estradling75 Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, JayKi said: The government can not give in to every appeal and offer alternative. There will be many appeal every day. Is important to trust the government act in best interest of all people not just for one child. Is a hard moral dilemma and I don't know legal process as I never train as Coroner. It appears you did not understand what I wrote. You are challenging me on an idea I granted as sucky but needful and didn't even come close to addressing my point. Let me simply it. Alfie is starving on the streets and is about to die. @JayKi (representing the British Government) says I can not afford to give Alfie a sandwich. I as a third party looks on an think that you not being able to give Alfie a sandwich kind of sucks but if you can't then you can not. Then @Vort (as Rome) and says "I'll give Alfie a Sandwich" And I am thinking great now everyone can be happy. @JayKi does not have to give a sandwich he can't afford. Alfie gets his sandwich and @Vort gets to be Charitably Christian. Its a win for all. Then @JayKi body blocks @Vort and wrestles the sandwich from him and throws it in the garage. While screaming "No I said this was not going to happen". How is that more efficient? How is that better use of the resources then simply doing nothing? How is it better for all? How is that anything less then repulsively evil? Edited April 30, 2018 by estradling75 Vort, zil and Just_A_Guy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 10 hours ago, JayKi said: The government can not give in to every appeal and offer alternative. There will be many appeal every day. Is important to trust the government act in best interest of all people not just for one child. Is a hard moral dilemma and I don't know legal process as I never train as Coroner. AND THAT IS WHY GEORGE WASHINGTON KICKED BRITISH BUTT - to free the British subjects in America from this type of idiocy. Any person who trusts a government to act in the best interest of all people and not the best interest of government is an idiot. Yes, I said that. The beauty of the US Constitution is that IT LIMITS THE POWER of the government. It is not a moral dilemma. It is pretty simple. MY CHILD DOES NOT BELONG TO ANY GOVERNMENT. And he does not belong to the doctor. And that is why I will always fight to preserve our rights to defend ourselves from the government. Government decides to starve my child to death, then I'm waging war to free myself from that government. And about Jehovah's Witnesses - it is pretty hypocritical of you to say a Jehovah's Witness can't kill his child but the government can. unixknight, Just_A_Guy, Vort and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 Anatess beat me to it. I was going to highlight JayKi's "trust the government" comment, and throw a massive melodramatic temper tantrum that could have been seen from space. JayKi, yeah, it's probably best if you don't come to America to live. I wish you well in your endeavors outside of America. The world is full of happy people happily trusting their governments to make life and death decisions for them. I want as few of them in my country as possible. zil, Vort, unixknight and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 One of my best friends is an atheist, and she made a great point about this. (paraphrasing) "It's because of my atheism that I think he should have been given the chance at treatment. This was his only shot and the state took it away from him." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 So, for the sake of argument/discussion and because I currently work in child welfare land, I’ll make one limiting argument as to why the state may have some interest here. I think there are *some* situations, hypothetically, where treatment is so painful/invasive and unlikely to succeed, that the state may need to step in. If parents, for example, wanted to fly their terminally ill cancer-stricken child to Belarus because there’s some doctor there who says you can save a cancer patient by amputating their arms and legs and ears without anesthesia—that sort of thing probably merits state action. But it sounds like in both Alfie’s and Charlie’s cases, there wasn’t much concern about the pain involved in further treatment per se; it was more about (supposedly) letting those boys “die with dignity” by not having them linger in their weakened states and by compelling them and their families to accept the prospect of imminent death. Vort and NeuroTypical 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 I understand your POV @Just_A_Guy and I don't disagree with you. May I play devils advocate for a minute? This is in regards to both state involvement and the previous posts about JW refusing to donate blood. When the state forces a Jeohva's Witness to do things against their faith, then it becomes sort of hypocritical if you (generic) whine and complain about the government forcing you to do something that contradicts your faith. IE- The next prophet says that all vaccines are evil and forbids active LDS from getting them. You comply. The government forces you to vaccinate your kids against small pox or they'll take them away from you. You (Again, generic) jump up and down. The Jehovahs Witness sits on the sidelines and says "Ha ha ha now you know what it feels like." