers should be let out of jail post haste? The government after all, is preventing the use of their bodies to walk free.

Do they have vegan diets in prison? :D

The 276th Day;12635879']Well, being a vegan you are probably going to be too weak to fight off the bull queers - so one way or another your going to be eating some meat! :p

Hooray for hot beef injections! :D

and yet, in either instance, the ability of one to use his body as he, or she, would wish, is compromised by the will of the state.
Absurd comparison.
And isn't that the state's job anyway? Prevent people from using their body as they wish?

Absurd comparison.

Not in the slightest.

And isn't that the state's job anyway? Prevent people from using their body as they wish?

only to the extent that the use of that body infringes on the rights of others.

Otherwise, no

only to the extent that the use of that body infringes on the rights of others.

This is just getting ridiculous. "Use of the body infringes on the rights of others"? Ok, letting these people have any more children would end up infringing on the rights of that child. There, look I can rationalize things in Bizzaro rules world too.

I don't believe that one's beliefs should effect one's health. Especailly one at such a young age. A regular diet of milk and possibly some meat may be needed for the infant to grow up to have a healthy, and happy life. It needs time to grow, and this includes giveing it vital nutrition.

there is nothing about being a vegan that says you can't milk yourself.

milk yourself, lol

This is just getting ridiculous. "Use of the body infringes on the rights of others"?

Actually the right to use your body up until the point that it affects others is the founding principle on western democratic thought. Unless of course you wish to call thomas jefferson ridiculous:

"the right for you to extend your fist ends at my face"

Ok, letting these people have any more children would end up infringing on the rights of that child.

Crystal ball looking are you?

There, look I can rationalize things in Bizzaro rules world too

I fear you failed to rationalize anything in any set of rules that even bare a proximite resemblance to rationality.

Do try again next time though.

Slippery slope. The degrees of difference are massive.
Forced sterilization - you can't have kids.
Forced lobotomy/limb removal - you can't perform everyday tasks like you could before.

Huh? Slippery slope? Are you kidding me? They're all the same - violation of bodily integrety. Cruel and unusual punishment. Forced surgical procedures all, and both unconstitutional and a violation of human rights.

So no, no slippery slope at all.

stupid all around. it had nothing to do with it being soy milk or vegan, they were not giving their baby enough calories and fat, you can raise healthy vegan babies but you need to know HOW before you do... juice and water are bad for babies unless given very sparingly. babies need lots of fat and most soy milk is MEANT to be low in fat. they make vegan baby formula mix. cows milk is not natural and is not any better than a vegan diet, but why didn't they just breastfeed?? that is what babies are SUPPOSED to eat! what idiots, i don't know if people deserve life in prison for being morons though...

Huh? Slippery slope? Are you kidding me? They're all the same - violation of bodily integrety. Cruel and unusual punishment. Forced surgical procedures all, and both unconstitutional and a violation of human rights.

So no, no slippery slope at all.
Entirely a slippery slope when you get above the generality. Sterilization does not impair your ability to go about your life.

Entirely a slippery slope when you get above the generality. Sterilization does not impair your ability to go about your life.

Neither does removal of a kidney if you have two fully functional ones. I won't support that either.

No slippery slope. Surgical punishments - no way.

Neither does removal of a kidney if you have two fully functional ones. I won't support that either.

No slippery slope. Surgical punishments - no way.

Maybe they could choose it in exchange for reduced jail time?

There was nothing to prevent these idiots from feeding their baby a soy-based infant formula, if they chose not to breastfeed and didn't want to use a cow's milk based formula.

Outside of the vegan issue, many formula-fed babies have difficulty digesting cow's milk based formulas. One common solution is to put the baby on soy formula, which is very readily available. It provides adequate nutrition. Not *the best* nutrition: *adequate* nutrition, but a kid won't die of malnutrition on it either. It seems there was a vegan solution right in front of them.

I just hate to hear about ignorant shitheads clinging to their "values" while doing obvious harm in the name of those "values".

:headbang:

Maybe they could choose it in exchange for reduced jail time?
No. It shouldn't be allowed to trade prison time for cruel and unusual punishments.

No slippery slope. Surgical punishments - no way.
Sure, if you change your comparison midstride. Slippery slope - "You support sterilization of incompetent baby neglecters, you must support forced lobotomy and removal of a limb for stealing."

