For WM: Heroic 13 yr Old Boy and Parents Bravely Resist Court Ordered Chemotherapy

Superfreak said:
Our society is designed to take the burden off of the kids as much as we can. That does not equate to the teenagers being incapable of making an informed decision on something important.
Click to expand...
This was, in large part, the basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade. The Assenting opinion even stated that the parents cannot force you to become a martyr. If they can make such a decision effecting the rest of their life, they could certainly make even this one.
 
Superfreak said:
Our society is designed to take the burden off of the kids as much as we can. That does not equate to the teenagers being incapable of making an informed decision on something important.
Click to expand...

I've explained the difference many times.

The court determines the exception to the rule.

Teenagers cannot take care of themselves.

They NEED their parents nd the state to protect them.
 
Dungheap said:
Not necessarily. Nor should a court necessarily assess whether a minor looking to carry a pregnancy to term assess whether she fully understands the consequences of such an action.
Click to expand...

Fair enough to look at the other side of that, but then I don't believe I understand the following from your previous post....

"The courts should function to ensure not that the minor makes the "right" decision, but that the minor is (1) capable of understanding the effects of his or her decision and (2) is reasonably informed of the alternatives."

If the court is to do this, would they not have to do so for every child? Or how does the case get brought to the court? Who is the one who determines that?
 
blackascoal said:
I've explained the difference many times.

The court determines the exception to the rule.

Teenagers cannot take care of themselves.

They NEED their parents nd the state to protect them.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT.

Saying that they 'cannot take care of themselves' is completely different than 'should not HAVE to take care of themselves'.

Further, we are not saying the teenagers SHOULD take care of themselves. We are saying that the teenagers are capable of the critical thinking needed to make an informed decision. Your assertation to the contrary is simply false.

Epi is correct in stating that critical thinking can be done even younger than what we are discussing. There is no magic fairy that comes and delivers critical thinking capabilities upon turning 18.

If teenagers were as incapable of critical thought as you seem to be implying, then they should not be driving vehicles until 18 either.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
should have just met them with bullets.
Click to expand...

Yes, they should have met the murderous animals with bullets. I like your way of thinking SMY. People who think they have a right to torture their children to death don't deserve life. You don't own your children. They are not slaves for you to conduct your alternative "medicine" experiments on.
 
Superfreak said:
BULLSHIT.

Saying that they 'cannot take care of themselves' is completely different than 'should not HAVE to take care of themselves'.

Further, we are not saying the teenagers SHOULD take care of themselves. We are saying that the teenagers are capable of the critical thinking needed to make an informed decision. Your assertation to the contrary is simply false.

Epi is correct in stating that critical thinking can be done even younger than what we are discussing. There is no magic fairy that comes and delivers critical thinking capabilities upon turning 18.

If teenagers were as incapable of critical thought as you seem to be implying, then they should not be driving vehicles until 18 either.
Click to expand...

That's fallacious. Driving a vehicle does not require deep, complex thought. It doesn't involve your higher thinking functions that are effected by maturity. Deciding to not undergo necessary treatment to save your life because of brainwashing at the hands of your murderous scum parents shows clear signs of immaturity. Parents don't own their children. They don't have the right to murder them. These parents should be put in prison for the rest of their life.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, they should have met the murderous animals with bullets. I like your way of thinking SMY. People who think they have a right to torture their children to death don't deserve life. You don't own your children. They are not slaves for you to conduct your alternative "medicine" experiments on.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity... have you ever tried accupuncture or other Eastern practices?
 
Watermark said:
Yes, they should have met the murderous animals with bullets. I like your way of thinking SMY. People who think they have a right to torture their children to death don't deserve life. You don't own your children. They are not slaves for you to conduct your alternative "medicine" experiments on.
Click to expand...

No, a parent does not OWN a child, of that I will agree. What a parent DOES have, though, is a responsibility to raise and nurture that child in to a being able to effectively take care of him/herself and to be productive in society. That wonderful and diverse society that liberals are very fond of promoting in theory, but failing to back it up in practice. Diversity in society is brought on by the individual family units. It's one thing for the state to step in if the parents just refuse to provide treatment at all, it's totally unconscionable for the state to step in and tell a parent how to raise and care for their child if that parent is already doing so according to their own beliefs. That is what the issue is here. These parents are being denied the freedom to choose, for their own family, how they will live their lives. The founders would have stopped them at the bridge.
 
