Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Forcing boy to get chemo


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Oh, no, no, no pt!!! We DO NOT elect congressmen so they can tell us what to do! We elect them to do what WE want! THEY are our servants, not the other way around!!! You really need to re-look at some of your ideas! They are totally wrong in light of the Constitution and a Republic.

And, no, the reason we have law is NOT because people can't be trusted to their own devices! Laws are there because we are all sinners. God instituted civil law to prosecute criminals - not the innocent because they eat more red meat than someone thinks they should!!! And our country was set up as a Republic, not a Democracy nor any other kind - so people could rule THEMSELVES. Read the founders and their intents with the Constitution.

The vast majority of people don't have common sense? You've been listening to the mass media too much!! That's what they think of the average person in America. pt - you've traveled, alot. And you're very intelligent. But you are still young enough for me to be able to say: you haven't met the vast majority of people, so you've broadbrushed in quite an unfair way. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they don't have common sense.

As far as the red meat goes - my grandma has eaten red meat all her life. She loves it. Has sausage (and eggs) just about every morning of her life. And she's gonna be 100 this fall - and her heart is in great shape. See, your opinion is that people that eat a lot of red meat have no common sense, based on what you've been told are heart risks. But maybe, just maybe, that isn't the real problem....after all, that's what a great majority of the people who founded this country (I'm talking the pioneers) ate mostly. But I reckon they didn't have common sense. 'Course, they didn't have the government telling them how bad it was for them. (please note - this was written tongue in cheek, not with any intention of being snotty!!)

BTW - my beliefs are at odds with the government right now. According to Janet Napolitano, I'm more of a danger to this country than terrorists...should I, if my child was a minor, lose him? That's the logical conclusion to your last paragraph, pt!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Government tends to exaggerate too. For instance they pulled pediatric meds from the shelves due to parents overdosing their kids.

If you really study it out, you will find the percentage of parents who overdosed their kids EXTREMELY minute compared to the general population. If you take away the kids that climbed up on a countertop and stole meds, the percentage is even smaller. So you have what, less than 1% of parents in America being stupid (for example) and suddenly the entire country is presumed to be stupid and thus meds are pulled from shelves.

Its okay, those of us who are NOT stupid just carefully do the dosage math, and give meds anyway. :thumb

So anyway we have one family that won't give their kid chemo (out of how many families that do????) and somebody assumes "most parents" need major help raising their kids. Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I don't work for the government (my firm represents foreign governments). I also never claimed to be a professional doctor/psychologiest/childrearer. However, I do believe that I have enough awareness that I can say that the vast majority of people don't have common sense. People will eat red meat three times a weak all the while knowing that it causes heart disease. They will buy their kids the cereal with the cartoon character on the front which leads to a sugar addiction which in turn leads to a long life of poor health. I have studied the law and I know the reason why we have law and it is because people cannot be trusted to their own devices. We have to have laws that punish child abuse/neglect because it is a fact of life. The reason you elect congressmen is so you have someone to tell you what you need/should be doing because you yourself cannot be trusted to do those things.

I haven't given a scintilla of evidence which suggest the proper way to rear a child. I have merely stated that if a child's best interest are at objective odds with the parents beliefs/choices/wishes, then the state needs to be the one making decisions which affect the child. In my opinion, which is based on my personal experience, most people need help in this category.


Well, that's not our fault.....It's the gov't fault for allowing those cereal companies free enterprise to make the unhealthy stuff in the first place! (Yes...I'm J/K)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Oh, no, no, no pt!!! We DO NOT elect congressmen so they can tell us what to do! We elect them to do what WE want! THEY are our servants, not the other way around!!! You really need to re-look at some of your ideas! They are totally wrong in light of the Constitution and a Republic.

And, no, the reason we have law is NOT because people can't be trusted to their own devices! Laws are there because we are all sinners. God instituted civil law to prosecute criminals - not the innocent because they eat more red meat than someone thinks they should!!! And our country was set up as a Republic, not a Democracy nor any other kind - so people could rule THEMSELVES. Read the founders and their intents with the Constitution.

The vast majority of people don't have common sense? You've been listening to the mass media too much!! That's what they think of the average person in America. pt - you've traveled, alot. And you're very intelligent. But you are still young enough for me to be able to say: you haven't met the vast majority of people, so you've broadbrushed in quite an unfair way. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they don't have common sense.

As far as the red meat goes - my grandma has eaten red meat all her life. She loves it. Has sausage (and eggs) just about every morning of her life. And she's gonna be 100 this fall - and her heart is in great shape. See, your opinion is that people that eat a lot of red meat have no common sense, based on what you've been told are heart risks. But maybe, just maybe, that isn't the real problem....after all, that's what a great majority of the people who founded this country (I'm talking the pioneers) ate mostly. But I reckon they didn't have common sense. 'Course, they didn't have the government telling them how bad it was for them. (please note - this was written tongue in cheek, not with any intention of being snotty!!)

BTW - my beliefs are at odds with the government right now. According to Janet Napolitano, I'm more of a danger to this country than terrorists...should I, if my child was a minor, lose him? That's the logical conclusion to your last paragraph, pt!!


I agree that at one time, when there were about 200,000 white english settlers (not counting slaves) on this continent, then we had public servants that did just that. However, things have undeniably changed. Now, the government serves us by protecting us. In many cases, this is done by protecting us from ourselves. The founders and their intentions are totally irrelevant and inapplicable to the real world of today and tomorrow. Go and read the constitution. It dosen't address public health or child welfare. It amazes me how often people think that simple document contains all the answers to our government. It's a framework, written vaguely, so as to preserve its integrity through the inevitably changing times.

I don't believe that a life filled with red meat dinners automatically equals bad health. However, I know for a fact that it, along with smoking, is one of the leading causes of heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in this country. If your grandmother were to go to the doctor with heart problems, I guarantee he would suggest she quit eating so much red meat. The FDA (the oh so scarey government) attempts (though miserably at times) to police what we eat because we ourselves cannot be trusted to do what is best for us. By the way, I wasn't suggesting that they make laws regarding the intake of red meat, merely using it as an example of how we cannot be trusted to take care of ourselves.

I don't think I'm that intelligent. I'm probably average at best and in my line of work I am definitely below average. I also don't watch what you refer to as "mass media." I get most of my news from whatever country I'm in or the local newspaper. I base my opinion that the vast majority of people don't have common sense on my observations and interactions with the people I meet. It is a burden *sigh* :smile

I guess the justification for my point of view is the fact that people who share my point of view run the world (not just the U.S.) and the people I am talking about elected them or were conquered by them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This kind of debate comes up a lot more with Jehovah's Witnesses. Here is a case where babies were given blood transfusions against the wishes of their Jehovah's Witness parents.

Another case I remember: a 22-year old JW mother died just after giving birth to twins because she lost blood and refused a transfusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
This reminds me of a guest speaker I had in college that defined critical thinking as "the ability to completely disregard everything your parents taught you."

Now he wasn't saying people should be disobedient to their parents. He was saying that if you are unable to put aside your preexisting indoctrinations, you will be incapable of critical thought analysis, which I completely agree with.


What if you were indoctrinated by your parents to believe that critical thinking means 'the ability to completely disregard everything your parents taught you'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Christianity teaches it's a parents duty to "indoctrinate" their children in Christianity. Scripture is filled with admonitions to do so.

The domain of child care is the parents and the government should have no say in this.

A terminal illness means that, not matter what, a person is going do die because of this. It should not be up to the government to determine whether anyone, child or adult, fights to prolong life by any particular means, other means or no means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


What if you were indoctrinated by your parents to believe that critical thinking means 'the ability to completely disregard everything your parents taught you'?

:lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
If the FDA was truly concerned' date=' they wouldn't have allowed the chemicals, preservatives and artificial substances into our foods. Those are the real culprits. I betcha LuAnne's Grandma grew up eating natural foods and hardly any commercially processed foods.[/quote']

I couldn't agree with this more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I don't work for the government (my firm represents foreign governments). I also never claimed to be a professional doctor/psychologiest/childrearer. However, I do believe that I have enough awareness that I can say that the vast majority of people don't have common sense. People will eat red meat three times a weak all the while knowing that it causes heart disease. They will buy their kids the cereal with the cartoon character on the front which leads to a sugar addiction which in turn leads to a long life of poor health. I have studied the law and I know the reason why we have law and it is because people cannot be trusted to their own devices. We have to have laws that punish child abuse/neglect because it is a fact of life. The reason you elect congressmen is so you have someone to tell you what you need/should be doing because you yourself cannot be trusted to do those things.

I haven't given a scintilla of evidence which suggest the proper way to rear a child. I have merely stated that if a child's best interest are at objective odds with the parents beliefs/choices/wishes, then the state needs to be the one making decisions which affect the child. In my opinion, which is based on my personal experience, most people need help in this category.


What country do you live in? We don't elect politicians to tell us what to do. We elect them to represent our interests.

Most people do not have common sense? I hear this all the time. Stop and think about the people that you personally know. I guarantee you you will think most of the people you know have common sense. Most people who vote have common sense. I don't know where you get your information.

Honestly, I believe the US government has evolved to protect the wealthy and keep the wealthy people wealthy. Those with the money (and therefore the power) lobby to write laws that benefit them, and their financial interests. Just look at the USDA, the FDA, etc. They do things under the guise of public safety, and sometimes what they do is needed and good, but much of the time it is to force consolidation, give more business to the big guys, and drowned the little guys out.

Look at our farming policy, which is a total and complete failure, except to produce mass quantities of cheap, unnutritious food, to force small familiy farms out (100 years ago, the local markets and family farms abounded, due to polciy, this has changed). This is not a partisan statement, for both parties are equally guilty here.

When is a child's best interest at odd with the parents? Not very often. In the case of child abuse, the someone should intervene. In the case of neglect, someone should intervene. But we are talking about medical decisions, that the child has expressed a strong preference against. Government has no business in forcing medical decisions on someone who does not want it. Plain and simple. If I grow old, in bad health, and want to sit on my bed sores until I die at home, I have that right, even if it is against my "best interest" and if my "best interest" as society determines that is to go to a nursing home. It is differnt if I lose my mind, in which case a family member can intervene, but the state should not have that right.

In this case, the family has evaluated its decsions, and made their choice. The boy does not want the treatment. Gov't should not force it on them. That is wrong, and immoral. That is disrespecting human life, for what respect do we have if our decisions cannot stand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...