No. It shouldn't be allowed to trade prison time for cruel and unusual punishments.

It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again!

Sure, if you change your comparison midstride. Slippery slope - "You support sterilization of incompetent baby neglecters, you must support forced lobotomy and removal of a limb for stealing."
No, you didn't get it, I stated my own position all along.

I would not accept violations of bodily integrity as punishment. I have not said nor implied anything about you or your position, appart from implying that I mean that all such physical punishments are barbaric and in violation of both the constitution of the US and international human rights laws.

No comparison change, no slippery slope.

Barbaric?

You pretty much give up your right to have children once you murder one of them.

no pain involved, no major side effects, no other effect on one's life other than the ability to have children which you shouldn't be having anyway.......oh my, what a barbaric way to treat the murderer of a child!

Barbaric?

You pretty much give up your right to have children once you murder one of them.

no pain involved, no major side effects, no other effect on one's life other than the ability to have children which you shouldn't be having anyway.......
No side effects? All surgery carries with it risks. Sterilization included.
oh my, what a barbaric way to treat the murderer of a child!
Yes, it is. Needlessly too.

Barbaric?

You pretty much give up your right to have children once you murder one of them.

no pain involved, no major side effects, no other effect on one's life other than the ability to have children which you shouldn't be having anyway.......oh my, what a barbaric way to treat the murderer of a child!

This wasn't murder. They did not intend to kill their child. They clearly just didn't understand neonatal nutrition. Most people don't understand how to take care of kids, but we have a culture that at the very least leads people to have their kids at a hospital where someone will tell them "no cows milk for a while, support the head, it's going to be a while before they can have solid food."

These people were out of touch, and not intelligent enough to make up for it. That's not a crime. Should we send people to prison if they don't have prenatal check-ups and end up having kids with preventable birth defects?

No. We take it for granted that people who follow our lifestyle and kill their kids do so by honest mistake, but people whose lifestyle differs must have done it because they were evil.

Fuck! I bet if the child of a gay couple died this guy would have them up on negligent homicide charges on the grounds that the kid "wouldn't have died if they hadn't been distracted by hours and hours of oily sweaty gay sex..."

This wasn't murder. They did not intend to kill their child. They clearly just didn't understand neonatal nutrition.

Apparently they don't understand starvation either. And they don't understand medical attention. And they don't understand things that even people who have never been around infants understand - that an infant is supposed to grow and that 3.5 pounds at 6 weeks is a problem.

Look, I don't buy the whole story that they didn't know anything was wrong. Maybe they honestly didn't know that soy milk and apple juice wouldn't cut it - maybe they have been sheltered that much. But that only works at first. I don't buy that they didn't know the baby was malnourished.

These people were out of touch, and not intelligent enough to make up for it. That's not a crime.

Once again, I don't buy that story. No one with the mental capacity of an adult (and if they didn't have that, it would have been brought up in court) could have missed the signs of a baby starving to death for 6 weeks.

At absolute best, this is gross child neglect. At worst, it was intentional murder. Either way, they are still asserting that they did nothing wrong and showing no remorse (which points towards much more intent in my mind).

No. We take it for granted that people who follow our lifestyle and kill their kids do so by honest mistake, but people whose lifestyle differs must have done it because they were evil.

Eh? I don't care what lifestyle a person chooses to lead. If they starve a child to death, they should be in jail. Period. It could have been a meat-loving couple trying to feed an infant hamburger and apple juice, and watching a child starve to death rather than seeking medical attention would still warrant jail time - and a lot of it.

Fuck! I bet if the child of a gay couple died this guy would have them up on negligent homicide charges on the grounds that the kid "wouldn't have died if they hadn't been distracted by hours and hours of oily sweaty gay sex..."

WTF? You're seriously stretching here.

At absolute best, this is gross child neglect. At worst, it was intentional murder. Either way, they are still asserting that they did nothing wrong and showing no remorse (which points towards much more intent in my mind).



Eh? I don't care what lifestyle a person chooses to lead. If they starve a child to death, they should be in jail. Period. It could have been a meat-loving couple trying to feed an infant hamburger and apple juice, and watching a child starve to death rather than seeking medical attention would still warrant jail time - and a lot of it.

