Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess parents should all turn their kids over to the government to be raised. I mean, either it's the parents' responsibility...or it isn't. Make up your freaking minds.
It's none of society's business what they CHOOSE to do in this matter. Butt the F out.
I guess parents should all turn their kids over to the government to be raised. I mean, either it's the parents' responsibility...or it isn't. Make up your freaking minds.
It's none of society's business what they CHOOSE to do in this matter. Butt the F out.
So parents can beat and torture their kids as they wish? Beating kids used to be justified as a form of "disciplining" kids.
Which makes this entire thread irrelevant, since none of us here will have any relevant effect on the outcome.
So, to get to the irrelevant meat of the matter... you believe that an individual does not have rights to their own body until their body has existed X number of days and they can pass a literacy test.
I believe that individual rights to one's body are inherent and inalienable.
This is not an embryo...this is a thirteen year old boy who knows what chemo involves and HE doesn't want it. It's a mother protecting her child.
A N D :
It proves that with our system of health care
there is NO CHOICE.
NOW we have FORCED medical procedures.
We have a country that can take your child and force it to have sickening, debilitating, exspensive medical procedures!!!
What FORCED medical procedure will be next ????
YOUR child gets a illness and YOU go to JAIL !!!!!
Think it over.....who will be next??????
I completely agree with you. I think the OP was trying to make this into an abortion thread, but the real issue here is that a boy is being denied the right to choose his medical treatment.
Chemo is NOT proven to be a cure, and can do more damage than good. In fact you are more likely to die sooner if you have had chemo or radiation than if you just let the disease run it's course.
I would never get chemo if I was diagnosed with cancer. There are alternatives that our government won't allow because the cancer industry would suffer, and they make waaaaay to much money from them.
In many cases chemo is shown to be no more effective than a sugar pill.
I say take the kid to Mexico and try to get him into the Gerson Institute.
If it is certain that a treatment will work and the child is obviously getting sicker I say the parent should do the procedure, but in the case of cancer it is not the same.
Which makes this entire thread irrelevant, since none of us here will have any relevant effect on the outcome.
So, to get to the irrelevant meat of the matter... you believe that an individual does not have rights to their own body until their body has existed X number of days and they can pass a literacy test.
I believe that individual rights to one's body are inherent and inalienable.
That is the crux of the disagreement.
Your belief about the primacy of individual rights (even in cases where the person is a minor and incompetent) is irrelevant in the face of current law. And rights are legal fictions that are accorded by social contract. They are not "inherent" or "inalienable" as you'd like to believe. 10,000 years ago, humans did not mope around thinking they had "inherent and inalienable" rights. Society has had to invent those concepts.
Your belief about the primacy of individual rights (even in cases where the person is a minor and incompetent) is irrelevant in the face of current law. And rights are legal fictions that are accorded by social contract. They are not "inherent" or "inalienable" as you'd like to believe. 10,000 years ago, humans did not mope around thinking they had "inherent and inalienable" rights. Society has had to invent those concepts.
If individual claims to rights were irrelevant in the face of current law, then how is it possible that this boy could run away? After all, if it is impossible to claim any rights to his body, then it is impossible to *act* on that claim. And if he cannot act, then he could not run away.
Law is often nothing more than punishment for exercising an individual right, laws against theft and violence excluded, of course.
So this boy did indeed exercise is rights over his body, and now the state, with your support, is going to use whatever violence necessary to punish him for it.
Rights were "invented" as a reaction to the invention of "law". Prior to law, rights were as ubiquitous as air.
This child has, with support, made his wishes for his body known in no uncertain terms. Not "I don't understand," but "NO!".
But because he's making bad decisions at age 13 instead of age 18, he doesn't have rights to his own body?
I disagree.
So does he.
When my daughter was about that age she absolutely hated the dentist.
She was not illiterate or uninformed or unable to understand .
Yet,left up to her, she simply would not have gone.
According to you I should have left that decision up to her ?
I didn't allow playing at the rivers edge....my son wanted to....I should have let him decide?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
