Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
His parents are choosing alternative treatment, and they're doing what they think is best just like a 13 year old girl deciding to kill her baby. But as someone who advocates what you do about government intervention into private medical issues about what people do with their own body as a means of defending abortion, you have no grounds on which to argue here. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to be treated fairly under the laws that you advocate, that's not how the game works.
I wouldn't 'choose' the option that they have personally.
After all, it's all about choice, isn't it? That's all that matters.
As I said, I disagree that there are no grounds for that argument and so does the court.
The 13 year old girl who becomes pregnant is not dying. I think the law should require that a parent or adult guardian should be informed and it is a private medical decision whether or not to abort the pregnancy, not the government.
This 13 year old boy is going to die from lack of treatment, so essentially his mother's choice is a walking abortion of his life. The private medical decision has become a public legal affair because a civilized society has an obligation to protect this already alive child from THAT choice.
You're right, only the life that is inside of her will be dying, so she's making the choice for someone else's life, not her own. Sorry, but you have no argument.
You think parents have the right to choose to let their living children die, but not the right to choose to abort the fetus?Most people can see the obvious differences here, but taking stabs at women is much easier to do than THINK about it.
His parents are choosing alternative treatment, and they're doing what they think is best just like a 13 year old girl deciding to kill her baby. But as someone who advocates what you do about government intervention into private medical issues about what people do with their own body as a means of defending abortion, you have no grounds on which to argue here. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to be treated fairly under the laws that you advocate, that's not how the game works.
I wouldn't 'choose' the option that they have personally.
After all, it's all about choice, isn't it? That's all that matters.
Of course, Val...you know as well as I that the wingnuts only care about potential life...or pretend to care about it.
You think parents have the right to choose to let their living children die, but not the right to choose to abort the fetus?
Here we go again. Because abortion is legal RGS's little mind believes we should let living, breathing children die of neglect.
And here we go again.. a left wanting choice only when it suits them... choose to kill one innocent life, and force another to have a treatment
And the other funny thing.. looks like RGS stated he believed the boy should be treated
And in my opinion, the boy should be treated... and I believe his life should be protected like all innocent life should..
Now... it would be different, IMHO, if this were on the subject of prolonging a couple of months or whatever and the child did not want to go thru intensive and painful treatments for the chance at an extra 60 days... but this is a case that the prognosis for cure is indeed high
Ohh I get it, A mother has the right to murder a fetus cause well it aint born yet but not the right to CHOSE her son's medical treatment that HE also wants.
I agree he should be treated but YOU have no leg to stand on on this issue.
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.
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.
Well, I oppose the 13 year old pregnant girl being permitted to choose abortion, and I also oppose the 13 year old boy being able to choose suicide over sound medical treatment that will save his life.
a 13 year old boy with Cancer can not CHOSE to not have the treatment YOU want him to have.
It's the treatment his doctors want him to have because there is overwhelming demonstrable evidence that it is a matter of life and death for him. The boy is a minor who needs a responsible adult to be his guardian and protect him. This parent is guilty of neglect, IMO.
So Freedom of religion does not apply? Privacy does not apply? The rights of the Parents to DISAGRRE with the doctors and CHOSE AN ALTERNATE treatment does not apply?
Reread it, the Mother did not say he would not get treatement, she said they would use alternate means.
YOU are now claiming the Government has the sole say in treatment for anyone that the Doctors disagree with. In my opinion the Judge had no legal basis to make the Judgement he made.
I think the child should get the treatment, BUT LEGALLY under the Constitution that simply is not OUR place to demand it.
ANYONE that supports abortion has NO standing to oppose the Mother and the Boy's wishes. NONE.
As I said, I disagree that there are no grounds for that argument and so does the court.
The 13 year old girl who becomes pregnant is not dying. I think the law should require that a parent or adult guardian should be informed and it is a private medical decision whether or not to abort the pregnancy, not the government.
This 13 year old boy is going to die from lack of treatment, so essentially his mother's choice is a walking abortion of his life. The private medical decision has become a public legal affair because a civilized society has an obligation to protect this already alive child from THAT choice.
You're right, only the life that is inside of her will be dying, so she's making the choice for someone else's life, not her own. Sorry, but you have no argument.
Funny, and your only argument is simply that I supposedly have no argument???
It goes back to Jillian's initial statement. If you're pro-life (imposing the law into reproductive choice) and pro this mother's choice to let her living breathing 13 year old son die (keeping the law out of it) , then it is you who is the hypocrite.