Nothing in that article spoke to the subject of their remorse or lack thereof. They said that they didn't know that there was a problem. People who haven't been around infants usually have no idea how quickly an infant is supposed to grow. 6 weeks is not a very long time. They're saying that they are vegans, but that seems more like an explanation than an excuse.

This wasn't murder. They did not intend to kill their child. They clearly just didn't understand neonatal nutrition. Most people don't understand how to take care of kids, but we have a culture that at the very least leads people to have their kids at a hospital where someone will tell them "no cows milk for a while, support the head, it's going to be a while before they can have solid food."

These people were out of touch, and not intelligent enough to make up for it. That's not a crime. Should we send people to prison if they don't have prenatal check-ups and end up having kids with preventable birth defects?
You telling me you can't tell when a kid is starving to death? Starvation doesn't occur all of a sudden like Superman got stabbed with a kryptonite knife. It takes a while. It is totally a crime to let that go on, to refuse to consult a doctor, and to continue to hold they did nothing wrong. if you're in the US you should watch local channels on weekends for the commercials about all the starving kids in random countries. Look at those kids and tell me nothing is wrong with them (of course they arn't allowed to put on the worst these days because they arn't cute and what not). That is what those parents did - they looked at the kid and saw nothing wrong until "minutes before he died." Criminal incompetence. If they can't be sterilized, they should be jailed.

And gee thanks for the bullshit "A couple watched their child starve to death and saw nothing wrong, why should we send them to jail? Why don't you support sending people to jail who have children with birth defects?" That's below the next stupid piece of bullshit you said, but it's still up there.

No. We take it for granted that people who follow our lifestyle and kill their kids do so by honest mistake, but people whose lifestyle differs must have done it because they were evil.

Fuck! I bet if the child of a gay couple died this guy would have them up on negligent homicide charges on the grounds that the kid "wouldn't have died if they hadn't been distracted by hours and hours of oily sweaty gay sex..."
All of that is up there on the charts of "the fucking dumbest things said on NSG."

People who haven't been around infants usually have no idea how quickly an infant is supposed to grow. 6 weeks is not a very long time. They're saying that they are vegans, but that seems more like an explanation than an excuse.
People who arn't even remotely competent. You realize that the minimum weight for standard weight babies is more than the weight of that couple's baby at 6 weeks when it died? "Hmm, our baby is losing weight, should we see a doctor? No, because we are fucking stupid wackjobs."

If you want to defend them, get informed. Then stop defending them when you realize any defense is so full of shit my dog could point it out.

Nothing in that article spoke to the subject of their remorse or lack thereof. They said that they didn't know that there was a problem.

...which is most likely a lie. And the woman keeps repeating that she didn't starve her child to death - even thought it is obvious that she did. At the very least, if it was all a big mistake, she could admit it.

People who haven't been around infants usually have no idea how quickly an infant is supposed to grow.

Not exactly, no. But even my husband, who has never been around any infant for longer than an hour or two, looked at the article and went, "3.5 pounds!? And they claim they didn't know anything was wrong!? Bullshit!"

You'd have to live under a rock and probably would need to be severely mentally retarded to not know that a child - even a newborn - should weigh more than that. And if an infant is consistently losing weight, pretty much anyone can tell you there's a problem.

Arguing ignorance doesn't work when it's something this obvious.

6 weeks is not a very long time.

It's an incredibly long time to sit back and watch an infant starve to death.

People who arn't even remotely competent. You realize that the minimum weight for standard weight babies is more than the weight of that couple's baby at 6 weeks when it died? "Hmm, our baby is losing weight, should we see a doctor? No, because we are fucking stupid wackjobs."

If you want to defend them, get informed. Then stop defending them when you realize any defense is so full of shit my dog could point it out.

This is my problem with the whole, "We didn't know anything was wrong," defense. There are two possibilities here. One is that they are flat-out lying. The second is that they are so mentally incompetent that they someone else should be designated as their caregivers, because they obviously don't have the mental capacity to take care of even themselves.

Considering that no deficiencies in mental capabilities were brought up at trial (something a defense lawyer would have to do), that leaves us with the first option. And if they are lying about that, why should anything they say be believed?