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, MormonGator said: I understand your POV @Just_A_Guy and I don't disagree with you. May I play devils advocate for a minute? This is in regards to both state involvement and the previous posts about JW refusing to donate blood. When the state forces a Jeohva's Witness to do things against their faith, then it becomes sort of hypocritical if you (generic) whine and complain about the government forcing you to do something that contradicts your faith. IE- The next prophet says that all vaccines are evil and forbids active LDS from getting them. You comply. The government forces you to vaccinate your kids against small pox or they'll take them away from you. You (Again, generic) jump up and down. The Jehovahs Witness sits on the sidelines and says "Ha ha ha now you know what it feels like." It’s hypocritical if you look at religious liberty as an absolute that must *never* be infringed upon regardless of the consequences; sure. But I think most folks would acknowledge, upon reflection, that there needs to be some balancing between free exercise of one’s religion versus the harm that that free exercise imposes on third parties. The irritating thing is when that balancing tests becomes subsumed by a general list of favored-versus-disfavored religions: Muslims can be polygamists, Mormons can’t; Catholics are traitorous for venerating foreign holy men but Buddhists aren’t, etc. Edited April 30, 2018 by Just_A_Guy NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 Society has a duty to protect children from harm. Society also has a duty to define "society", "duty", "protect", "children", and "harm". No matter how those terms end up getting defined, someone will be unhappy. So we try to use a thing called a "Reasonable man standard". Kind of subjective, but it's an important thing. Vaccines aren't evil, no matter who says they are. So says the reasonable man, after reviewing relevant data. Medical care isn't evil either, so says the reasonable man. Heh. "Reasonable man". Think about how the average person you know. Now think half the population is dumber than that person. This is why we pray for God's help. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKi Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 2 hours ago, anatess2 said: AND THAT IS WHY GEORGE WASHINGTON KICKED BRITISH BUTT - to free the British subjects in America from this type of idiocy. Any person who trusts a government to act in the best interest of all people and not the best interest of government is an idiot. Yes, I said that. The beauty of the US Constitution is that IT LIMITS THE POWER of the government. It is not a moral dilemma. It is pretty simple. MY CHILD DOES NOT BELONG TO ANY GOVERNMENT. And he does not belong to the doctor. And that is why I will always fight to preserve our rights to defend ourselves from the government. Government decides to starve my child to death, then I'm waging war to free myself from that government. And about Jehovah's Witnesses - it is pretty hypocritical of you to say a Jehovah's Witness can't kill his child but the government can. No is wrong. You as parent are irrational, the child has degenerative neurological condition that means he will deteriorate until death. He won't have quality of life and the government is right it is better the child to die. Every day parents make this decision, do we turn off life support. The way is works is that child has human rights if you as parent violate them, the government will step in. If someone is abuse their child, you think is wrong for government agencies to step in? I never said about Jehovah's Witness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Society has a duty to protect children from harm. Society also has a duty to define "society", "duty", "protect", "children", and "harm". No matter how those terms end up getting defined, someone will be unhappy. So we try to use a thing called a "Reasonable man standard". Kind of subjective, but it's an important thing. Vaccines aren't evil, no matter who says they are. So says the reasonable man, after reviewing relevant data. Medical care isn't evil either, so says the reasonable man. Heh. "Reasonable man". Think about how the average person you know. Now think half the population is dumber than that person. This is why we pray for God's help. Me: The government can't be left to define what is reasonable. Therefore, in a matter of life and death, the government SHOULD BE SUPER LIMITED when it sides for death - and yes, I am not a fan of Capital Punishment. Vort and NeuroTypical 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKi Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said: Anatess beat me to it. I was going to highlight JayKi's "trust the government" comment, and throw a massive melodramatic temper tantrum that could have been seen from space. JayKi, yeah, it's probably best if you don't come to America to live. I wish you well in your endeavors outside of America. The world is full of happy people happily trusting their governments to make life and death decisions for them. I want as few of them in my country as possible. You are just paranoid person not trusting government. Have lots of conspiracy theories but was does it benefit your life to not trust the government ? Nada no benefit. so keep looking at who shot JFK or whatever Americans do and have paranoia. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, JayKi said: No is wrong. You as parent are irrational, the child has degenerative neurological condition that means he will deteriorate until death. He won't have quality of life and the government is right it is better the child to die. Every day parents make this decision, do we turn off life support. The way is works is that child has human rights if you as parent violate them, the government will step in. If someone is abuse their child, you think is wrong for government agencies to step in? I never said about Jehovah's Witness Yeah, stay in Britain and do not leave Britain. HOW DARE YOU DECIDE THAT A CHILD - WHOSE PRIMARY PROTECTION IS HIS PARENTS - HAS THE RIGHT TO DIE AGAINST THE WISHES OF HIS PARENTS??? And how dare you decide what is rational and irrational for OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN? Everyday, parents make this decision - do I have one more avenue to give my child a chance to live? THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MAKE THAT DECISION. Especially not a government led by childless leaders. And if they do, then that government do not deserve to be counted among a progressive western civilization. Rather, that government has REGRESSED to radical authoritarianism. Please do not spread that poison elsewhere. Now, I wonder what this guy will say if it was his child being barricaded inside the hospital: Edited April 30, 2018 by anatess2 Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKi Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 3 hours ago, estradling75 said: It appears you did not understand what I wrote. You are challenging me on an idea I granted as sucky but needful and didn't even come close to addressing my point. Let me simply it. Alfie is starving on the streets and is about to die. @JayKi (representing the British Government) says I can not afford to give Alfie a sandwich. I as a third party looks on an think that you not being able to give Alfie a sandwich kind of sucks but if you can't then you can not. Then @Vort (as Rome) and says "I'll give Alfie a Sandwich" And I am thinking great now everyone can be happy. @JayKi does not have to give a sandwich he can't afford. Alfie gets his sandwich and @Vort gets to be Charitably Christian. Its a win for all. Then @JayKi body blocks @Vort and wrestles the sandwich from him and throws it in the garage. While screaming "No I said this was not going to happen". How is that more efficient? How is that better use of the resources then simply doing nothing? How is it better for all? How is that anything less then repulsively evil? Is more than money. Alfie get sandwich every day but he is still starving. What is point of giving him sandwich? Is same Alfie get medication every day but his condition it gets no better. His quality of life is low and is kinder for him to die. Is selfish to keep him alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, JayKi said: You are just paranoid person not trusting government. Heh. May I suggest some light reading? http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ Colirio, anatess2, Vort and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKi Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 1 minute ago, anatess2 said: Yeah, stay in Britain and do not leave Britain. HOW DARE YOU DECIDE THAT A CHILD - WHOSE PRIMARY PROTECTION IS HIS PARENTS - HAS THE RIGHT TO DIE AGAINST THE WISHES OF HIS PARENTS??? Everyday parent make this decision - do I have one more avenue to give my child a chance to live? THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MAKE THAT DECISION. And if they do, then that government do not deserve to be counted among a progressive western civilization. Rather, that government has REGRESSED to radical authoritarianism. Please do not spread that poison elsewhere. No because the government acts in best interest of the child. The parents in my opinion were being selfish and government stepped in and did what best for the child. If I was parent and I starve my child, you think is wrong for government to take my child from me? I will be surgeon in Costa Rica once I train in England is complete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, JayKi said: You are just paranoid person not trusting government. Have lots of conspiracy theories but was does it benefit your life to not trust the government ? Nada no benefit. so keep looking at who shot JFK or whatever Americans do and have paranoia. Do I need to remind you of what your government is capable of doing? Want me to give you a history lesson of India? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, JayKi said: Is more than money. Alfie get sandwich every day but he is still starving. What is point of giving him sandwich? Is same Alfie get medication every day but his condition it gets no better. His quality of life is low and is kinder for him to die. Is selfish to keep him alive. According to who??? Who do you want deciding to pull the plug on you? Some faceless government bureaucrat who does not care if you live or die.. Or the people/person that loves you who is willing to fight for you, but at the same time joins you in your suffering. But according to you it is kinder for him to slowly starve to death then to actually fight for him... That is a warped sense of kindness Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, JayKi said: No because the government acts in best interest of the child. The parents in my opinion were being selfish and government stepped in and did what best for the child. If I was parent and I starve my child, you think is wrong for government to take my child from me? I will be surgeon in Costa Rica once I train in England is complete That is the opinion of JayKi. You do not have the authority to decide what is best for MY CHILD. Try it with my child and you will find out why wars are fought. Edited April 30, 2018 by anatess2 unixknight 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKi Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 Just now, anatess2 said: Do I need to remind you of what your government is capable of doing? Want me to give you a history lesson of India? I am not English I am from Costa Rica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Now think half the population is dumber than that person. I think all of us (including you, me, everyone) know much less than we think we do, frankly. About virtually everything. Socrates was right. The wisest man among us knows how little they know. 53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: It’s hypocritical if you look at religious liberty as an absolute that must *never* be infringed upon regardless of the consequences; sure. But I think most folks would acknowledge, upon reflection, that there needs to be some balancing between free exercise of one’s religion versus the harm that that free exercise imposes on third parties. The irritating thing is when that balancing tests becomes subsumed by a general list of favored-versus-disfavored religions: Muslims can be polygamists, Mormons can’t; Catholics are traitorous for venerating foreign holy men but Buddhists aren’t, etc. I agree totally @Just_A_Guy. And remember-everyone loves a good joke about Catholic priests, but if any non-LDS makes a joke about endowment clothes, gloves are coming off pal. And everyone loves a good joke about LDS endowment clothing, but if anyone says something about Martin Luther and his drinking problems, gloves are coming off pal. etc, etc, etc. Edited April 30, 2018 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, JayKi said: I am not English I am from Costa Rica. Do not migrate to the USA or the Philippines. Stay in Costa Rica or Britain. We don't want that kind of arrogance that you have thinking you (and the government!) are all-knowing while parents are "selfish" because they want their child to LIVE! Edited April 30, 2018 by anatess2 Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKi Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, estradling75 said: According to who??? Who do you want deciding to pull the plug on you? Some faceless government bureaucrat who does not care if you live or die.. Or the people/person that loves you who is willing to fight for you, but at the same time joins you in your suffering. But according to you it is kinder for him to slowly starve to death then to actually fight for him... That is a warped sense of kindness I won't care who pull plug on me if I am in vegetative state. Look it is sad but he would never live any kind of life, his parent were irrational, the government stepped in acted in best interest for the child. Not every life is saveable is a sad truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 1 minute ago, JayKi said: I won't care who pull plug on me if I am in vegetative state. Look it is sad but he would never live any kind of life, his parent were irrational, the government stepped in acted in best interest for the child. Not every life is saveable is a sad truth. The government does not have the authority to make that decision. That's what LIBERTY means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKi Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 1 minute ago, anatess2 said: Do not migrate to the USA or the Philippines. Stay in Costa Rica or Britain. We don't want that kind of arrogance that you have thinking you (and the government!) are all-knowing while parents are "selfish". But you just think the opposite . If medical professional are telling you that he will never recover, he will spend the rest of his life in a vegetative state and you ignore that as a parent is irrational. Don't go into medical profession you wouldn't last a day with your irrational thoughts and naive hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted April 30, 2018 Report Share Posted April 30, 2018 Just now, JayKi said: I won't care who pull plug on me if I am in vegetative state. Look it is sad but he would never live any kind of life, his parent were irrational, the government stepped in acted in best interest for the child. Not every life is saveable is a sad truth. Way to dodge the question... I declare @JayKi in a vegetative state... Don't listen to his protest because he is not an expert like I am... And don't listen to other "experts" because they are not as "expert" as me. And if you don't care because you are in a vegetative state then what is the issue with keeping you alive as long as someone is willing to pay for it... after all you do not care you a vegetable Grunt and Vort 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.