Just like Gays marrying and Jillian being opposed to CONSENTING ADULTS having Incestuous Relationships, you turds are all for choice unless it bothers YOUR conscious. Either we have religious freedom and choice or we do not. IF the Majority does not get to decide on Gays and abortion, guess what , YOU don't get to decide on medical treatment for minors on this issue.
What does adult consensual sex have to do with this?
I am for keeping the government out of our personal freedoms as far as possible, but a civil society needs to protect it's children.
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.
Here we go again. Because abortion is legal RGS's little mind believes we should let living, breathing children die of neglect.
And here we go again.. a left wanting choice only when it suits them... choose to kill one innocent life, and force another to have a treatment
And the other funny thing.. looks like RGS stated he believed the boy should be treated
And in my opinion, the boy should be treated... and I believe his life should be protected like all innocent life should..
Now... it would be different, IMHO, if this were on the subject of prolonging a couple of months or whatever and the child did not want to go thru intensive and painful treatments for the chance at an extra 60 days... but this is a case that the prognosis for cure is indeed high
So do you agree or disagree that the government should intervene?
What does adult consensual sex have to do with this?
I am for keeping the government out of our personal freedoms as far as possible, but a civil society needs to protect it's children.
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.
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.
You're right, only the life that is inside of her will be dying, so she's making the choice for someone else's life, not her own. Sorry, but you have no argument.
Funny, and your only argument is simply that I supposedly have no argument???
It goes back to Jillian's initial statement. If you're pro-life (imposing the law into reproductive choice) and pro this mother's choice to let her living breathing 13 year old son die (keeping the law out of it) , then it is you who is the hypocrite.
I never said that the boy should have the right to 'choose'? I'm calling you on your hypocrisy where it's okay to choose in one case and allow the government to make decisions on 'private medical decisions' in one case, but not in any other. That's what you would be doing.
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.
And here we go again.. a left wanting choice only when it suits them... choose to kill one innocent life, and force another to have a treatment
And the other funny thing.. looks like RGS stated he believed the boy should be treated
And in my opinion, the boy should be treated... and I believe his life should be protected like all innocent life should..
Now... it would be different, IMHO, if this were on the subject of prolonging a couple of months or whatever and the child did not want to go thru intensive and painful treatments for the chance at an extra 60 days... but this is a case that the prognosis for cure is indeed high
So do you agree or disagree that the government should intervene?
With the Supreme Court finding on Row vs Wade, they clearly found that the government has no right to come between the private decisions made by citizens with regards to their personal health matters. If it's okay for them to intervene in this instance, then why not on others?
The government should not dictate what, if any, medical treatment a person should go through. This is supposed to be a free society, where a person has the freedom to choose what's best themselves. I've known too many people that have undergone chemotherapy and frankly the cure is often worse than the disease. Everyone I know that had undergone extensive treatment has passed away after years of what I feel is medical abuse.
Funny, and your only argument is simply that I supposedly have no argument???
It goes back to Jillian's initial statement. If you're pro-life (imposing the law into reproductive choice) and pro this mother's choice to let her living breathing 13 year old son die (keeping the law out of it) , then it is you who is the hypocrite.
I never said that the boy should have the right to 'choose'? I'm calling you on your hypocrisy where it's okay to choose in one case and allow the government to make decisions on 'private medical decisions' in one case, but not in any other. That's what you would be doing.
You're not saying the boy has a right to choose, but that his mother does, right? Maybe you're just trying to be difficult cuz you think it's cute to call people hypocrites? I can't help it if you can't see the difference, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
So do you agree or disagree that the government should intervene?
With the Supreme Court finding on Row vs Wade, they clearly found that the government has no right to come between the private decisions made by citizens with regards to their personal health matters. If it's okay for them to intervene in this instance, then why not on others?
I guess you do support this decision. You're just arguing with the pro-choicers about abortion. That is a separate issue. And as I stated, for those who do not believe that life begins at conception, there is not a double standard.
With the Supreme Court finding on Row vs Wade, they clearly found that the government has no right to come between the private decisions made by citizens with regards to their personal health matters. If it's okay for them to intervene in this instance, then why not on others?
I guess you do support this decision. You're just arguing with the pro-choicers about abortion. That is a separate issue. And as I stated, for those who do not believe that life begins at conception, there is not a double standard.
Well, this thread happened to pop up at the same time, with the same people, as the abortion thread did. So, to see them come in here and argue a complete 180 of what they were arguing over in the abortion thread is really quite something to see.