Keep em locked up, less they have any more kids, and regular prison food so that they eat meat, like a man should.

This is my problem with the whole, "We didn't know anything was wrong," defense. There are two possibilities here. One is that they are flat-out lying. The second is that they are so mentally incompetent that they someone else should be designated as their caregivers, because they obviously don't have the mental capacity to take care of even themselves.

Considering that no deficiencies in mental capabilities were brought up at trial (something a defense lawyer would have to do), that leaves us with the first option. And if they are lying about that, why should anything they say be believed?I want to go back to the 'why wasn't the baby breastfed?' question for a likely explanation. I've noticed that a common reason that many young mothers don't breastfeed is because of substance use/abuse. They're responsible enough to recognize that they don't want to pass on the alcohol and/or drugs they're taking to their children through their breastmilk, but not enough to abstain from consuming these substances, so they choose to bottle feed. A young couple that was getting high all the time just might not notice anything wrong.

I want to go back to the 'why wasn't the baby breastfed?' question for a likely explanation. I've noticed that a common reason that many young mothers don't breastfeed is because of substance use/abuse. They're responsible enough to recognize that they don't want to pass on the alcohol and/or drugs they're taking to their children through their breastmilk, but not enough to abstain from consuming these substances, so they choose to bottle feed. A young couple that was getting high all the time just might not notice anything wrong.

Drug overdose is no excuse for criminal negligence. Like being drunk isn't an excuse for mowing down a bunch of kids.

Either way. Lock them up for life or swing them from the rafters. They should never be allowed in society again.

Drug overdose is no excuse for criminal negligence. Like being drunk isn't an excuse for mowing down a bunch of kids.

Either way. Lock them up for life or swing them from the rafters. They should never be allowed in society again.Why?

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.

No, they should have given him the best chance in life, by avoiding animal products but ensuring he was fed properly (rather than indoctrinating the child into one's philosophy of "I don't care about the evidence, I think meat and dairy products are great so my kid should eat it too!").

There are plenty of kids who have been brought up healthily as vegans - the media just doesn't shout about those ones. And btw, this is from the article: ""The child died because he was not fed. Period."

RESEARCH EVIDENCE (so don't bother arguing with the above unless you have some contradictory EVIDENCE rather than "look, here's another couple who made their baby die who just happen to be vegan!"):

(a) BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/782959.stm

(b) Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine http://www.pcrm.org/news/release041202.html

(c) Swedish Study from the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, The National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm (SCL and AW), and the Department of Surgery and the Center for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Central Hospital, Västerås, Sweden (LP), printed in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/5/1353

(d) BBC Health Section http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/awareness/veggie.shtml#why

(e) Registered Educational Charity: The Vegetarian Society of the United Kingdom http://www.vegsoc.org/info/health1.html

No, they should have given him the best chance in life, by avoiding animal products but ensuring he was fed properly (rather than indoctrinating the child into one's philosophy of "I don't care about the evidence, I think meat and dairy products are great so my kid should eat it too!").

There are plenty of kids who have been brought up healthily as vegans - the media just doesn't shout about those ones. And btw, this is from the article: ""The child died because he was not fed. Period."

RESEARCH EVIDENCE (so don't bother arguing with the above unless you have some contradictory EVIDENCE rather than "look, here's another couple who made their baby die who just happen to be vegan!"):
*snip*
Who gives a fuck? That is not what this thread is about.
Save your vegan propagandic bullshit. These people still starved their baby to death over a course of weeks. Seeing shit like that is probably what caused it.
If you are trying to defend these assholes with vegan propaganda bullshit, I think we should reevaluate your right to have children as well.

Who gives a fuck? That is not what this thread is about.

Maybe not, but that's what Johnny B Goode seemed to want to make this thread about.

And if that's not what this thread is about, why does it say "Vegan" couple? Why not just "Couple"? I've yet to see a single thread on here about dodgy parents that starts with "Meat-eating couple".

Who gives a fuck? That is not what this thread is about.
Save your vegan propagandic bullshit. These people still starved their baby to death over a course of weeks. Seeing shit like that is probably what caused it.

You know it aint bullshit, you just like to think it is so you can feel justified having a go at vegans. What caused it is parents being stupid.

