Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

Is this really anybody's business on this Board?

NO, NO it isn't any of our business...it is between the Law and this family...it is a shame that the media even reports nationwide on these kind of things....they pull me in EVERY damn time.... you would think I would know better.... :( once it hits the media, it is hard not to express how we personally feel about the subject....

care
 
Only when they're outside the womb, right? Amazing. How anyone can have two such conflicting views at the same time is incomprehensible. How you can advocate that the government has no business being in anyone's medical care to support your advocasy of abortion and then turn around and say the opposite in this case is amazing. :cuckoo:

While I do not support abortion, their argument is not conflicting in their minds. You assume it to be conflicting because you believe that life begins at conception. Those who are pro-choice do not believe life begins at conception; therefore there is a huge differnce and they are not being hypocritical at all.

What does seem to be hyporcritical is the fact that you support life of the unborn, but you would allow this child to die through neglect of the parents because it is their right to medical privacy. At the very least, you are on equal ground with them as you support the death of this child.

I'm using their own argument against them. I don't support the treatment being withheld from this boy in any way. Their argument is conflicting in reality, what's in their minds, I'd really rather not know.
Do you believe the government has a right to dictate that this boy receive the treatment? Because what you said is not that. To me it would be no different than allowing a child to bleed to death by refusing to allow the child be stitched up.

Living, breathing children...since they do not enjoy the full rights of citizens...deserve protection against parents bent on letting them die.

And no matter how much you spin around there is a difference between a thirteen year old and a fetus. A huge difference.
 
I'm using their own argument against them. I don't support the treatment being withheld from this boy in any way. Their argument is conflicting in reality, what's in their minds, I'd really rather not know.

Spell it out, wise guy. Are you pro-life? What argument do you imagine you're using? That a fetus equals a 13 year old child? :cuckoo:

Yes, that is the argument and it is a valid one if you believe life begins at conception. The entire abortion debate is based on when life begins. However you view this is what determines how you feel about abortion. And this is why the abortion issue will never be resolved.
 
While I do not support abortion, their argument is not conflicting in their minds. You assume it to be conflicting because you believe that life begins at conception. Those who are pro-choice do not believe life begins at conception; therefore there is a huge differnce and they are not being hypocritical at all.

What does seem to be hyporcritical is the fact that you support life of the unborn, but you would allow this child to die through neglect of the parents because it is their right to medical privacy. At the very least, you are on equal ground with them as you support the death of this child.

I'm using their own argument against them. I don't support the treatment being withheld from this boy in any way. Their argument is conflicting in reality, what's in their minds, I'd really rather not know.
Do you believe the government has a right to dictate that this boy receive the treatment? Because what you said is not that. To me it would be no different than allowing a child to bleed to death by refusing to allow the child be stitched up.

Living, breathing children...since they do not enjoy the full rights of citizens...deserve protection against parents bent on letting them die.

And no matter how much you spin around there is a difference between a thirteen year old and a fetus. A huge difference.


Not to you. To you, they are both your chattel to do with as you will.

I find it amusing that there's another thread where the "right" of an 8-year old boy to live as a girl is being touted...but here a 13 year old who decides to opt out of chemo is considered "retarded" and should be removed from his harmful parents.

:cuckoo:
 
Remind us again how a 13 year old Pregnant Girl can CHOSE to ABORT but a 13 year old boy with Cancer can not CHOSE to not have the treatment YOU want him to have.


Apples and oranges. The 13 year old boy has already been born.
 
Is this really anybody's business on this Board?

Great question, rr1!

Seeing that you are quite new here, I'll let you in on a little secret: THE MAJORITY OF WHAT IS DISCUSSED HERE ON THIS BOARD IS NOT OUR BUSINESS.

But that's what makes this board fun.
 
I'm using their own argument against them. I don't support the treatment being withheld from this boy in any way. Their argument is conflicting in reality, what's in their minds, I'd really rather not know.
Do you believe the government has a right to dictate that this boy receive the treatment? Because what you said is not that. To me it would be no different than allowing a child to bleed to death by refusing to allow the child be stitched up.

Living, breathing children...since they do not enjoy the full rights of citizens...deserve protection against parents bent on letting them die.

And no matter how much you spin around there is a difference between a thirteen year old and a fetus. A huge difference.


Not to you. To you, they are both your chattel to do with as you will.

I find it amusing that there's another thread where the "right" of an 8-year old boy to live as a girl is being touted...but here a 13 year old who decides to opt out of chemo is considered "retarded" and should be removed from his harmful parents.

:cuckoo:
Babble, why are you constantly lying about what I think?

I think we can both agree that a thirteen year old is a living, breathing human being, no?

How is this different than an adult removing a feeding tube from another adult that has a 90% chance of recovery? In that case more than likely there would be murder charges. In this case it is even worse because the child is not a full citizen and therefore deserves extra protection from parents that are for all intents and purposes committing murder.
 
Well said

only if one can't discern the difference between a parent being required to CARE for their child and not neglecting said child... and my right to my body.

I guess medical treatment is only required if the brain has turned to liquid like Terry Schiavo, eh?

Skewed values... sorry.


