Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

I am not fucking kidding. I would go in armed and fight my way to the Italian embassy with my baby. Everything that happens would be on the heads of the British government, who rightly deserved to get whacked for something like this.

This is why we have a second amendment you slavish faggots.

[Speaker to Animals]

He's still alive and breathing on his own, by the way. I guess the British "doctors" are going to have to speed things along before this kid proves just how evil they are.

Starving a child to death is about as evil as you can get.

[Fife]

2018 in one screencap:

[Speaker to Animals]

The UK really has out-Nazid Hitler.

[TheReal_ND]

Ahhhhhh. I just died a little inside

We fought for the wrong side

[C-Mag]

I saw somewhere early this morning that the Italians sent a medical helicopter to the hospital to pick up the patient, and the limey fucks sent out some armed Tommies to repel the invasion. If I see that story again, I'll post a link; maybe some of you all saw it also.

edit: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/95061 ... itizenship

Well that clears up any confusion on what this is really about for the British Government.


Resistence is Futile.

[Speaker to Animals]

The silver lining is that, when UK is majority Muslim, these doctors will be thrown off the roof.

[C-Mag]

This guys deserves to be famous

Sir Anthony Paul Hayden (born 24 June 1961), styled The Hon. Mr Justice Hayden, is a judge of the High Court of England and Wales and former barrister appointed to the High Court.

He was called to the bar at Middle Temple in 1987 and was appointed a Queen's Counsel (QC) in 2002.[1] On 31 July 2013, he was appointed a judge of the High Court of Justice (Family Division).[2]

[Montegriffo]

2018 in one screencap:

Treatment has not been withdrawn, the child is still recieving palliative care.
Perhaps you should find better sources for your information.

Why everyone wants to prolong this poor child's dreadful existence against the medical advice of the doctors who have been treating him for more than half of his life is beyond me.
Sadists.

[Ph64]

These are always tough situations.

To a degree children are perceived as "property" of parents (virtual slavery?) with the assumption that parents will take care of said child in the child's best interest until they are able to make their own decisions. Thus in a divorce "custody" is decided - as if the child is yet another "asset/liability" to be divided up like a house, cars, retirement funds, share of a business, etc.

We've decided that the state does have some role to act in the best interest of a child in certain circumstances if it's deemed the parents are unfit - so it the child show up at school of the hospital frequently with bruises, cuts, broken bones, etc, (signs of abuse) the situation will be questioned and if the parents are found to be abusing said child the state might intervene and take said child into foster care of fine another family member to care for them.

Does anyone question, for instance, that the kids of that lesbian couple that were driven off a cliff the other week should have been taken from that couple after multiple accusations/investigations of abuse in several states that they fled from to avoid? Hindsight is 20/20 of course, they're dead because there was no intervention. Would anyone suggest a child be left in the care of meth-addict parents if its found in the house with them malnourished with a loaded 9mm on the table next to a bag of meth? Most would agree/argue the state has a responsibility to protect that child from obvious danger/abuse.

That being said, how much "state" intervention is too much? There's the mandatory vaccines the anti-vaxxers take issue with, home-schooling vs state education, the elimination of playground equipment as "dangerous" because a child might get hurt - and then not allowing boys with excess energy they're no longer given an outlet for to be in public school unless they take their mandated drugs...

Then there's this case, where the state apparently is arguing the parents are 'unfit' to care for their child because the state sees seeking other options for the child after the state's doctors have deemed him "untreatable" to be "abusive". Is that really what we should consider abuse? Would the couple be considered bad parents for a healthy child?

I dunno. Brings to mind the Terri Schiavo (sp?) in FL years ago, where the parents didn't want to let her go but the husband wanted to take her off life support (where she would die but he could move on). Post-mortem I believe they found literally 1/2 her brain was missing, atrophied to mush - much like this child?

What bothered me the most about that was when Congress tried to get involved. Kinda like I've always said about the abortion debate - I don't like the idea of abortion, but if I was married and my pregnant wife was in a car accident and left in a coma and the doctors said she dies unless the child is aborted, or the child might live but it'll mean she dies... It's a decision I would never want to have to make, but I'd weigh the odds/outcomes the doctors have given me and decide, and honestly I think the govt should fuck off if they want to try to decide for me, not their wife or their child nor will they have to live with the guilt/emotion of the decision.

If, as they seem to be saying, the child is brain dead then it's not consciously feeling pain, so how much is the child really "suffering"? Not sure even medically anyone, even the doctors, know the answer to that. In the Schiavo case it was "parents vs husband" and the court was involved essentially to decide who had more "ownership" rights to the decision making - both had personal involvement. In this case it seems to be "parents vs state" - does/should the state have personal involvement? And should it outweigh the parents?

I have to say I'm cautious about handing the power of life/death over to the state... Heck, I worry about them having the death penalty for "criminals" just because of the many death-row conviction overturned with modern DNA testing, etc. (Not saying I disagree with the death penalty, just that the evidence should be overwhelming and obviously there's some flaws).

Do we allow the state life/death decisions over its citizens, in non-criminal situations, when there are competent family members that oppose it? My opinion is no, I really don't want the state having that power.