Maybe not, but that's what Johnny B Goode seemed to want to make this thread about.

And if that's not what this thread is about, why does it say "Vegan" couple? Why not just "Couple"? I've yet to see a single thread on here about dodgy parents that starts with "Meat-eating couple".
Because obviously, the shit you posted is the kind of shit that led these crackpots to not feed their child something that would have kept it alive. Their veganism was part of what led to its death.

Who gives a fuck? That is not what this thread is about.
Save your vegan propagandic bullshit. These people still starved their baby to death over a course of weeks. Seeing shit like that is probably what caused it.
If you are trying to defend these assholes with vegan propaganda bullshit, I think we should reevaluate your right to have children.

Yeh keep editing so I can't respond, clever.

If you think a good parent is one who isn't vegan but goes around slagging off people for their deits, then you should probably never even be involved with children considering the crappy example you would set.

Yeh keep editing so I can't respond, clever.
Yes, obviously it is some conspiracy against you.

If you think a good parent is one who isn't vegan but goes around slagging off people for their deits, then you should probably never even be involved with children considering the crappy example you would set.
Oh of course, I shouldn't be involved with children because I don't feel like forcing an asinine extremist dietary choice on my children from day one. A choice that could obviously kill them.
Every vegan post is like every post by Remote Observers about guns - makes me feel safer and more positive towards what they are posting about.

Because obviously, the shit you posted is the kind of shit that led these crackpots to not feed their child something that would have kept it alive. Their veganism was part of what led to its death.

There are plenty of kids who have been brought up vegan. Some infants are in fact allergic to dairy products and there are suitable alternatives. The parents could have fed their kids any SUITABLE alternative. It's stupidity that caused their death (like the stupidity you are currently displaying), not veganism.

Yes, obviously it is some conspiracy against you.


Oh of course, I shouldn't be involved with children because I don't feel like forcing an asinine extremist dietary choice on my children from day one. A choice that could obviously kill them.
Every vegan post is like every post by Remote Observers about guns - makes me feel safer and more positive towards what they are posting about.

If it's an asinine extremist dietary choice (rather than, as evidenced, a logical, healthy one) to be vegan, then there'd be loads of dead kids all over the place due to being allergic to milk and not being able to get an alternative (for example if their parents can not or will not breast feed).

You shouldn't be involved with kids because of setting a bad example by showing them that slagging people off is good.

Every vegan post is like every post by Remote Observers about guns - makes me feel safer and more positive towards what they are posting about.

Yeh, blind beliefs are good, yeh

There are plenty of kids who have been brought up vegan.
Which makes it right in what way?

Some infants are in fact allergic to dairy products and there are suitable alternatives.
I had reactions to whole milk, so I drank sweet acidophilus. There is always a suitable alternative that may or may not be a dairy product.

The parents could have fed their kids any SUITABLE alternative. It's stupidity that caused their death (like the stupidity you are currently displaying), not veganism.
Stupidity combined with their veganism. Veganism was an intricate part of the problem.

If it's an asinine extremist dietary choice (rather than, as evidenced, a logical, healthy one) to be vegan,
Vegetarian would be obviously a logical, healthy choice. Veganism is extremist vegetarianism perpetrated by saps. Not only no animal products but no products produced by animals?

then there'd be loads of dead kids all over the place due to being allergic to milk and not being able to get an alternative (for example if their parents can not or will not breast feed).Oh look, assumed bullshit by the hypocrite putting forward an extremist dietary choice as the only one and assuming I am advancing some position because I disagree.

You shouldn't be involved with kids because of setting a bad example by showing them that slagging people off is good.
I rather do that than kill them with my dietary decisions that I am forcing on them. The almighty religion of veganism. Who is the vegan Jesus?

Yeh, blind beliefs are good, yeh
Hypocritical much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiland
There are plenty of kids who have been brought up vegan.

Which makes it right in what way?

Makes what right? The death of the babies? You should become a lawyer if you want to twist words. My point was that babies can be successfully brought up vegan, so veganism has nothing to do with this.


Quote:
Some infants are in fact allergic to dairy products and there are suitable alternatives.

I had reactions to whole milk, so I drank sweet acidophilus. There is always a suitable alternative that may or may not be a dairy product.

"That may or may not be a dairy product" - EXACTLY.


Quote:
The parents could have fed their kids any SUITABLE alternative. It's stupidity that caused their death (like the stupidity you are currently displaying), not veganism.

Stupidity combined with their veganism. Veganism was an intricate part of the problem.

So if someone grabs a passage out of the Bible, takes it out of context, and uses it in a way that ends up killing their kids, that means i's Christianity that was an intricate part of the problem? No, it's the stupidity of the person pulling the passage out of context. The baby died not because of a vegan diet, but because of not being fed properly - period. From 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. “The child died because he was not fed. Period.”

Vegetarian would be obviously a logical, healthy choice. Veganism is extremist vegetarianism perpetrated by saps. Not only no animal products but no products produced by animals?

Oh look, assumed bullshit by the hypocrite putting forward an extremist dietary choice as the only one and assuming I am advancing some position because I disagree.


I rather do that than kill them with my dietary decisions that I am forcing on them. The almighty religion of veganism. Who is the vegan Jesus?


Hypocritical much?

You're not even worth arguing with any more. I present the evidence, you chuck it back at me due to your blind beliefs and call me a hypocrit, with no evidence for anything you say. Seriously, grow up.

How can you manage to not get any of the quotes right?


Makes what right? The death of the babies? You should become a lawyer if you want to twist words. My point was that babies can be successfully brought up vegan, so veganism has nothing to do with this.
Are you high? You really shouldn't be arguing things while high. I didn't even remotely imply that. Veganism has everything to do with this. That and they are stupid. Veganism prevented them from getting real milk for the baby. Stupidity prevented them from getting formula. And forcing an extremist diet on your children is right how? If I ate the cow raw, I wouldn't force my kids to do it.

"That may or may not be a dairy product" - EXACTLY.
Exactly.. what? That I am tolerant and you arn't? Yeah sure, I'll exactly that.


So if someone grabs a passage out of the Bible, takes it out of context, and uses it in a way that ends up killing their kids, that means i's Christianity that was an intricate part of the problem? No, it's the stupidity of the person pulling the passage out of context.
Agreed, but wait. Your first post in here was defending them by extolling the dangers of dairy milk. That is a third-party confirmation for not giving the baby milk being a part of veganism. Strict veganism was a part of what killed the child. And you supported it. Game, set, match.

The baby died not because of a vegan diet, but because of not being fed properly - period. From 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. “The child died because he was not fed. Period.”
Quote out of context. Luckily, I know the context. They were trying to use "we were vegan" as a defense of not giving their child milk. Meaning when you arn't on the defense, you can look at their strict veganism as part of what killed their child, which I already pointed how out earlier in the post.

You're not even worth arguing with any more. I present the evidence, you chuck it back at me due to your blind beliefs and call me a hypocrit, with no evidence for anything you say. Seriously, grow up.
Oh of course, my blind beliefs. Hypocrisy. Go read your vegan Bible and stop defending incompetent babykillers because they read the same thing.

Why?

Let's see. No remorse over at the very least negligence caused homicide, no realization that it was a mistake, no admittance of wrong doing on their part.

Either they're so retarded as to be unfit to function in society in any position of responsibility or they deliberately and knowingly starved their child to death. Third option is that they place more importance on the peculiar dogma of their lifestyle than sense.

First position. They should be in an institute for life.

Second position. They are complicit in murder and should receive the maximum sentence for murder. Life imprisonment or death.

Third position. Same as above.

And if that's not what this thread is about, why does it say "Vegan" couple? Why not just "Couple"? I've yet to see a single thread on here about dodgy parents that starts with "Meat-eating couple".

Because they're retarded Vegans. The kind who obviously thought they were expert nutritionists when they weren't.

Would have been the same case if it had been one of those Jehovah's witnesses (or Mormons, I can't remember which one doesn't allow transfusions), who let their kids deliberately die because they refused them from taking a blood transfusion.

The case here is when dogma and stupidity combine into something that kills people from deliberate negligence.

Because they're retarded Vegans. The kind who obviously thought they were expert nutritionists when they weren't.

Really that describes 95% of health nuts, from the mega-dieters to the vegans.


