• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

tres borrachos said:
It had to do with what I was saying. I've been asking what happened to "her body, her choice". Abortion is a medical procedure she is granted the choice to make. She should be granted the same right in this case. Just like nobody can force her to carry a pregnancy to term, nobody should be able to force her to inject chemo into her body.
Click to expand...

This thread has nothing to do with abortion though. This thread has to do with consent. As it stands, Connecticut abortion laws and consent in regards to those, has nothing to do with whether the minor can deny/consent to other medical treatments. As a matter of fact, Connecticut makes it clear that it's pretty much case by case issue when it comes to medical procedures. In some, consent from the minor is required. In others, the state doesn't even need that.
 
Hatuey said:
Depriving them of food. No specific food groups in question, just food in general. Go.
Click to expand...
Yes I would consider that neglect, depending on the child and their health, it may or may not be required to remove them from the home.

Hatuey said:
I think you're actually ignoring the fact that these acts must be taken towards the child and a history of abuse must be demonstrated, not just the fact that the parent drops the F bomb around the child every now and then.
Click to expand...
Not in my state. My buddy's little girl broke her arm after falling backwards over the dog. DYFS interviewed him and his wife and required two months of no notice check ins. This was their first child and neither of them have a criminal record nor a history of child abuse / sexual abuse.

Hatuey said:
So then when the parent fails to ensure the welfare of that child through their actions, should there be no penalty? I mean, after all, they had "a right" to do so.
Click to expand...
Last I checked chemo wasn't part of the new food pyramid, nor constitutes as shelter or clothing.

Hatuey said:
So for example: a parent who takes 5 years to starve their child to death, should the state not step in because there is "immediate death" involved?
Click to expand...
Presumably, during the last months of that year, there would be an opportunity for immediate death given your scenario.

Hatuey said:
Why is "immediacy" an issue when reality is that refusing the treatment guarantees she will die?
Click to expand...
Because the state is not the parent/guardian of the child. If the child is 17 and will be 18 in a few months which makes them a legal adult and the parent agrees with no treatment and the child agrees to no treatment - yes if she dies then it's their choice.
 
Hatuey said:
This thread has nothing to do with abortion though. This thread has to do with consent. As it stands, Connecticut abortion laws and consent in regards to those, has nothing to do with whether the minor can deny/consent to other medical treatments. As a matter of fact, Connecticut makes it clear that it's pretty much case by case issue when it comes to medical procedures. In some, consent from the minor is required. In others, the state doesn't even need that.
Click to expand...

The thread has to do with her body. The state doesn't get to pick and choose when it's her body to make decisions on, and when it isn't.

If you don't see the hypocrisy, I can't help you. I see it, and I know I'm not alone.
 
tres borrachos said:
The thread has to do with her body. The state doesn't get to pick and choose when it's her body to make decisions on, and when it isn't.
Click to expand...

Considering Connecticut state law, it actually does. Why do you have a problem with Connecticut state law? Do you live there or something?
 
tres borrachos said:
And your post was in response to my post to Minnie about abortion. What is it you didn't understand? I wasn't talking about her legal right to sign a contract or buy a house. I was taking about abortion. So what are you confused about that you need me to clarify for you?
Click to expand...

It's not worth the effort. I've made my points elsewhere.
 
Hatuey said:
Considering Connecticut state law, it actually does. Why do you have a problem with Connecticut state law? Do you live there or something?
Click to expand...

So it seems "my body my choice" only applies when it can be a political football issue. Otherwise, women don't get a choice.
 
Deuce said:
This thread is very much about treatments for fatal illnesses.

You are saying parents should be allowed to let their child die.
Click to expand...

If they both agree they don't want the treatments - yes.
 
Ockham said:
Yes I would consider that neglect, depending on the child and their health, it may or may not be required to remove them from the home.
Click to expand...

So depriving the child food, can be interpreted as being in that child's best interest?

Not in my state. My buddy's little girl broke her arm after falling backwards over the dog. DYFS interviewed him and his wife and required two months of no notice check ins. This was their first child and neither of them have a criminal record nor a history of child abuse / sexual abuse.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that if someone at DYFS heard the parent drop the F bomb, that'd be enough to remove the child from the parent's custody? I think you're being far too hyperbolic.

