How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Okeefenokee]

Out of the tens of thousands that die every day in the U.K., I have one case that looks questionable.

Perhaps for some, JUST ONE TIME is enough to change their entire view on medical care, but I'll be the weird one here and wait for more.

This is not a matter centered on the issue of medical care, since you're so damn dense you haven't figured that out yet.

This is about the state usurping parental authority, and of course you nanny state libshits are all for it.

This is why you want to convince people that evil is just a religious concept, nothing more. If good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are simply concepts in the mind, subjective opinions which can fluidly change from person to person, depending on the circumstances, then you can find a justification for anything.

You can say, yeah I think killing is wrong, but

yeah I think theft is wrong, but

yeah I think violence is wrong, but

and then you come up with whatever justification suits you to explain why murder, theft, and violence are okay in the scenarios you deem righteous.

Murder is wrong, but we gotta do something about these Jews.

Theft is wrong, but we need to redistribute this wealth.

Violence is wrong, but you shouldn't have been wearing that hat.

[Montegriffo]

The doctors have said that despite the serious brain damage they can not rule out Charlie being in pain. He has been on morphine all along and his dose has been increased. Un-necesarily extending his life with no possible chance of a cure is inhumane and that is the harm that both the doctors who have been treating him and the courts have decided exists.
Again, the courts have Charlie's best interests in mind where as the parents understandably didn't want to admit there was no hope.

[The Conservative]

The doctors have said that despite the serious brain damage they can not rule out Charlie being in pain. He has been on morphine all along and his dose has been increased. Un-necesarily extending his life with no possible chance of a cure is inhumane and that is the harm that both the doctors who have been treating him and the courts have decided exists.
Again, the courts have Charlie's best interests in mind where as the parents understandably didn't want to admit there was no hope.

At this point... yes. When this originally started... no, that was not the case.

[Okeefenokee]

Only a nanny stater could argue that a court blocking treatment for a child is an example of them having the best interests of the child in mind, more so than the parents who are seeking treatment.

The court wants your kid to die, and you want him to live, and it's the court that has the best interests of the child in mind.

[Montegriffo]

Only a nanny stater could argue that a court blocking treatment for a child is an example of them having the best interests of the child in mind, more so than the parents who are seeking treatment.

The court wants your kid to die, and you want him to live, and it's the court that has the best interests of the child in mind.

The court wants to prohibit further suffering, the parents want to prolong suffering indefinately. The courts have the best interests of the child in mind.
Parent's rights do not outrank the childs rights.

This has now been pointed out numerous times in at least two different threads so I'm assuming this has derailed into anti-single payer talking points rather than addressing the actual issues.
I'm out.......

[SuburbanFarmer]

Only a nanny stater could argue that a court blocking treatment for a child is an example of them having the best interests of the child in mind, more so than the parents who are seeking treatment.

The court wants your kid to die, and you want him to live, and it's the court that has the best interests of the child in mind.

Hey look, he's repeated his talking points again, and disregarded the entire counter-argument. How refreshing.

[The Conservative]

Only a nanny stater could argue that a court blocking treatment for a child is an example of them having the best interests of the child in mind, more so than the parents who are seeking treatment.

The court wants your kid to die, and you want him to live, and it's the court that has the best interests of the child in mind.

Hey look, he's repeated his talking points again, and disregarded the entire counter-argument. How refreshing.

Which was?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Out of the tens of thousands that die every day in the U.K., I have one case that looks questionable.

Perhaps for some, JUST ONE TIME is enough to change their entire view on medical care, but I'll be the weird one here and wait for more.

This is not a matter centered on the issue of medical care, since you're so damn dense you haven't figured that out yet.

This is about the state usurping parental authority, and of course you nanny state libshits are all for it.

This is why you want to convince people that evil is just a religious concept, nothing more. If good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are simply concepts in the mind, subjective opinions which can fluidly change from person to person, depending on the circumstances, then you can find a justification for anything.

You can say, yeah I think killing is wrong, but

yeah I think theft is wrong, but

yeah I think violence is wrong, but

and then you come up with whatever justification suits you to explain why murder, theft, and violence are okay in the scenarios you deem righteous.

Murder is wrong, but we gotta do something about these Jews.

Theft is wrong, but we need to redistribute this wealth.

Violence is wrong, but you shouldn't have been wearing that hat.

Murder is wrong, but those damn Nazis/Commies/terrorists.

Theft is wrong, but we need oil/bananas/slaves.

Violence is wrong, but these goddamn Muslims are going to a mosque.

Your feathers are a little dirty.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Only a nanny stater could argue that a court blocking treatment for a child is an example of them having the best interests of the child in mind, more so than the parents who are seeking treatment.

The court wants your kid to die, and you want him to live, and it's the court that has the best interests of the child in mind.

Hey look, he's repeated his talking points again, and disregarded the entire counter-argument. How refreshing.

Which was?

122 pages and counting.

[The Conservative]

Hey look, he's repeated his talking points again, and disregarded the entire counter-argument. How refreshing.

Which was?

122 pages and counting.

Let's work out something here, point out where he is wrong and then let's see what the results are, I'm not going through 122 pages to figure out a myopic view of something that you have an issue with.