So, you believe that the government has no say over your body, but it does over your children's? You're okay with the government coming in and telling you what decisions you can and cannot make on behalf of your children, but not for yourself? Unless of course it's telling you how much of your pay they're taking, or what kind of a car you can drive, how much water, electricity, fuel you can use, what you can eat, etc... I'm guessing that you're not even a parent, nor have you ever been pregnant.

Do you not believe that the government should look out for the welfare of children?

Do you believe it to be a patient's right to lock their kid in the basement and feed them scraps?
 
I'm using their own argument against them. I don't support the treatment being withheld from this boy in any way. Their argument is conflicting in reality, what's in their minds, I'd really rather not know.

Spell it out, wise guy. Are you pro-life? What argument do you imagine you're using? That a fetus equals a 13 year old child? :cuckoo:

Yes, that is the argument and it is a valid one if you believe life begins at conception. The entire abortion debate is based on when life begins. However you view this is what determines how you feel about abortion. And this is why the abortion issue will never be resolved.

I'd like to see Newby answer if he's pro-life, which would point out his own hypocrisy. How can you be pro-life and still argue that it's okay to just allow this boy to die?
 
Because being pro-life is being PRO-CHOICE, and is about refusing to walk over the rights of the vulnerable.
 
And freedom is something the rabid baby killers will never understand, with their Nazi conceptions of what it means to be "civilized".
 
From the article:

The cancer is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment and with his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.

There are religions that do not believe in medical intervention. If that is what the parents (or at least the mother) is claiming, does the government have the right to push the parent's beliefs aside and take over? Do the parent's religious beliefs automatically apply to their child? At what point do the parent's right to choose for their child end and government needs to step in? What are the alternative treatments being used?
 
Because being pro-life is being PRO-CHOICE, and is about refusing to walk over the rights of the vulnerable.

Actually, pro-life is anti-choice, pro-fetus and anti-woman, pro government intervention into reproductive choice.

Anyone who is arguing against legal intervention for this dying boy is arguing for this boy's mother's right to choose to let a living breathing child die which is not pro-life at all.

So in one case you're saying it's okay for the law to intervene on behalf of a fetus, but not on behalf of a living breathing child? That makes no sense.
 
Well, Xotox if this family's misery is your fun, "you are one sick puppy."
 
Do you believe the government has a right to dictate that this boy receive the treatment? Because what you said is not that. To me it would be no different than allowing a child to bleed to death by refusing to allow the child be stitched up.

Living, breathing children...since they do not enjoy the full rights of citizens...deserve protection against parents bent on letting them die.

And no matter how much you spin around there is a difference between a thirteen year old and a fetus. A huge difference.


Not to you. To you, they are both your chattel to do with as you will.

I find it amusing that there's another thread where the "right" of an 8-year old boy to live as a girl is being touted...but here a 13 year old who decides to opt out of chemo is considered "retarded" and should be removed from his harmful parents.

:cuckoo:
Babble, why are you constantly lying about what I think?

I think we can both agree that a thirteen year old is a living, breathing human being, no?

How is this different than an adult removing a feeding tube from another adult that has a 90% chance of recovery? In that case more than likely there would be murder charges. In this case it is even worse because the child is not a full citizen and therefore deserves extra protection from parents that are for all intents and purposes committing murder.

It's NOT different from removing the feeding tube from an adult. I wouldn't go for that, either. You would.

THanks for proving your mind works exactly as I portray it.
 
Because being pro-life is being PRO-CHOICE, and is about refusing to walk over the rights of the vulnerable.

Actually, pro-life is anti-choice, pro-fetus and anti-woman, pro government intervention into reproductive choice.

Anyone who is arguing against legal intervention for this dying boy is arguing for this boy's mother's right to choose to let a living breathing child die which is not pro-life at all.

So in one case you're saying it's okay for the law to intervene on behalf of a fetus, but not on behalf of a living breathing child? That makes no sense.

Well, unless you happen to be the child that's being dismembered.

As I said, eugenecists have no concept of human rights, freedom, or choice, because you are blinded by your own agenda and your compulsion to force that agenda on all others, even if it means re-defining murder to suit your needs.
 
People have the right to choose their own medical treatment. Abortion isn't a medical treatment. It's murder.
 
Because being pro-life is being PRO-CHOICE, and is about refusing to walk over the rights of the vulnerable.

Actually, pro-life is anti-choice, pro-fetus and anti-woman, pro government intervention into reproductive choice.

Anyone who is arguing against legal intervention for this dying boy is arguing for this boy's mother's right to choose to let a living breathing child die which is not pro-life at all.

So in one case you're saying it's okay for the law to intervene on behalf of a fetus, but not on behalf of a living breathing child? That makes no sense.

Well, unless you happen to be the child that's being dismembered.

As I said, eugenecists have no concept of human rights, freedom, or choice, because you are blinded by your own agenda and your compulsion to force that agenda on all others, even if it means re-defining murder to suit your needs.

:rolleyes:

So you just came into this thread to make stuff up about people that you actually agree with on this issue of a dying boy needing to be protected?

Exactly what compulsion or agenda do you imagine that I am pushing for Allie? Eugenics??? :eusa_liar:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top