Would have been the same case if it had been one of those Jehovah's witnesses (or Mormons, I can't remember which one doesn't allow transfusions), who let their kids deliberately die because they refused them from taking a blood transfusion.

I'm not quite sure why, but I want to say it's the Jehovah's Witnesses.


The case here is when dogma and stupidity combine into something that kills people from deliberate negligence.

QFT.

Maybe not, but that's what Johnny B Goode seemed to want to make this thread about.

I'm sorry, WHAT? That post is on the goddamn first page, and he retracted it after people pointed out the meat thing. You know damn well this is what YOU want to make the thread about, and you just found a scapegoat.

I'm not quite sure why, but I want to say it's the Jehovah's Witnesses.

true, they believe that you can't eat blood for whatever stupid reason, and they think that transfussion is the same as eating or something like that. they can't let the kid die though, if it's life is in danger the parents lose their parenting rights for a short period of time in wich the doctor can give blood.

true, they believe that you can't eat blood for whatever stupid reason, and they think that transfussion is the same as eating or something like that. they can't let the kid die though, if it's life is in danger the parents lose their parenting rights for a short period of time in wich the doctor can give blood.

Well, drinking blood is hardly the worst thing to have a taboo against. But when you take it to "No-blood-transfusion" levels, it may be going a little far.

Would have been the same case if it had been one of those Jehovah's witnesses (or Mormons, I can't remember which one doesn't allow transfusions), who let their kids deliberately die because they refused them from taking a blood transfusion.

It's Jehovah's witnesses. They'll take organs, but not blood. Weird, eh? Some will even take plasma - just not blood cells (apparently, this depends on the particular JW preacher).

Unfortunately, in this country, it is actually legal for a parent to let a child die when that child needs a blood transfusion if their refusal is for religious reasons.


true, they believe that you can't eat blood for whatever stupid reason, and they think that transfussion is the same as eating or something like that. they can't let the kid die though, if it's life is in danger the parents lose their parenting rights for a short period of time in wich the doctor can give blood.

Not in the US. In the US, a doctor who gives blood to a Jehovah's Witness - child or otherwise - if the religious objection has been made clear to the doctor, can be sued for assault. It is covered under the "right to refuse treatment."

This is why idiots shouldn't breed.

This is why idiots shouldn't breed.

Ifreann posted a great picture a while back, and I've wanted a shirt that says it since, that says "Just Because You Can Reproduce Doesn't Mean You Should"

It was fairly awesome. Maybe he still has it.

The reason, for all of you screaming about some form of discrimination by the foul carnivores or whatever, keep in mind it helps explain it. For example, you wouldn't have any idea why a non-vegan couple would only feed soy milk and apple juice to their kid, but when if explains it was a VEGAN couple, then you go "Oh, that's why they weren't giving it normal milk."

A even better headline would be "Vegan Couple Gets Life in Prison" with the subheadline of "Couple fed baby only apple juice, milk, mother to malnourished to produce milk" (If that's what happened, which reading this thread appears to be.)

A even better headline would be "Vegan Couple Gets Life in Prison" with the subheadline of "Couple fed baby only apple juice, milk, mother to malnourished to produce milk" (If that's what happened, which reading this thread appears to be.)
So you have decided something is fact because a bunch of random people on an internet forum conjectured it to be so? I know who I don't want in government.

So you have decided something is fact because a bunch of random people on an internet forum conjectured it to be so? I know who I don't want in government.

Well, the simplest solution is often the best. Occam's Razor.

But that would require that they never talk to anybody.

Dude, if hearing people talk about religion hurts you, you really need to grow a thicker skin. Seriously.

Dude, if hearing people talk about religion hurts you, you really need to grow a thicker skin. Seriously.

I think he's counting annoyance as harm.

A even better headline would be "Vegan Couple Gets Life in Prison" with the subheadline of "Couple fed baby only apple juice, milk, mother to malnourished to produce milk" (If that's what happened, which reading this thread appears to be.)

I re-read the article. No where does it say that the mother was too malnourished to feed the baby.

It is more than possible for a Vegan to produce enough milk for a baby. (barring any other complications) Again, a very basic search of Vegan and Breastfeeding netted more sites than I could look through. All the ones I did look through gave not only calorie needs, but told what VEGAN foods would fill the requirements.