Last I checked chemo wasn't part of the new food pyramid, nor constitutes as shelter or clothing.
Click to expand...

Eh, who says it was? I simply asked if given the facts, you believe that what the parent is doing will lead to the child's best interest. Do you believe that by denying this kid chemotherapy which would save her life, the parent wants to extend the child's life? I mean it's obvious that it won't and that the parent really has no clue what she's sanctioning here. But I'm letting you dig this hole all on your own.

Presumably, during the last months of that year, there would be an opportunity for immediate death given your scenario.
Click to expand...

So... the state will step in... when it doesn't know whether death is immediate or not? I mean, what is to say that the child couldn't last another 4-5 years in such conditions? Personal opinion? The parent's beliefs?

Because the state is not the parent/guardian of the child. If the child is 17 and will be 18 in a few months which makes them a legal adult and the parent agrees with no treatment and the child agrees to no treatment - yes if she dies then it's their choice.
Click to expand...

You really aren't fond of how these laws work, are you? The child is not a legal adult. That she will be in a "few months" doesn't change the fact that their "decision" can still be called into questioned.
 
Ockham said:
So it seems "my body my choice" only applies when it can be a political football issue. Otherwise, women don't get a choice.
Click to expand...

"My choice, my body" applies to abortion and abortion alone. Do you deny that? Or do you feel parents get to decide whether a child dies? I mean, what's next? If the parent religiously indoctrinates their child and makes them believe that pedophilia is fine, the state shouldn't step in either because it's their body, their choice?
 
Hatuey said:
So depriving the child food, can be interpreted as being in that child's best interest?
Click to expand...
If the child is morbidly obese - sure.

Hatuey said:
So what you're saying is that if someone at DYFS heard the parent drop the F bomb, that'd be enough to remove the child from the parent's custody? I think you're being far too hyperbolic.
Click to expand...
That's what the law says. Who interprets the law.... DYFS initially interprets and in order to get the child back, the parents need to go in front of a judge which may take days, weeks or months depending on the case loads.

Hatuey said:
Eh, who says it was? I simply asked if given the facts, you believe that what the parent is doing will lead to the child's best interest. Do you believe that by denying this kid chemotherapy which would save her life, the parent wants to extend the child's life?
Click to expand...
Correction - MAY save her life.

Hatuey said:
I mean it's obvious that it won't and that the parent really has no clue what she's sanctioning here. But I'm letting you dig this hole all on your own.
Click to expand...
It's not obvious to me. Let me repeat it again... if the parent and the child do not want the chemo - the child shouldn't be forced to get the chemo. Period. The child doesn't belong to the state - the treatment isn't guaranteed 100% to work - the child isn't 100% going to die without it. There no hole because you're talking in absolutes - I'm talking about the state extending it's power over children when it has no right to do so.

Hatuey said:
So... the state will step in... when it doesn't know whether death is immediate or not?
Click to expand...
When it checks on the child.

Hatuey said:
I mean, what is to say that the child couldn't last another 4-5 years in such conditions? Personal opinion? The parent's beliefs?
Click to expand...
Sure, maybe the parent will starve the child over an 80 year period, maybe longer. Perhaps you should have used that example. :roll:


Hatuey said:
You really aren't fond of how these laws work, are you?
Click to expand...
I'm not fond of intrusive laws.


Hatuey said:
The child is not a legal adult. That she will be in a "few months" doesn't change the fact that their "decision" can still be called into questioned.
Click to expand...
And the state is still not the parent/guardian of that child.
 
Hatuey said:
"My choice, my body" applies to abortion and abortion alone. Do you deny that?
Click to expand...
Yeah ... says who it only applies on abortion?


Hatuey said:
Or do you feel parents get to decide whether a child dies?
Click to expand...
Yes I do as I've already stated. Women do that today prior to birth. You disagree with the abortion laws apparently.


Hatuey said:
I mean, what's next? If the parent religiously indoctrinates their child and makes them believe that pedophilia is fine, the state shouldn't step in either because it's their body, their choice?
Click to expand...
That doesn't even make sense.
 
Hatuey said:
This thread has nothing to do with abortion though. This thread has to do with consent. As it stands, Connecticut abortion laws and consent in regards to those, has nothing to do with whether the minor can deny/consent to other medical treatments. As a matter of fact, Connecticut makes it clear that it's pretty much case by case issue when it comes to medical procedures. In some, consent from the minor is required. In others, the state doesn't even need that.
Click to expand...

The debate has to do with body sovereignty and the right to make decisions towards your own person. The state did not respect her right to her body nor did it uphold her right to life, which includes the right to die when you decide. This debate and the abortion debate are similar in that both debates are about a persons right to make medical decisions or just decisions in general towards their own person.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
"My choice, my body" applies to abortion and abortion alone. Do you deny that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I deny that. What makes the right to abort somehow different here? There is zero logic behind the idea that a woman has a right to her own body when it comes to abortion but no other case whatsoever.
 
Ockham said:
If the child is morbidly obese - sure.
Click to expand...

And if the child is not? :) I'm waiting for you to stop running around these questions.

That's what the law says. Who interprets the law.... DYFS initially interprets and in order to get the child back, the parents need to go in front of a judge which may take days, weeks or months depending on the case loads.

Correction - MAY save her life.
Click to expand...

As opposed to not going with chemotherapy which has.... what percentage of saving her life? :)

It's not obvious to me. Let me repeat it again... if the parent and the child do not want the chemo - the child shouldn't be forced to get the chemo. Period. The child doesn't belong to the state - the treatment isn't guaranteed 100% to work - the child isn't 100% going to die without it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be obvious to you. You've already seemed to demonstrate that your understanding of a child's welfare is dependent on your political lean and not an analysis of the case at hand. You're right, this isn't guaranteed 100% to work, no one has claimed it was. What has been claimed is that it's the option which guarantees the highest survival rate. What percentage of success do "alternative treatments" have? :)

There no hole because you're talking in absolutes - I'm talking about the state extending it's power over children when it has no right to do so.
When it checks on the child.
Sure, maybe the parent will starve the child over an 80 year period, maybe longer. Perhaps you should have used that example. :roll:
I'm not fond of intrusive laws.
And the state is still not the parent/guardian of that child.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be fond of laws which help ensure the safety of children far more than "alternative treatments" do. When the parent of the child shows that their decision doesn't hold the best possible outcome, then the state should and must step in. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
As opposed to not going with chemotherapy which has.... what percentage of saving her life? :)
Click to expand...

Treatments outside of government approved treatments have been shown to be effective. :)

More you know....
 
Ockham said:
Yeah ... says who it only applies on abortion?
Click to expand...

It's My Body: How to Respond to the Pro-Choice Argument - LifeTeen.com for Catholic Youth
My body, my choice: from now on, abortion rights must be fought for from first principles
Life Training Institute » Five Minute 12

Pretty much everyone discussing this issue.

Yes I do as I've already stated. Women do that today prior to birth. You disagree with the abortion laws apparently.

That doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

Of course it does, your contention was that the parent can make the child belief what they want, as both of them approve of what is taking place, the state shouldn't step in.
 
Hatuey said:
And if the child is not? :) I'm waiting for you to stop running around these questions.
Click to expand...
It's as I previously stated - it would depend on the situation. It may be neglect or it may not.

Hatuey said:
As opposed to not going with chemotherapy which has.... what percentage of saving her life? :)
Click to expand...
That's their choice. You don't like people to have choices?


Hatuey said:
It isn't guaranteed 100% to work, no one has claimed it was. What has been claimed is that it's the option which guarantees the highest survival rate. What percentage of success do "alternative treatments" have?
Click to expand...
So a parent and child do not have the ability to choose a lower survival rate in your opinion, without the state forcing them to make a decision they don't want. Very authoritarian - but for their own good I'm sure.


Hatuey said:
You don't have to be fond of laws which help ensure the safety of children far more than "alternative treatments" do.
Click to expand...
Forcing chemo = "help ensure the safety of children". :lamo


Hatuey said:
When the parent of the child shows that their decision doesn't hold the best possible outcome, then the state should and must step in. :shrug:
Click to expand...
And unless there is immediate danger in the form of injury or death - I disagree. Which is where we started this conversation.
 
