Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Vegan couple accidentally starve child; Tragic misunderstanding
Topic Started: May 3 2007, 04:20 PM (260 Views)
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
This is pretty sad - and the sentence is extremely heavy. You can't feed a cat a diet of lettuce and expect it to survive - but 'cruel baby killers' seems way off the mark.

Vegan Parents convicted

Parents Convicted in Baby's Death
ATLANTA (AP) A Superior Court jury in Atlanta convicted a vegan couple of murder and cruelty to children Wednesday in the death of their six-week old, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.
27-year-old Jade Sanders and 31-year-old and Lamont Thomas will receive automatic life sentences for starving the boy, who weighed just 3.5 pounds when he died.

Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.

But prosecutor Mike Carlson told the jury yesterday during closing arguments that they are ``baby killers.''

The jury deliberated about seven hours before returning the guilty verdicts.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

-------

I think the emotive nature of children has pushed this into the area of supposed cruelty. The parents were clearly misinformed and their actions did result in the child's death, but that should be manslaughter (2nd degree murder to those in the US). You can't have murder without assumed malevolent intent.

Anyway, the jury was wrong to convict. Anyone disagree?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
I disagree.

If you do ANY reading after having a child (as you should) or talk to ANY doctor (as you should), you would know that only breast milk or formula is to be given to a baby for at least the first 6 months of life (some recommend longer). You slowly introduce baby pablum and baby food after that time and eventually you can ween the child to milk (or in a vegan's case soy milk).

It is the responsiblity of a parent to put the physical and emotional well being of a child (especially at that age) ahead of their own. In this case they did in my opinion, neglect to provide the necessaties of life.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
While we're given why the parents don't believe they should be charged with murder, we're not given why they were convicted of murder - so I honestly can't say I disagree. There's a lot we don't know about that would prove intent in the jurors' eyes.

But, just taking a preliminary look at it, I don't believe the parents didn't think they weren't doing any harm. Choosing to ignore the signs of a starving baby over a choice in diet is murder...and they obviously ignored the signs.

No healthy baby weighs 3.5 lbs at 6 weeks.

They obviously didn't seek out medical advice after the birth, otherwise the child would have been hospitalized due to weight loss and failure to thrive.

Had this couple been informed they were making the wrong decisions, by anyone involved in the post-partum care of this baby (ie. midwife, doula, etc.) and they continued on their path, cutting off ties with the person who informed them (and this could have happenned, we don't know) then I would believe they intended to starve their child by refusing to change their ways.

I'm dumbfounded by why a mother, so hell-bent on excluding "unhealthy" non-vegan food from her baby's diet, wouldn't have breastfed.

In all honesty, had this baby died within 1-2 weeks of birth my opinion would be changed, citing the fact that the parents wouldn't have had time to notice something deathly wrong with their baby...and I would have just supported cruelty and involuntary manslaughter...But 6 weeks. A month and a half with this baby, and they "couldn't tell" something was wrong until minutes before it died??

I don't believe that for a second, and obviously neither did a jury.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Quote:
 
I'm dumbfounded by why a mother, so hell-bent on excluding "unhealthy" non-vegan food from her baby's diet, wouldn't have breastfed.


My thoughts exactly.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Because it's an animal product? Or maybe she tried and it didn't work. I don't know the particulars of her belief system, so either could be the case. It does seem absurd that they apparently fed the child seemingly healthy stuff and yet get convicted of murder for it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
It does seem absurd that they apparently fed the child seemingly healthy stuff and yet get convicted of murder for it.



Seemingly healthy for whom, Plague?

Not for a newborn. Any idiot knows that. A simple glance at the AAP guidelines would have told them what they were doing was completely wrong.

Besides, the whole "breastmilk is an animal by-product" retort is retarded - the baby survived off of a placenta for 9 months in the womb...which is an animal by-product.

Soy milk is cheaper than soy formula - they were probably trying to cut corners by opting for the milk instead, since soy formula is more expensive. Soy formula also has things added to it necessary for energy and fat content (like corn syrup) that a baby not breastfeeding requires to grow.

Letting a baby go down to 3.5 lbs in 6 weeks is intentional - you don't "not notice" a baby drop that much weight. There are ways to check the health of your baby, and weight is at the top of the chart.

Look at this case, I would wager to guess these parents were out to prove something about their lifestyle - that a newborn can be raised healthily on a strictly vegan diet, etc. They considered their lifestyle above the health of their baby - they made a conscious decision in this. The baby died after starving to death slowly over 6 WEEKS. A month and a half.

That's a long time to watch the decline in your baby's health and not do anything about it.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

They also may have opted for soy milk precisely because it has less additives, thus seemed more healthy. Again, I don't know their belief system, their level of education, or their trust in current conventional medical wisdom regarding the care of a newborn. However, given the fact that they fed the baby, and not absurd crap, it's hard to see how they can be guilty of negligence or murder.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Apple juice IS absurd crap.

