Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Misty morning

News came out yesterday that no charges will be filed in the death of Misty Horner or her child.

The deaths, you may recall, occurred after the difficult stillborn delivery of the baby Sydney Horner in the family's home after they opted not to go to a hospital for the delivery. According to Misty's husband, who happens to also be a Lee's Summit police officer, the family refused medical help based upon their religious beliefs.

Misty's family said this refusal of medical help is what led to her death a month later from septic shock.

The KC Star reported that
Jackson County Prosecutor Jim Kanatzar said there were insufficient grounds for criminal charges in the deaths of Misty Horner and her baby, Sydney.

Kanatzar said the decision was made in part on the findings of a medical examiner who ruled the deaths were the result of natural causes, he said. But his decision also was based on standards behind Missouri’s involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment laws, he said.
Some people will be tempted to rant against this miscarriage of justice. Certainly it's easy to get emotional about this kind of story. If not for the backwards beliefs of a few misguided individuals, a mother and daughter might be alive and well today.

But few will take the macro view of this episode. Few will see that these events, while tragic, might well be for the better good of the human race.

Try to look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. The belief that prayer in the absence of science is the best hope for survival has proven in this case to be false. The baby ended up dead, and the ability of the mother to procreate was removed.

As for the father, something tells me his ability to find a suitable mate has been seriously diminished. He has essentially removed himself from the gene pool.

I know it makes me sound like an asshole. And don't get me wrong, I can imagine how upset Misty's family must be.

But let's be brutally honest. The fewer of Caleb Horner's ilk we have around, the better for human evolution.

tagged: , , , , , ,


  1. almost agree with you; however the more humane method would be to ban any/all religious doctine in the secular matters of human health - what a non-demoninational board of certified physicians decide(d) would be it in such matters.

    thus, the Caleb Horners of the world would fade away without harming naifs...

  2. Right Schicho, so to hell with personal choice and responsibility.

  3. emawkc -

    in the non-existant universe where i rule the country, yes, there would be some 'tweaks' to the bill of rights. one would definitively be that stupidity on your part voids your personal choice/right if it threatens the lives of others; if government has any use at all it is to protect those who can not protect themselves.

    i won't pretend this is a 'fair' law any more than the one that says if i loan you my rifle and you kill someone with it than i can/will be prosecuted for murder {a statute i would also void}.

    i won't call this tweak 'common sense' as that is usually nothing more than the particular collective of superstitious rubish you come to believe by the time you graduate high school.

    but it is what i would do.

    ...right after banning all religions from having any interface with the government - no special tax breaks; no references to supernatural beings on our money or any/all government documents; no rote chants or other references about supernatural beings in our government; same for school systems - except as part and parcel of 'religious survey' courses; zip, nada, nothing.

    There would still be no interference of anyone's right to worship who and what they pleased: publishing any 'religious' tract of any kind would be fine; trolling for converts in public, not so much.

    my version of 'common sense' would allow religious 'holidays' to be publicly displayed and celebrated...so long as it was not on government property or subsidized or endorsed by government...

    i could go on...

    i'm all for 'personal choice' and 'responsibility' - i believe we disagree on what, exactly, those terms mean.

  4. I can see honoring the refusal of life saving medical treatment if the person has a terminal illness, the odds of survival are iffy, and the treatments are expensive.

    I can understand a person not wanting to put their extended family into bankruptcy for the slim chance that the therapy might work.

    I would be one who would say, fuck it...make me comfortable.

    But to refuse to allow your wife to get a simple shot for a simple infection because your fucktard idiot brother with delusions of biblical granduer told you that it was God's will whether she lived or died??

    THAT is criminal negligence.

    There comes a point when we have to say, "Okay, you can believe whatever you want. Christianity, Christian Science, Scientology, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jehovah's Witness, Judaism, Islam, Tolkein's Elves, whatever floats your boat."

    But when your belief system starts causing people to die, you must be held accountable.

    Allowing someone to die because you don't believe in modern science is right up there with sacrificing virgins to appease the volcano.

    Medical science should ALWAYS trump supersticious bullshit and manipulative control freaks.

  5. I believe one of your premises is incorrect "As for the father, something tells me his ability to find a suitable mate has been seriously diminished. He has essentially removed himself from the gene pool."

    What does being a normal, sane, healthy, well-adjusted human being have to do with finding a partner and procreating? I think history has proven that almost everyone can find someone. Need I point out that there are whole bunches of women out there trying to meet guys in prison?

  6. Did you know after 3 months he was dating someone else? Unless you know the whole story you don't cringe at the thought of what really happened.

    There is so much more to this story that what you know on the news and TV. Things that some can't talk about. It is a terrible way to die. By laying there and suffering.

    Caleb needs to be denied his job because of this reason alone, If he let his wife die how do I know that in the line of duty he would not let a fellow officer die or a citizen die because of his beliefs?

    That is a thought we all need to think about in this matter.


Your turn to riff...