GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Your declaration of absolute parental sanctity does not cover abusive parents. The state has had override authority on parents since child abuse became a crime.
And if you're not white, they'll take them away at the drop of a hat. When my son was 5 I broke his ankle falling on it horsing around. My wife the social worker was very aware that if we were not white and obviously middle class there would have been some very uncomfortable questions in the ER. Even so, a few extra bruises on an active little boy and we'd have been arrested and guilty until proven innocent.
As for defining abuse, there was the case of Jehovah's witnesses being arrested for the murder of their daughter for withholding medical treatment. It's very much the same issue of the state protecting the child from parents dubious decisions. Children aren't property anymore. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation ... 1308270123
We are only accustomed to dealing with like twenty online personas at a time so when we only have about ten people some people have to be strawmanned in order to advance our same relative go nowhere nonsense positions. -TheReal_ND
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Your declaration of absolute parental sanctity does not cover abusive parents. The state has had override authority on parents since child abuse became a crime.
And if you're not white, they'll take them away at the drop of a hat. When my son was 5 I broke his ankle falling on it horsing around. My wife the social worker was very aware that if we were not white and obviously middle class there would have been some very uncomfortable questions in the ER. Even so, a few extra bruises on an active little boy and we'd have been arrested and guilty until proven innocent.
As for defining abuse, there was the case of Jehovah's witnesses being arrested for the murder of their daughter for withholding medical treatment. It's very much the same issue of the state protecting the child from parents dubious decisions. Children aren't property anymore. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation ... 1308270123
The Jehovah's parental rights vs rights of the child thing has always bothered me - mostly bc of my personal views conflict - God gave man brains (and women smaller brains ) which man has used to create medicine and technology, and the bible does not say to forgo technology (that's someones interpretation).....so why let a parent deny a child medicine on someone's interpretation of an ancient text, when we have the power to cure it?
BTW - there's considerable debate about whether the treatment would work or not for Charlie - but what does he have to loose? he's out cold.....
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Your declaration of absolute parental sanctity does not cover abusive parents. The state has had override authority on parents since child abuse became a crime.
And if you're not white, they'll take them away at the drop of a hat. When my son was 5 I broke his ankle falling on it horsing around. My wife the social worker was very aware that if we were not white and obviously middle class there would have been some very uncomfortable questions in the ER. Even so, a few extra bruises on an active little boy and we'd have been arrested and guilty until proven innocent.
As for defining abuse, there was the case of Jehovah's witnesses being arrested for the murder of their daughter for withholding medical treatment. It's very much the same issue of the state protecting the child from parents dubious decisions. Children aren't property anymore. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation ... 1308270123
If you don't agree with the state telling parents they can't seek outside treatment, you're racist, the post.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
Zlaxer wrote:
Munchausen-by-proxy? So the parents engineered a retro virus to give their son encephalomyopathy mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochond ... n_syndrome :eyesroll:
...if it wasn't about state power, the state wouldn't give a shit....
BTW - there have been positive results from early trials of the 1rst gen of the experimental treatment the Gard's want to try.
First of all, there's no virus involved. Second, mitochondrial diseases are incredibly hard to detect or even verify using DNA analysis - we just cracked the code a few years ago.
Your declaration of absolute parental sanctity does not cover abusive parents. The state has had override authority on parents since child abuse became a crime.
Lolz - I don't even know where to begin.....so I suppose I'll start with Mitochorndia - those little powerhouse single cell organism we most likely absorbed eons ago.....past down through the egg cell.....they have mDNA....Charlies has broken mDNA.....you alleged Munchausen-by-proxy - that's where the parents harm their child for the sake of incurring attention....so - if Charlie has fucked up mDNA, and you allege that the parents are responsible, then they must have engineered a retro virus to break his mDNA - something which is well beyond the abilities of 99.999% of the population out there - thus, your acquisition of Munchausen-by-proxy is shown to be unlikely.....next, you can absolutely test mDNA, and in fact, it looks like Charlie was tested and confirmed positive - http://abcnews.go.com/Health/inside-exp ... d=48723678.
From the article, it looks like the treatment may either be a retro virus that inserts the correct genes and/or a introduces either the protein chains themselves or an intermediate version of transfer RNA (sue me if I got that slightly wrong - I'm not a fucking geneticist). Also, even if he experienced brain damage - an infants brain is so dam plastic that's its hard to know how much cognitive ability he might regain if his cells can be brought back to working condition...
Stop shilling for the British Nanny State......its fucking downright evil at this point....
Come on GCF - mDNA is fucking middle school biology.....and there's always an article or two about genetic engineering advancements in most news sources....
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Your declaration of absolute parental sanctity does not cover abusive parents. The state has had override authority on parents since child abuse became a crime.
And if you're not white, they'll take them away at the drop of a hat. When my son was 5 I broke his ankle falling on it horsing around. My wife the social worker was very aware that if we were not white and obviously middle class there would have been some very uncomfortable questions in the ER. Even so, a few extra bruises on an active little boy and we'd have been arrested and guilty until proven innocent.
