So far the only responses to Pene's posts include (i) the classic GC pack of hyena proof by assertion and self proclaimed victory because "she hasn't made any points" (i.e. you haven't listened to any of her points) followed up with an emphatic "lol" to hammer home the condescension or (ii) let's bring something irrelevant to the table like abortion lol because that has so much to do with the thread lol lol
[quote name='"chiefton8"'] So far the only responses to Pene's posts include (i) the classic GC pack of hyena proof by assertion and self proclaimed victory because "she hasn't made any points" (i.e. you haven't listened to any of her points) followed up with an emphatic "lol" to hammer home the condescension or (ii) let's bring something irrelevant to the table like abortion lol because that has so much to do with the thread lol lol[/quote] What thread are you reading? People have responded to every single point very thoroughly but she tends to not respond to those. Its easier I suppose...
It's who decides.what's best for children. And Penelope who supports and defends the rights of a "living" child even if parents don't agree (which I agree with but not as state intervention). She then says that a baby because it is inside of her or a woman they can have ultimate decision in killing it. Just trying to point out her inconsistent views. I to used to be that way when I was younger but had a hard time trying to make it right and be consistent with my libertarian now anacap views. Life, liberty, and private property. And life is and always comes first for without it nothing else exist. With life people want there liberties, to be left alone and to decide for themselves as long as they don't infringe on others same rights. And private property is the foundation of those rights and that property starts with owning ones self. Next time you look at your child Penelope imagine if you woulda aborted it for any reason other then health or rape and justify that to them. Sit them down and explain to them how you coulda aborted them and watch what there reaction will be. "you mean you coulda killed me mommy?" .... Well no honey you weren't a living child yet ? Do you take it personally if someone told you you shoulda been aborted? This issue has everything to do with your and op post it is about right to your own life your private property
"Responding to" and "addressing" are two different things. For example, you provided a story about your friends dying of lukemia, their experiences with chemo and their doctor's take on that particular type of chemo treatment. Before I say anything else, I'm sorry to hear that story as I'm sure that was very difficult for everyone. Very sad. Back to my point though about "responding to" vs "addressing"...as it is written, I'm unsure what your story has to do with anything in this thread. Everyone knows chemo is horrible and that it often makes patients worse or their quality of life worse. No one has ever claimed chemo to be the silver bullet for cancer,and doctors will be the first to admit this. The thread is about the right of parents to make medical decisions that are inherently contrary to the consensus of the medical community that ultimately could endanger the life of their child and the level at which government should be able to interfere in that process. I don't see how your story applies to that. Since you never mentioned anything about it, I'm going to assume during the course of their treatment there wasn't any debate between their parents, their doctor's recommendations, their decision to go through with chemo, and any involvement with the government. Sounded like a classic medical case where the legally responsible parties agreed to take drastic measures to overcome a horrible situation knowing full well there may not be a Hollywood ending to the whole thing, which there wasn't sadly. Were the patients even under the age of 18 at the time? If not, then the story is even less relevant as the parents have no legal say in the medical treatment. If they were under 18, what other scientifically supported, medically viable and more effective alternatives were available at the time to the patients that the parents could have provided but were overruled by the all-controlling doctors or government, which were statistically likely to have resulted in a more successful outcome? Simply providing a personal anecdote about how treatments provided by doctors don't always have happy endings is not a valid argument to this discussion. Hence the difference between "responding to" (which you did) and "addressing" (which you did not). On the other hand, if you'd like to expand on how the government interfered with the medical decisions of the parents and the under-18 patients in your particular case, and how those decisions resulted in the death and scaring of said patients while other viable and alternative treatments were clearly available but intentionally not provided, I'm happy to listen.
If you believe like I do you own yourself then the child has ultimate authority of treatment. It's just hypocritical imo that someone can say that and not be against abortion UNLESS the woman was raped or the baby will do harm. Equally it is not consistent from the state to protect human life to the point where one can not commit assisted suicide from a doctor even if suffering and at the same time allow abortions. The heart of this question is right to life and abortion is part of that.
Medical professionals are extremely likely to know better, I'm not too sure that a politician or bureaucrat would have a clue about it though. Besides, I didn't think you had a nationalized health service over there? Oh, well, that's simple then isn't it. There's that entire debate sorted. It's only hypocritical from the point of view of someone who refuses to admit that there is a huge debate on whether or not the fetus is a human, simply proclaiming "it is" because you think it is isn't really a reasoned argument.
LOL our government just makes itself look dumb all the time. Once we have a simplification of laws, bureaucracy and rest of our system, instances like this and what happened with MegaUpload won't happen. But oh wait... Hollywood, Big Corporations, Technocrats, And other liberal "NWO" Trilaterals and Bilderbergs are banking off of us being kept stupid and held back by the ever so complicated red tape and structure that only they have the money and networks to overcome. Let's just vote independents into our seats of power here America, and let the people unite under them in a way that will give them the balls to boycott, protest, organize, and make demands the correct way.. NOT like Occupy Wallstreet.
Yeah but you see sport that the only drug war I want to end is the one on marijuana. I DO want to end wars that are fought to protect us and our standard of living, as well as our allies, because this is more of a reason that we should be a more isolated and independent country. However, Why do you guys think North Korea had a black market cannibal ring exposed, and South Korea didn't. Why do you think that its much better to be in South Vietnam than in North Vietnam? Do you guys think that America shouldn't have stepped in in World War 2? I'm not for America standing by while evil, disgusting people seize power all over the world, to eventually then collaborate against us.
Just remember, righteousness and true fairness will only be in the seat of power if it can start from the ground up. My father always told me that sitting by and being neutral while someone is taking advantage of or harming another is just as evil. Do you live by that standard?
The thing is, the medical community does not ever make decisions for you, they simply tell you what your options are. And anyone that's been there knows that forgoing a harsh treatment to simply live out the rest of your time with your loved ones in peace is ALWAYS one of those options. The fact is it was the state who decided to step in and take their options off the table and force them to force the daughter to go through chemo treatment, not the doctors. This is yet another unaccetable use of force by the state. And that is what this thread is about.
Chemotherapy is inherently dangerous. When someone makes a decision to go through chemotherapy, it's generally because they're battling cancer that will otherwise kill them. Sometimes people decide that they would rather live for a shorter amount of time with some dignity rather than live for months and months under the effects of chemotherapy. What doctor thinks they should be forcing chemotherapy on anyone (yes, anyone includes people under 18 )?