nmoore63 wrote:if there is no child left, how does keeping it alive hurt it?
You mean because the child is braindead, there "is no child left"? Well, I don't know, Nick.... Do you think it should be legal for the parents to hammer nails into the child's flesh, and use it an inanimate meat doll to re-live and replay moments of the child's history while it's kept alive by a machine? After all, if that's the parent's choice and it doesn't hurt the child... Both living, dying and DEAD children ought to have a right to be treated with dignity. They are persons, not things.
Fuck off, cunt.
Suffocating and starving a toddler isn't fucking dignified.
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.
nmoore63 wrote:if there is no child left, how does keeping it alive hurt it?
You mean because the child is braindead, there "is no child left"? Well, I don't know, Nick.... Do you think it should be legal for the parents to hammer nails into the child's flesh, and use it an inanimate meat doll to re-live and replay moments of the child's history while it's kept alive by a machine? After all, if that's the parent's choice and it doesn't hurt the child... Both living, dying and DEAD children ought to have a right to be treated with dignity. They are persons, not things.
Fuck off, cunt.
Suffocating and starving a toddler isn't fucking dignified.
Shush, Okie. Child abuse and murder are both illegal AND immoral as shit.... if YOU are the culprit, you mean old pappy.
When it's the kind and gentle guiding hand of the benevolent state, however . . .
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.
nmoore63 wrote:if there is no child left, how does keeping it alive hurt it?
You mean because the child is braindead, there "is no child left"? Well, I don't know, Nick.... Do you think it should be legal for the parents to hammer nails into the child's flesh, and use it an inanimate meat doll to re-live and replay moments of the child's history while it's kept alive by a machine? After all, if that's the parent's choice and it doesn't hurt the child... Both living, dying and DEAD children ought to have a right to be treated with dignity. They are persons, not things.
Fuck off, cunt.
Suffocating and starving a toddler isn't fucking dignified.
Not saying that starving a toddler who is already dying is dignified. But either fuck off, or tell me how you make this child's death more dignified, then? Come on, cunt, give us solutions. Simply let it off the life support, give it a last drop of the IV, and let nature take it's course? I have no objection to that. Keep it permanently on life support? No and fuck off, you degenerate baby-raper.
Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:
The parents aren't doctors, which pretty well establishes that they aren't in the best position to make medical decisions.
As to which acts we would consider murder, it isn't so much who is agreeing with the court, but that they agree with the court. If we aren't using that as the guide, then 'murder' is just a term of art for killing I want to moralize about, eg. 'meat is murder.'
I’m not a doctor, yet I am able to make medical decisions, parents aren’t doctors, yet on behalf of their children they are able to make medical decisions. Only when it is established that parents are unfit to make medical decisions does the state take over. Not sure what makes them unfit, it is not obviously unreasonable that these parents insist their child be given life support.
It isn't obviously unreasonable, which is, presumably, why it went to the courts. I am not sure that a court decision being unpopular, or counter intuitive means it is illegitimate, though.
The arguments for why it is unreasonable are illegitimate in that they fall flat on their face when scrutinized though, but maybe evidence in the courtroom presented was much superior to the efforts of you and montegriffo?
You are not God. It is not your right to decide when an innocent life ends. Your responsibility is to alleviate suffering. You can do that with pain medications and sedatives, for instance.
And if this child is truly "brain dead" as the English Nazi breathlessly exclaims every time people point out he's technically on the side of national socialism with this one, then he cannot suffer.
nmoore63 wrote:if there is no child left, how does keeping it alive hurt it?
You mean because the child is braindead, there "is no child left"? Well, I don't know, Nick.... Do you think it should be legal for the parents to hammer nails into the child's flesh, and use it an inanimate meat doll to re-live and replay moments of the child's history while it's kept alive by a machine? After all, if that's the parent's choice and it doesn't hurt the child... Both living, dying and DEAD children ought to have a right to be treated with dignity. They are persons, not things.
I think there is a obvious difference between feeding a brain dead child and mutilating a dead corpse.
Alternatively, if we continue down the government line that the child has nothing left to live for, they are still failing even a utilitarian test.
The nonsuffering child, can't be suffering otherwise not feeding it would make them torturers, is indifferent to existence, but the parents' suffering is increased.
When government can't even pass a theoretical utilitarian test... you know its bad.
Both living, dying and DEAD children ought to have a right to be treated with dignity. They are persons, not things.
