The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Does a woman have to sue a rapists to get him to stop raping her?

 

As I have said before many times, the big bold bad liberals dont seem to have a problem with killing the young, look how they support the Planned Parenthood killers.

What is strange about libs is the fact they try to convince black voters that they stand 100% behind them, but Sanger that created Planned Parenthood did so to "improve" human kind by aborting all black babies.

 

All the most advanced nations on earth have achieved some form of universal, single-payer coverage far more economically than profiteer systems.

Whether to attempt a highly experimental procedure in this case is not related to how any nation's health insurance is managed. Consideration regarding whether it would would offer a reasonable chance of a cure or merely prolong suffering is an ethical issue, not a financial one.

Following medical assessment, if deemed appropriate by the courts, the treatment could be conducted in Italy that provides coverage for all its citizens or the US that does not.

This case says nothing about the relative merits of health care systems, and this baby should not be exploited by ideologues promoting a fake claim that it does.

 

The courts are a representative of the government and in theory should be upholding a law. If the court is simply saying.....we agree with the hospital, then they are wrong. If no law was broken or desired to be broken the courts should not have been involved. The parents should have been given their child as requested. Adults are allowed to check themselves out of a hospital against doctors wishes, so why can't parents of a child do the same thing?

How to get the child to the United States is not my concern nor your concern, and should not in anyway play into the mix of whether the parents can have their child. If the parents want to get their child to the United States it is their concern. However, to address your question....private charter.

Come on Bowerbird where's the women rights outrage angle? If the baby is inside the woman, it's her property to do with as she wish, but once it's born she losses all control. I would think you would be pissed at this development against women rights.

 

I am not arguing for or against the merits of "universal" healthcare in this thread. I am arguing against government involvement in a matter that should be up to the family. The fact that the government has stepped in to tell the parents of this child no, you can't take your baby someplace else for and experimental treatment is appalling. The fact that the government is telling this family this and the fact that their healthcare is also run by the government is interesting to note though.

 

Actually, respecting a woman's right to control her own body rather than have an intrusive State authority and dried-up old politicians seize control is a settled issue.

Extremists at one end of the spectrum insist that a microscopic, mindless entity is a person, and their antipodean opposites insist that the person does not exist until birth.

Society has recognized that personhood is attained during the gestative process, and the control of a woman's pregnancy prior to that stage of viability is hers, not the State's.

Of course, that matter has no relationship to whether a highly experimental procedure, in Italy or the US, is merited in this case.

 

And they discuss the matters with the family. When my father-in-law died in the hospital after a long and hard stay the doctors DISCUSSED the issues with the family and the FAMILY....NOT the doctors decided what to do. The family decided he was ready to die and be at peace. NOT the doctors.

Yes, in emergency situations and in cases where there is no family doctors make calls, but that's it.

 

If the highly experimental treatment is deemed to prolong suffering whilst offering no remote prospect of cure, that could constitute child abuse, however unintentional.

There is no nation that stands aside and condones child abuse.

A thorough assessment of the treatment's chance of success before it is undertaken is essential.

 

Sorry, but the United States is legally acceptable of child abuse every time a doctor performs a late term abortion. Due to the fact that the child could survive outside of the womb 75% of the time. Which are way better odds than what they're giving Charlie.

 

And in this case, the parents are choosing to harm their child for no possible gain.

 

Late term abortions of viable fetuses are illegal in the US.

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, must be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

After viability is achieved at 22-23 weeks of gestation, society has an interest in and responsibility for the nascent human being, but before that stage, the woman's rights exceed the State's.

Again, none of that impacts the matter of a British infant and whether there would be a realistic chance of cure, or if the experimental treatment would be likely to merely prolong suffering - an ethical consideration, not a financial or systemic one.

 

How much does he move or interact? Often brain dead people do look peaceful that does not stop the fact that they are Bain dead

 

Well since you asked, look how Obama Reid and Pelosi screwed up the country.

 

Everything I've read about this case, he isn't brain dead. He's brain damaged. He still has enough. Rain activity to feel pain, which is arguably worse than being brain dead.

 

Nice try at mindless deflection, I know it's the only tactic you have left.

 

How does the English government plan to "kill" the baby?

By the way, you do know that the man you voted for in November was a long time advocate of single payer. By your logic, President Trump wants to kill you when you get sick.

 

Oh that sounds tidy. I'm sure God will like that one. Although He is the only sovereign one. But maybe that is too deep or too scary for you to contemplate.

Whoever told you that was just trying to make you feel less guilty for not caring.

 

Do you have empirical evidence for this supposed "God"?

Are you really arguing bodily sovereignty doesn't exist?

 

Yes I have empirical evidence for "this supposed God." Do you have an open mind, one that does not fight the idea in every bizarre way possible?

Bodily sovereignty does not exist when taking liberty to destroy another human life.

And whatever you think of yourself and your rights and your "glory," --- once again you are playing the fool. Because the moment God stops consciously holding you in his eternal mind, you cease to exist.

 

By all means, bring this verfiable empirical evidence forward.

 

Tell me why I should take the time to produce “empirical evidence” for you to consider for the existence of God? The fact you are asking after all these years pretty much convinces me you will do all you can in your power to explain it away no matter how implausible are your explanations.

IOW, you have avoided believing up until now so you either do not care to know and prefer to living in ignorant bliss --- or do not want to know because it scares you ---- or you do not want to know because you do not want to be held accountable for your pleasures and choices in life --- so when challenged you will come up with ridiculous ideas to explain away a supernatural manifestation, like mass hallucination of 70,000 at Fatima because everyone is so easily fooled, or like all these statues of Mary or Jesus that weep blood are hoaxes assembled by nuns.

Are you following?

It reminds me of another self-deceived “genius” atheist like Richard Dawkins who laughs at believers, but then says in his book allegedly giving evidence for evolution all occurring on its own ---- "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“the illusion of design.” --- sure, Richard. That’s not science… that is agenda.

 

Does your zealotry and fanatical insistence that politicians seize control of all wombs actually compel you to deny the reality that late term abortion of viable fetuses is illegal? (Severe fetal defects often are not diagnosed until late in pregnancy. These are, fortunately, rare, but tragic situations.)

Please try not to let your derangement divert the topic.

 

How about we make a $500 bet? Can you arrange the process for us both to wire the funds to a neutral account?

 

Your fixation - insisting that politicians should seize control of wombs - is not this thread's topic.

Please take it elsewhere.