The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Except we are not talking about rape or rapist. You said something incredibly stupid, namely that the fetus doesn't have the right to use the woman's body against her wish. I then just took your non-logic to its (non) logical conclusion and gave you a situation. Which you apparently couldn't answer.

I will pose my question here one more time, so that you can't weasel out of it again. If the fetus cannot use the woman's body against her wish, does this mean a pregnant woman can sue her unborn child for it?

 

No, it means she can remove said fetus from her body, same as anyone else who would attempt to use her body against her will.

No lawsuit needed.

 

But if abortion is against her moral code? Or she can't have abortion for any reason at all? Or what if she just bloody wants to sue her child, just to test whether your stupid "'argument" works in a court?

You still failed to answer my question. I guess it's too much say, "no sorry WAN I was wrong. Such a thing would be thrown out of a court in 2 seconds flat. I was an idiot for saying that the fetus does not have the right to use a woman's body against her wish".

 

Good grief. You really wish to take issue with them long-held secular evolutionist belief of the place 'primordial ooze' has held in your vernacular? Perhaps you should read more scientific papers! It's only now being questioned!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

 

This isn't true, there was the case the other year when parents took their child to get treatment in Europe that the NHS didn't offer and the NHS had them arrested. Child abuse. A Europe wide manhunt ensued and they were captured.
Only guess what? The foreign doctor cured the child.

Ashya King was the child's name.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...nts-told-southampton-hospital-take-son-abroad

 

It is completely true, read your own article and understand it, the NHS had no one arrested!

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s-story-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-9716486.html

 

A fetus has no more right to use a woman's body against her will than any other person does.

Do I have the right to use a woman's body against her will? If no, then why do you want fetuses to have special rights as opposed to equal rights?

 

Nothing in there about brains coming from primordial ooze.

 

Government is involved in healthcare in very developed country and they manage just find without "death panels" so I don't see why this is a feature of government healthcare.

 

Obviously this baby would never have been heard of in America but killed long since, unless born of multi-millionaires or richer. This sick propaganda by American hypocrtitic oath-taking profiteers is deeply sick.

 

Stop being obtuse.

If you aren't on board with all of your 'science loving' brethren, please tell us your abiogenesis story.

 

The difference being if you have the money you can go somewhere for treatment. Here the courts are not allowing the parents to pay to try to save the child, though they have the money and approval to join am experimental program. Don't be obtuse.

 

The ethical question involved is whether an experimental procedure with virtually no chance of curing the infant, who can’t breathe or move on his own and suffers from epileptic seizures, justifies prolonging his suffering.

This tragic matter is being exploited by folks with transparent ideological agendas. It's callous.

 

They've kept him alive this long. Unless the doctors are pushing to blow his head off or give him a lethal injection right about now, I don't see the harm or the issue other than control.
Last article I read quotes doctors as saying they were in no rush to end Charlie's life, that it could happen over weeks.
Why Is that not unethical? Explain the nuanced difference. If his suffering calls for his death so strongly, then shoot him up with enough morphine to stop his respiration and let him die would seem to be the ethical requirement. Instead they're willing to extend his death over an extended period.

 

Medical ethicists are confronting whether prolonging his suffering is justified by the remote prospect of a highly experimental procedure proving to be efficacious.

"Do no harm" is a basic tenet of medicine, and taking extraordinary steps to prolong suffering for a highly unlikely positive outcome is not a step lightly taken.

"The baby will experience discomfort, but there is a possibility he will benefit" is a distinctly different scenario from "He will be wracked by excruciating seizures for a treatment with no realistic prospects of success."

Those in a position to assess the details and probabilities of the tragic plight are far better able to make the correct decision than those with a strong preference but little understanding.

 

The judge will have to make the decision on the best medical evidence given to him, I would not want his job for anything.

 

You are still twisting and turning and refusing to answer my question.

If a fetus doesn't have the right to use a woman's body against her wish, does this mean a pregnant woman can sue her fetus in a court of law?

 

Cant you keep this thread on topic, we have settled the question of abortion in the UK.

 

He is the one who brought up fetus, not me. You should ask HIM to stay on topic.

 

Sorry I do not know who started it, but please can we stay on topic. Whoever it is

 

So what you're saying is you cannot explain the difference and prefer to deflect and then use an argument from authority. Noted sir, noted.

 

Wrong. 99% of the time the woman gave consent to have unprotected sex, so the baby had her permission to be there

 

This decision will be made by a judge acting on the best medical advice from both sides of the Atlantic, how else should the decision be made? Remember this child will die soon, there is no argument about that from any medical expert.

 

I find it absolutely disgusting an immoral how left wingers are are so willing to kill off they young-----------born and the unborn.

Do they think that the young should be able to kill off anyone over 60 since they become a burden on health services.

 

Got anything to say on the topic that you started, do you now understand this has nothing to do with private v public health care or any British Health Plan