Watermark said:
I've tried the medicine they use in the east in the modern world.
Click to expand...

I bet you would find huge swathes of rural areas in countries like China, Laos, Burma, and other Southeast Asian nations where the medicine you ethnocentrically deem "alternative" is more commonly used than expensive Western procedures and equipment.
 
Superfreak said:
Fair enough to look at the other side of that, but then I don't believe I understand the following from your previous post....

"The courts should function to ensure not that the minor makes the "right" decision, but that the minor is (1) capable of understanding the effects of his or her decision and (2) is reasonably informed of the alternatives."

If the court is to do this, would they not have to do so for every child? Or how does the case get brought to the court? Who is the one who determines that?
Click to expand...


How did this case get to court?
 
Dungheap said:
How did this case get to court?
Click to expand...

I do not know the answer to that... I would guess that the hospital or doctor intiated it somehow. Maybe via child services? Which was where I was going with this...

Who made the decision to send it to the court in the first place?
 
Epicurus said:
I bet you would find huge swathes of rural areas in countries like China, Laos, Burma, and other Southeast Asian nations where the medicine you ethnocentrically deem "alternative" is more commonly used than expensive Western procedures and equipment.
Click to expand...

It's not ethnocentricity, Epic. I'm pretty sure you've seen me criticize homeopathy and the antivax movement as well. I criticize all methods that refuse to subject their works to double-blinded, scientific studies, fail when they do, and then claim that they are immune to scientific studies because of energy fields or some other nonsense. These procedures are cheap, sure. Dirt is also cheap. That doesn't mean you'll ingest it to treat cancer.

The fact that these procedures have been practiced for a long time is not a defense for them. The advantage of the scientific method is that it changes when new evidence comes in. There are no holy cows. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work, and that's that. With acupuncture, it hasn't changed at all. It isn't open to change. You never hear an acupuncturist say "Hey, when I was treating this boy with cancer with acupuncture he died. Do you think maybe the second chi field on the right is overrun and that we may have to rewrite the textbooks?" Nope. That's not how it works. It works because it works, and fuck you and your stupid "evidence" that says otherwise.

BTW, science, after all these years, HAS figured out the function behind acupuncture. It's the placebo effect. It's well documented that fancy sugar pills give a stronger placebo effect than plain pills. So, acupuncture is just a very, very fancy placebo. Since it's a placebo, we can't use it for medical treatment. We can't tell people "Hey, look, this doesn't actually do anything real, but if you use it and you think it does the placebo effect will kick in and it'll ehlp." And we can't lie to them, because that would be unethical. And the applications of placeboes are limited - they can't at all be used to fight cancer. They have use in pain relief, because the brain has power over that region. And that's about it.
 
Superfreak said:
BULLSHIT.

Saying that they 'cannot take care of themselves' is completely different than 'should not HAVE to take care of themselves'.

Further, we are not saying the teenagers SHOULD take care of themselves. We are saying that the teenagers are capable of the critical thinking needed to make an informed decision. Your assertation to the contrary is simply false.

Epi is correct in stating that critical thinking can be done even younger than what we are discussing. There is no magic fairy that comes and delivers critical thinking capabilities upon turning 18.

If teenagers were as incapable of critical thought as you seem to be implying, then they should not be driving vehicles until 18 either.
Click to expand...

Your argument is ridiculous.

ALL states prohibit 16 year-olds from drinking alcohol, buying cigarettes, and purchasing handguns. What do you think the thought is on 13 year-olds?

No one in their right mind would consider sending 16 year-olds off to war. What do you think the thought is on 13 year-olds?

Even using your own example, teenagers account for more fatal car accidents than any other age group .. thus giving rationale for those who believe they shouldn't get drivers licenses until they turn 18.

Sure some are more capable than others, but society must judge on the basis of the whole, not the exception.

Feel free to believe that teenagers are adults or are just as capable of critical thinking as adults are. I have no problem with what you believe.
 
The hypocrisy of the right wingnuts is amazing. The same people who want to control a woman's life now think helping a child live is wrong. How one can hold those conflicting thoughts is wild. Aborting cells is wrong but killing a child is fine!

Do parents have the right to allow their child to die once that child is able to live a life. I saw this with neighbors who allowed several of their children to deteriorate and die, even as people and the state tried to save them. If one thinks that is good there is no hope for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top