of kids who got sick but their parents didnt take them in for medical care. For religious reasons, these parents shunned medical treatment and relied on prayer. Unfortunately, these children paid the ultimate price and died. In these cases, the parents are currently being prosecuted to the fullest extent and will not stay out of jail despite the argument of religious freedom.

So imagine the case now of religious withholding of vaccines. A child tragicly gets measles. The parent, being loving an otherwise intellegent parent, takes the child in to get immediate care. Unfortunately, the child develops encephelitis and dies, despite the best medical interventions. The parent's religious choice to forgo the medical standard of care, not to vaccinate, again cost their child's life. But in this case, the parent did everything they could after the illness was obtained, to seek medical care.

So my question is, what are the parallels and what are the differences between these two cases. These are actual cases, not theoretical. They have happened. Should parents in the second case also be held accountable via legal prosecution for their religious decision???

I would say yes. Parents in the second case should also be prosecuted, at least for negligance. They did not do everything within reason to care for their child.....same idea as parents who don't properly install a car seat or childproof their house, and are brought up on negligance charges.

Funny case of an anti-vaccer who's kid died from a preventable illness (I think it was CA)....judge asked her "You're against vaccines, and you vaccinated your dog but not your son?" Her response? "It's required by law for my dog."

I'd take it one step further. If a by-choice unvaccinated person infects someone who medically ISN'T able to be vaccinated, causes that unvaccinated person harm, then they should also be charged......if they die, manslaughter, or for redress of pain/suffering/financial harm