Again...I don't think this had anything to do with being Vegan. The fact that they tried to blame it on being Vegan gives other Vegans a bad name. This case is based on stupidity and neglect.

I don't care if they were first time parents or not. How many people here, even those with no children know there is infant formula out there? How many people know there is SOY formula out there? That might be a bit trickier...not everyone might know that, but I would venture to guess that a parent would.

An even better title would be
"Atlanta couple sentenced to life,
Baby died from malnutrition and neglect"

leave being Vegan out of it.

Well, the simplest solution is often the best. Occam's Razor.
http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

OCCAM'S RAZOR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

THAT'S NOT HOW OCCAM'S RAZOR WORKS.

Fail for fucking up the quote.

Fail for fucking up the quote.

Well you're a big fat stupid head. I'll fix it then.

I hadn't really been following this story, but when I mentioned it to my girlfriend she said she saw a story on CNN a few days ago reporting that it had been discovered that the couple was not really vegan at all. I guess there is no evidence they ever lived such a lifestyle, their friends say they eat meat, and so on. (She said there may have been some documentation, like receipts, showing that they bought non-vegan products, but she wasn't sure.)

Anyway, the story claimed that this was JUST a defense, that the whole "diet" thing was just concocted by their lawyer, and that they are just two assholes who didn't bother to feed their baby. Vegans have nothing to do with it.

But, I'm having trouble confirming that. Does anybody else know if this is accurate, or should I tell Erica that she was dreaming... or hallucinating?

But, I'm having trouble confirming that. Does anybody else know if this is accurate, or should I tell Erica that she was dreaming... or hallucinating?

If I were you I'd humor her and tell her she was right regardless.

this link gives a little more information...whether it's true or not is beyond me.


http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=214163

this link gives a little more information...whether it's true or not is beyond me.


http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=214163
And they still hold they did nothing wrong while being courted away in handcuffs. What? Did some aliens replace your healthy baby when you looked away with a baby starving to death? What is wrong with these people? They should be permanently put in a mental institution.

this link gives a little more information...whether it's true or not is beyond me.

http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=214163

They lived right across the street from Piedmont? And they still waited for the baby to die before they sought any medical attention? How can anyone even begin to defend that?

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

OCCAM'S RAZOR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Thank you morbo

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.

And you are a wise one if you think like that.

Seriously, vegans can eat whatever they damn want, but, Homo Sapiens is not herviborous. At least not as a species, and as such, vegan diet should have no place in the upbringing of a child.

And if anyone thinks I'm a bigot, think about a carnivorous or piscivorous diet. Yeah, yeah, I know, only vegetables isn't as bad for the organism as only meat or only fish. The point is that we should eat just about everything unless we want to accomplish a certain goal, and only a doctor's word (or plain common sense) should set up dietetical goals for children.

It gets worse, There are people trying to give their babys "Fat free diets" cos "fats bad",and wondering why their childs BRAIN DIES!

It gets worse, There are people trying to give their babys "Fat free diets" cos "fats bad",and wondering why their childs BRAIN DIES!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_Starvation

The downside of not steralizing idiots and people who just don't give a damn. It's not like it will affect THAT much of their life. The man will still have a dick with which to insert into a vagina. The woman would still have a vagina with which to have a dick inserted. Just can't reproduce and unless their society is the same society as the society in The Giver and her job is to pop out babies, her livelihood wouldn't be affected. Is it REALLY cruel? Unusual maybe, but cruel? Cruel for their kids, maybe. Give the man one of the safest surgeries possible(you're just snipping and tying small tubes through a small incision away from vital organs and major arteries. the only safer surgery I can think of is circumcising an infant, which was safe WAY before modern medicine and is safer now). Give the mother some pills that make her infertile. There, problem solved. Would also solve overpopulation.

Anyway, when someone is stupid, careless, and/or evil enough to force a defenseless human being through one of the slowest and most painful deaths possible, we really don't need said person reproducing. When we have stupid people raising stupid kids and a shortage of smart people causing stupid people to get jobs that require a great deal of intelligence, like lawyering and being elected into Congress (anti-Bush is so overdone. Almost as much a cliche as "devil=bad"), some "rights" might need to be more limited so as to not damage more important rights.