The baby's digestive system isn't built for much more than breastmilk or it's alternatives.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Well, yes, you know that. However, it's not absurd in the same way as feeding the kid Twinkies, or dog food, or tree bark, or something like that. It's not obviously unhealthy, so assuming that they did make a good faith effort to feed the kid, it's difficult to see them as guilty of negligence and murder.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Lol, so you reason that as long as they "fed" the baby, they are in the clear of intent?

And if they fed the baby just tea? Just koolaid? What if they put a salad in front of it, and the baby was unable to grab it and chew it? Still count as murder, since they made food available?

Fact remains, there was obviously a compelling case put forward to show intent. The jury only took 7 hours to decide. That says a lot. This article is incredibly brief, and taking a sensationalistic approach of "Don't feed your baby right? YOU COULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER!"..as news stories tend to.

Soy milk wouldn't have "seemed" more healthy based on baby nutritional needs. If these parents were bright enough to worry about additives, they would have been bright enough to research baby's nutritional needs.

My guess is these parents were trying to cut corners, deciding to disbelieve the evil formula conglomerate that convinces parents that babies need formula not regular types of cow or soy milk, and were out to prove to everyone that their lifestyle could successfully raise a baby. Their baby's weight dropped at least in half, but they didn't care. They didn't seek help, they ignored the warning signs - they watched their baby starve for a month and a half.

Plague, I can see your reasoning, and I'd agree if the baby died within a week or two...I mean, that would be an accident. Anyone could have fucked up and not been able to fix it in that short of time...

But consider the time-span this went on. A baby only starts around 7-8lbs at birthweight normally...this child lost half it's weight over 6 weeks, at a time when it should have been weight everyday for the first week, every few days after that, to about once a week at week 4.

They had to have seen their baby dropping weight, and INTENTIONALLY chose to keep the path they were on.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Well, given the briefness of the article, I'm not convinced, nor do I have an inherent faith in the wisdom of juries. Look at your own reading in to their intentions, inferring that they were trying to prove a point about their lifestyle. The bare facts are that their baby died, and it seems that it was due to their misfeeding it. The rest is conjecture.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Actually, the bare facts seem to be they had a baby, it died DUE to what they intentionally fed it, and a jury convicted them of murder based on the case they were shown.

Whether or not you have faith in the judicial system is inconsequential to the "bare facts", believe it or not.

Besides, I may be making guesses on why they fed their baby these items (these guesses, btw, are based on discussions I've been involved in with both vegans and women with newborns)...but you're inferring they chose milk over formula because of additives, etc. So I'm really failing to see the difference here.

But, I believe my theory holds a lot more water than yours since a parent so concerned about additives in their newborn's diet would also be concerned about a baby's needs when it comes to nutrition...and would know apple juice and soy milk would be inferior to soy formula. One thing you wouldn't be familiar with Plague, based on your lack of parenting experience, is exactly how far the breastfeeding vs. formula vs. commercialism debate actually runs.

It's not far-fetched to believe a vegan would intentionally not feed their baby formula to prove a point. After I watched a woman nearly starve her baby due to her inability to breastfeed, yet unwillingness to formula feed, I wouldn't say my theory is far-fetched whatsoever.




Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Ah, but being convicted of murder implies intent, otherwise it would be manslaugher. That is the crux of the matter right there, and something I'm not convinced of by that article or the fact that a southern jury returned a guilty verdict.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Being unconvinced because of a "southern jury" doesn't really scream unbiased opinion, but whatever.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Actually I do agree with that point plaque.

I guess I just think that people who have children have a responsiblity to that life beyond their own wants/needs etc.

I feel the same way about people who feed their kids shit causing them to become overweight. I think these people should be charged with attempted murder even.

Eh.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

I'm familar with southern culture, particularly cuisine and attitudes towards food. While there are, of course, some vegans living in the south, they certainly don't have the acceptance of other regions of the country. This is in addition to the fact that the cuisine is built around meat and fat, thus the alien nature of practicing vegans could very well have made the jury less sympathetic and more prone to believing bad intent on the part of the defendents.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
I guess I just think that people who have children have a responsiblity to that life beyond their own wants/needs etc.


Not an unreasonable expectation, Sword.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lori
Member Avatar
that chick, you know
Lori
I read some more articles about this. The parents were convicted, as I understand, because the prosecutor's argument was the child was simply neglected, and the vegan lifestyle was a cover for that. I think this was where the intent came in to play required for murder vs. manslaughter charges.

A Florida couple in a similar circumstance was convicted of unintentional manslaughter, but they had already raised two children as vegans.

From an Atlanta paper:
Quote:
 
Fulton prosecutor Chuck Boring said the verdict isn't a condemnation of veganism, a strict form of vegetarianism that doesn't allow the consumption or use of animal products. Instead, jurors believed prosecutors' assertions that the couple intentionally neglected and underfed the child and then tried to use the lifestyle as a shield.


Source - Atlanta Journal Constitution
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RevWolf
Member Avatar
MacGyver of Sex
vegos are all crazy if you ask me. lets hunt them down and kill em for pet food.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Indeed, Lori.

I suspected this had a lot more to it than just "southern jurors like meat and fat".

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply