That is a fantastic rebuttle to an argument I never made.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Matt Walsh: Courts in Europe have sentenced a baby to death. This is socialized medicine.
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
That is a fantastic rebuttle to an argument I never made.
See what I mean Bro. Curtis. That's all this is to him. I'm telling you this is exactly what my first post was talking about.
The point, of course, was not the cost, as that was being born by those who voluntarily funded the child's alternate treatment.
Having lost a child in infancy many decades ago I know I would have done anything possible to try to give that boy every fighting chance available. Had anyone, hospital or court, told me I could not seek other treatment or medical opinion, I would have done whatever was necessary, regardless of the consequences in my own life, to make sure that boy got every chance possible, no matter how remote that chance may have been.
I had a friend in High School who was diagnosed with terminal cancer when he was 16. He parents refused to give up. They sought out some of the strangest alternative treatments imaginable. He celebrated the birth of his first great grand child last month.
Never rob a person of hope. Those with no hope, who think they have nothing to lose, can be very focused on getting a positive result, regardless of the cost to themselves.
The same site Rev Mitch posted from (independent U.K.) had medical professionals stating that this specific case was too far along and the preventative alternate care should have been opted for earlier which I have no problem with. Nor do I think the hospital should take such a hard line and hold the baby hostage. My concern is the runaway train of false hope provided by the media and those without specific knowledge of this individual case much to the horror of those tasked with providing care. It has been insane.
If it were my child I would not calmly sit by and let all of this happen.
The Rule of Law. How many more times do.i have to state the same fact?
Evidently you didn't bother to read the link to judicial review I gave you. They no more 'work for the UK government' than SCOTUS 'works for the US government'. They are independent
Last edited:
No they haven't. The child is medically it the care of the hospital and as such the hospital owe him a duty of care which legally outweighs the duty to comply with the parents' wishes. This is well established in law and nothing new. Think for a moment what your attitude would be if a child was dying from blood loss and the parents refused a transfusion because they were Jehovah's witnesses: I don't think we'd be hearing much about 'the rights of the parents' here!!!
So the hospital owe a duty to Charlie to provide what they in their expert medical opinion believe to be in his best medical interests. His parents disagree. In such an event, the courts are called upon to decide this conflict. The courts have so decided consistently up to the highest level. There is now possible fresh medical evidence which may be of relevance and so the hospital - not the parents might add! - have of their own volition asked the courts to re-open the case.
If people here would quit with the hysterical misinformation and stick with the facts, we might have a decent debate here...
So, you are claiming it is in his "best medical interests" to just let him die?
SCOTUS does work for and is part of the US government! Duh!
So somebody named "Rule of Law" signs their paycheck?
I am not claiming that because I am not qualified to do so and neither are you. The doctors are
Both court systems are funded by the government but are independent of and on occasions overrule it....why else did some of the US courts rule Trump's travel ban unconstitutional?
You do know the difference between 'funded by' and 'works for', don't you? Ok, maybe you don't, judging by what you've put. A simple example then: the police here are 'funded by' my taxes. However, if I break the speed limit they ticket me and thus they do not 'work for me '. Do you see the difference?
All Federal Courts in the US are part of the Judicial Branch of the US Government. To not know that is simple ignorance. To deny it is even worse.
The US Government is divided into three branches.
The Executive Branch.
The Legislative Branch.
The Judicial Branch.
To say that 1/3 of the US Government is not part of the US Government is just ludicrous.
The US Government is divided into three branches.
The Executive Branch.
The Legislative Branch.
The Judicial Branch.
To say that 1/3 of the US Government is not part of the US Government is just ludicrous.
One judge in one branch of the US government (The Judicial Branch) ruled, for political reasons, that another branch of the US government (The Executive Branch) the President's Executive Order, was unconstitutional. The Circuit Court over turned that ruling and the travel restrictions are back in force.
The police, like the courts, work for "We, the People." Yes, the police work for you. They maintain the peace for you along with everyone else in the community. When you breach the peace they correct you on behalf of the rest of the people in the community whose lives you put at risk by your criminal activity. By so doing they hope you will learn your lesson and no longer engage in that criminal activity thereby delivering you from possible incarceration sometime in the future. Which is to your benefit as befits those in uniform who work for you.
Of course that is how it works in a free country. How it works in a socialist dictatorship such as your country may be entirely different as you seem to have surrendered your liberty for whatever reason.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2 AM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 2 AM Pacific.
Who pays them? Do they donate their services?
Since when did we start issuing halos to magistrates? The highest court in the U.S. has deemed it legal to abort unborn children--the ones that are not quite human yet. It is acceptable now--call it freedom of choice instead of murder.
Call Bill Gates. He has enough surplus cash to cover any eventuality.
We are acting out Neo-Darwinism--survival of the fittest.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Call Bill Gates. He has enough surplus cash to cover any eventuality.
We are acting out Neo-Darwinism--survival of the fittest.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
- Status