As for defining abuse, there was the case of Jehovah's witnesses being arrested for the murder of their daughter for withholding medical treatment. It's very much the same issue of the state protecting the child from parents dubious decisions. Children aren't property anymore. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation ... 1308270123
The Jehovah's parental rights vs rights of the child thing has always bothered me - mostly bc of my personal views conflict - God gave man brains (and women smaller brains ) which man has used to create medicine and technology, and the bible does not say to forgo technology (that's someones interpretation).....so why let a parent deny a child medicine on someone's interpretation of an ancient text, when we have the power to cure it?
BTW - there's considerable debate about whether the treatment would work or not for Charlie - but what does he have to loose? he's out cold.....
I was raised as a JW. The only medical treatment that they would refuse is a blood transfusion, because the Bible prohibits ingestion of blood. I don't agree with the interpretation, but it's a very strong belief of theirs. They all have medical waivers etc saying that they don't want it.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
First of all, there's no virus involved. Second, mitochondrial diseases are incredibly hard to detect or even verify using DNA analysis - we just cracked the code a few years ago.
Your declaration of absolute parental sanctity does not cover abusive parents. The state has had override authority on parents since child abuse became a crime.
Lolz - I don't even know where to begin.....so I suppose I'll start with Mitochorndia - those little powerhouse single cell organism we most likely absorbed eons ago.....past down through the egg cell.....they have mDNA....Charlies has broken mDNA.....you alleged Munchausen-by-proxy - that's where the parents harm their child for the sake of incurring attention....so - if Charlie has fucked up mDNA, and you allege that the parents are responsible, then they must have engineered a retro virus to break his mDNA - something which is well beyond the abilities of 99.999% of the population out there - thus, your acquisition of Munchausen-by-proxy is shown to be unlikely.....next, you can absolutely test mDNA, and in fact, it looks like Charlie was tested and confirmed positive - http://abcnews.go.com/Health/inside-exp ... d=48723678.
From the article, it looks like the treatment may either be a retro virus that inserts the correct genes and/or a introduces either the protein chains themselves or an intermediate version of transfer RNA (sue me if I got that slightly wrong - I'm not a fucking geneticist). Also, even if he experienced brain damage - an infants brain is so dam plastic that's its hard to know how much cognitive ability he might regain if his cells can be brought back to working condition...
Stop shilling for the British Nanny State......its fucking downright evil at this point....
Come on GCF - mDNA is fucking middle school biology.....and there's always an article or two about genetic engineering advancements in most news sources....
I did not allege that this is a case of Munchausens. I said that your sweeping declaration of parental sovereignty would be undone by it, and any other abuse case.
And gene-editing therapy is beyond 100% of the population, because Crispr just became a thing, and we have no idea how to use it yet. The treatment would be the equivalent of hitting a computer to make it load a program.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
I was raised as a JW. The only medical treatment that they would refuse is a blood transfusion, because the Bible prohibits ingestion of blood. I don't agree with the interpretation, but it's a very strong belief of theirs. They all have medical waivers etc saying that they don't want it.
My mistake, the case I linked was Amish. But there's been a sad number of these for various denominations. I agree with Zlaxer about the crazy interpretations of ancient scripture. At least my people just get crazy about stuff like seafood and light switches.
We are only accustomed to dealing with like twenty online personas at a time so when we only have about ten people some people have to be strawmanned in order to advance our same relative go nowhere nonsense positions. -TheReal_ND
Zlaxer wrote:
BTW - there's considerable debate about whether the treatment would work or not for Charlie - but what does he have to loose? he's out cold.....
Simply not true. No one has argued that there is any chance of a cure. This treatment has never been successfull in treating this condition.
The parents refusal to let go is understandable but it is not in the childs best interest to travel thousands of miles for a pointless treatment.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Zlaxer wrote:
BTW - there's considerable debate about whether the treatment would work or not for Charlie - but what does he have to loose? he's out cold.....
Simply not true. No one has argued that there is any chance of a cure. This treatment has never been successfull in treating this condition.
The parents refusal to let go is understandable but it is not in the childs best interest to travel thousands of miles for a pointless treatment.
Read the linked article Monte - wait - that would take too much effort - it's easier just to shill.....
Last edited by Zlaxer on Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
I did not allege that this is a case of Munchausens. I said that your sweeping declaration of parental sovereignty would be undone by it, and any other abuse case.
No - your reasoning is faulty.
In Munchausens, the parents have a condition which causes them to act against the interest of the child (they are the reason the child is sick). In the case at hand, the child has a condition (not deliberately caused by the parents) and the parents whish to subject their child to the experimental treatment based on evidence that the experimental treatment has helped another child with a similar condition. In the first case, parent's act can only hurt the child. In the second case, the act may hurt the child, but may also help the child - its a risk/reward decision that belongs to the parents and not the state.
) which man has used to create medicine and technology, and the bible does not say to forgo technology (that's someones interpretation).....so why let a parent deny a child medicine on someone's interpretation of an ancient text, when we have the power to cure it? 