Hatuey said:
It's My Body: How to Respond to the Pro-Choice Argument - LifeTeen.com for Catholic Youth
My body, my choice: from now on, abortion rights must be fought for from first principles
Life Training Institute » Five Minute 12

Pretty much everyone discussing this issue.
Click to expand...
Evidence by way of popular public opinion. You're kidding right?


Hatuey said:
Of course it does, your contention was that the parent can make the child belief what they want, as both of them approve of what is taking place, the state shouldn't step in.
Click to expand...
In this case, how is pedophilia a "my body my choice" issue? Hint: Change your example, this one is bad.

People raise their children all sorts of ways, believing all sorts of things. Now you want to regulate what parents are allowed morally and as part of a belief system, to teach their kids.... has there even been a case of child abuse where a parent taught their children how to be a pedophile?
 
Hatuey said:
Considering Connecticut state law, it actually does. Why do you have a problem with Connecticut state law? Do you live there or something?
Click to expand...

I don't live there. I'm pointing out the state's hypocrisy. It believes it gets to pick and choose when a woman has a right to her own medical decisions. You think that's okay. I don't. I'm not a slave to the state and don't encourage them attempting to do my thinking for me.
 
Hatuey said:
"My choice, my body" applies to abortion and abortion alone. Do you deny that? Or do you feel parents get to decide whether a child dies? I mean, what's next? If the parent religiously indoctrinates their child and makes them believe that pedophilia is fine, the state shouldn't step in either because it's their body, their choice?
Click to expand...

Says who?
 
Ockham said:
It's as I previously stated - it would depend on the situation. It may be neglect or it may not.

That's their choice. You don't like people to have choices?
Click to expand...

Oh, I believe in choices, as long as they don't harm the child. You seem to be supportive of them, because "choices" like depriving a child of food, can be interpreted be in the best interest of the child, given the right conditions. That you refused to answer the question is pretty telling.

So a parent and child do not have the ability to choose a lower survival rate in your opinion, without the state forcing them to make a decision they don't want. Very authoritarian - but for their own good I'm sure.

Forcing chemo = "help ensure the safety of children". :lamo
Click to expand...

When their case is for "alternative medicines" and the labeling of "chemotherapy" as "poison", then it's clear that the parent doesn't have the child's best interest in mind and so the decision made by the child and parent is not in the child's best interest period. If they had something along the lines of "we'll try radiotherapy" or "bone marrow transplant" or hell, any decision which could be clearly examined as them having an iota of what it is they're discussing, I would have been right by them. However, it's clear that they're not. They're simply spouting hippy anti-science nonsense. :shrug:

And unless there is immediate danger in the form of injury or death - I disagree. Which is where we started this conversation.
Click to expand...

And if you're unable to determine whether that injury/death is immediate, let the child die? Yes?
 
Hatuey said:
It's My Body: How to Respond to the Pro-Choice Argument - LifeTeen.com for Catholic Youth
My body, my choice: from now on, abortion rights must be fought for from first principles
Life Training Institute » Five Minute 12

Pretty much everyone discussing this issue.



Of course it does, your contention was that the parent can make the child belief what they want, as both of them approve of what is taking place, the state shouldn't step in.
Click to expand...

So all the rhetoric about abortion being a "choice" and a woman's right to Privacy being important and it's wrong for a man to tell a woman what decisions she should be making on her body....all of those attacks on the pro-life crowd that never mention the word "abortion" but claim all of these other things....bottom line is, it's all about abortion and abortion alone.

Got it. So then the words "pro-choice" are horse****. The only proper term is "pro-abortion".
 
tres borrachos said:
Says who?
Click to expand...

Bad Pro-Choice Arguments
It's My Body: How to Respond to the Pro-Choice Argument - LifeTeen.com for Catholic Youth
Life Training Institute » Five Minute 12
I am afraid of this indisputable pro-choice argument - The Matt Walsh Blog
What Both Sides of the Abortion Debate Can Learn from "My Body, My Choice" | Shameless Popery

Ignoring the context in which the statement is used everyday, so you can apply it to this issue, is a pretty terrible strategy. My body, my choice is a slogan on reproductive rights, not consent/denial of medical procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom