• 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

Hatuey said:
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.



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 if you're unable to determine whether that injury/death is immediate, let the child die? Yes?
Click to expand...

I thought food was considered by the left to be a basic fundamental right. Now you're calling food a "choice"? Is providing food to a child a choice or does the child have a right to food?
 
tres borrachos said:
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".
Click to expand...

Why do you keep inserting abortion into an issue that has nothing to do with abortion? :)
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

The good thing is you're an adult, and so the state will happily allow you to die of treatable cancer! But this person is a minor....
 
tres borrachos said:
I thought food was considered by the left to be a basic fundamental right. Now you're calling food a "choice"? Is providing food to a child a choice or does the child have a right to food?
Click to expand...

How you got that out of my statement is beyond me. Ockham argued that a parent depriving a child of food was a choice they have a right to make, I argued the opposite.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll use this in the Abortion section and say that you're arguing to prohibit the use of "my body my choice" because the bottom line is this isn't about her body or her choice....it's only "her body her abortion". The pro-lifers will be able to use this argument.

"My body, my terminating of a fetus". Let's call it what it is and agree that there is no such thing as "My body, my choice". I'm all for taking the word "choice" out of the discussions. And to read many of you in this thread, none of you believed medical procedures were ever a woman's "choice" in the first place. The government has given a woman the right to terminate a fetus' chance at life. But she has no choice to deny injecting her body with drugs she doesn't want.

In other words, people are too stupid to make their own decisions so you want Uncle Sam and Big Brother to make them for them, and if they think it's a good decision, that's A-Okay with you.

I'm fine with that. At least you're honest.
 
Hatuey said:
Why do you keep inserting abortion into an issue that has nothing to do with abortion? :)
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I believe a woman has a right to make decisions on her own body. That's why I'm pro-choice. That's why I oppose the state ordering this young woman to have a medical procedure she doesn't want.

You want government to control women's bodies. I don't.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'll use this in the Abortion section and say that you're arguing to prohibit the use of "my body my choice" because the bottom line is this isn't about her body or her choice....it's only "her body her abortion".
Click to expand...

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. You'll use the fact that my body, my choice applies to the abortion debate alone, in a forum where people are arguing just that? Well, okie dokie. :lol: This thread has nothing to do with abortion. Why do you have such an issue with that?
 
JasperL said:
The good thing is you're an adult, and so the state will happily allow you to die of treatable cancer! But this person is a minor....
Click to expand...

And her parents are her legal guardians. Adult legal guardians. And unlike you, I don't believe that judges and politicians are more equipped to raise my children than I am. Let them raise yours and decide what's best for your kids. I side with the parents here.
 
tres borrachos said:
Unlike you, I believe a woman has a right to make decisions on her own body.
Click to expand...

Yes, once she is a legal and consenting party. As the CT Supreme Court ruled, she isn't old enough to consent/deny this procedure even though she's old enough to do so regarding other procedures. This reinforces my claim that CT court looks at this issue on a case by case matter and not with a sweeping law regarding all medical treatment.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. You'll use the fact that my body, my choice applies to the abortion debate alone, in a forum where people are arguing just that? Well, okie dokie. :lol: This thread has nothing to do with abortion. Why do you have such an issue with that?
Click to expand...

This thread has to do with her body. You don't seem to understand that in your efforts to support judges and politicians making decisions on what a young woman does with her body. I doubt I'd see you in the Abortion section posting the same thing.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm pro-choice, and that's why I'm not a hypocrite.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, once she is a legal and consenting party. As the CT Supreme Court ruled, she isn't old enough to consent/deny this procedure even though she's old enough to do so regarding other procedures. This reinforces my claim that CT court looks at this issue on a case by case matter and not with a sweeping law regarding all medical treatment.
Click to expand...

Show me the CT law that says a minor is required to accept any medical treatment that he/she/the parents don't want. That's right, there isn't one.

So in other words, strangers are making a decision for this young woman, opposing her wishes and her parents' wishes, arbitrarily. And at the same time taking away her right to do with her body what she wishes.

You think that's fine. I don't.
 
At seventeen if my daughter makes a decision towards her own person I'm going to respect it. Why? Because in my mind a seventeen year old is more than equipped to make their own choices. Just because she makes an unwise decision does not mean she is not equipped to make her own choices, and if it did, then frankly, I question if most adults should be considered adults.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Yes, once she is a legal and consenting party. As the CT Supreme Court ruled, she isn't old enough to consent/deny this procedure even though she's old enough to do so regarding other procedures. This reinforces my claim that CT court looks at this issue on a case by case matter and not with a sweeping law regarding all medical treatment.
Click to expand...

So a seventeen year old is unable to consent? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? What exactly is different in a person between the ages of seventeen and eighteen? I don't know about you, but I was more or less the same person I was at eighteen that I was seventeen. A year of difference does not cause a person to mature. Time itself in fact has nothing to do with it.
 
tres borrachos said:
In other words, people are too stupid to make their own decisions so you want Uncle Sam and Big Brother to make them for them, and if they think it's a good decision, that's A-Okay with you.

I'm fine with that. At least you're honest.
Click to expand...

Not "people" - children. There's a huge difference. And this minor child was given the opportunity to prove to the court she was capable of making adult decisions, and the running away from home, skipping doctors' appointments, and failure to present a viable treatment alternative gave her away as the irresponsible child she so obviously is.

You're focused on abortion, but it's a different issue. Maybe minors should or should not be able to have an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian, but that's a different set of medical risks, with all kinds of thorny family and societal issues attached. But they can be evaluated independently, and the law in CT requires them to be evaluated independently.
 
JasperL said:
Not "people" - children. There's a huge difference. And this minor child was given the opportunity to prove to the court she was capable of making adult decisions, and the running away from home, skipping doctors' appointments, and failure to present a viable treatment alternative gave her away as the irresponsible child she so obviously is.

You're focused on abortion, but it's a different issue. Maybe minors should or should not be able to have an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian, but that's a different set of medical risks, with all kinds of thorny family and societal issues attached. But they can be evaluated independently, and the law in CT requires them to be evaluated independently.
Click to expand...

Her parents made the decision as well. They are not children. They are adults. This isn't just about her. Do you know what this story is about?
 
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.

If you don't see the hypocrisy, I can't help you. I see it, and I know I'm not alone.
Click to expand...

Yes the state does have that right. The state picks and chooses these lines all the time. A 15 year + 11 month old person is not mature enough to drive. A couple of weeks later, give them the keys. 17 years + 364 days you are not smart enough to vote, next day, you've gotten smarter. A friend of my son did 5 hard for sex with an underage girl. She was 2 weeks under 18.

We as a society create these arbitrary lines all the time. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we got.
 
JasperL said:
Not "people" - children. There's a huge difference. And this minor child was given the opportunity to prove to the court she was capable of making adult decisions, and the running away from home, skipping doctors' appointments, and failure to present a viable treatment alternative gave her away as the irresponsible child she so obviously is.
Click to expand...

A seventeen year old is not a child, really. How does running away from home or skipping doctor appointments make you unable to make decisions? Why does it seem like you just disapprove of her decisions and then declaring her unable to make decisions based on it?

You're focused on abortion, but it's a different issue. Maybe minors should or should not be able to have an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian, but that's a different set of medical risks, with all kinds of thorny family and societal issues attached. But they can be evaluated independently, and the law in CT requires them to be evaluated independently.
Click to expand...

Why is it different? Because you say it is?
 
Henrin said:
So a seventeen year old is unable to consent? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? What exactly is different in a person between the ages of seventeen and eighteen? I don't know about you, but I was more or less the same person I was at eighteen that I was seventeen. A year of difference does not cause a person to mature. Time itself in fact has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

The law in the state of CT for this purpose considers one a minor and one an adult? Seems directly on point to me....
 
jimbo said:
Yes the state does have that right. The state picks and chooses these lines all the time. A 15 year + 11 month old person is not mature enough to drive. A couple of weeks later, give them the keys. 17 years + 364 days you are not smart enough to vote, next day, you've gotten smarter. A friend of my son did 5 hard for sex with an underage girl. She was 2 weeks under 18.

We as a society create these arbitrary lines all the time. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we got.
Click to expand...

I already know all of that. Not sure what this was supposed to mean in relation to my post that you quoted (which was about the state saying a 17 year has a right to make medical decisions on her own body except when they say she doesn't).
 
Btw, just a few weeks ago I skipped a doctors appointment for a shoulder that badly needs surgery. Why did I do it? Because I felt like it.

I guess at 32 I should be treated like a child because I'm skipping doctors appointments. :lol:
 
JasperL said:
The law in the state of CT for this purpose considers one a minor and one an adult? Seems directly on point to me....
Click to expand...

So basically it's a legal distinction with nothing to back it. Good to know.
 
Henrin said:
A seventeen year old is not a child, really. How does running away from home or skipping doctor appointments make you unable to make decisions? Why does it seem like you just disapprove of her decisions and then declaring her unable to make decisions based on it?



Why is it different? Because you say it is?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering too, based on his post....does he think every adult who skips doctor's appointments (there are a lot of them), "runs away from home" (get mad and go back to mother's house, skip town for a few days), and fails to present "viable alternative treatments" for their medical conditions (without medical training, of course) should also be deemed to incompetent to make their own decisions, and become wards of the state?
 
Henrin said:
Btw, just a few weeks ago I skipped a doctors appointment for a shoulder that badly needs surgery. Why did I do it? Because I felt like it.

I guess at 32 I should be treated like a child because I'm skipping doctors appointments. :lol:
Click to expand...

OMFG I was just posting something similar to you. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom