Trump Tweets Bring Baby to US

So, you are unwilling to admit your points have been destroyed, and rather than defend them, you will just pretend like my comments and questions never happened. Got it.

 

Huh? That post you just quoted show that my points were not destroyed. I think you need to read my post again.

Both courts ruled the brain dead patient can be removed from life support. This isn't complicated.

 

The attempt to keep this baby alive (and not just 'alive', but treat the condition - an exceedingly rare condition - with the purpose of creating a quality of life) is being paid for with private charitable dollars.

Do you wish to pick a bone of contention with use of private charity for this purpose?

It was stupid for Trump to volunteer his/US resources towards attempting to give this baby a chance at a breakthrough treatment?

 

I'll let you know when I 'admit' something. What Reagan did was shrink Government's impact on my life. He would have done far more than that, had it not been for people of your ilk.

Ah. Circular reason is fantastic, because it's circular. You think it's true, so insult is justified. Ok: then it's okay to call you a brain-dead idiot, because - while it may be insulting, it's also true?

I would expect you never to be able to honestly click that 'report' button, ecco.

Oh, you didn't? But you were quoting what the doctors have said? And now you want to quote part of what Gard's docs have said, but not all of it?

Even if the entirety of their diagnostic statements justifiably calls into question part of their statement (the claim of feeling 'pain') cannot be reconciled with the remainder of the statement?

Point to me to where you can demonstrate that baby Gard feels pain, ecco.

Circular reasoning is - once again - the best reasoning, because it's circular. Because you've concluded that it is irrational to support Trump and his agenda - and I don't - you justify your silly reasoning.

Is this where I can call you an idiot again, simply because I've concluded that it is the truth, thus validating the charge? Or is it a reportable offense, because it isn't anything but your ridiculous opinion?

You couldn't debate yourself out of a soggy cardboard box.

 

Wait.

Should YOU tell ecco that baby Gard is a brain dead patient? Do you think ecco will gloss past it, while simultaneously claiming as a basis for an argument to end treatment that baby Gard feels pain?

 

Psst. You lefties should get your narrative together. Brain dead babies do not feel pain.

That alone should convince you that you're a willing lemming in this hot potato, but it won't.

 

Oh NO!!! Another liberal who is convinced that the baby is brain dead!

Can the baby feel pain, Bowerbird?

 

It is different. Why? Because at issue was putting the public on the hook for continued - expensive - treatment.

Was that the issue in the Schiavo case? You said the Terri Schiavo case was pre-ACA, so apparently not.

Additionally: were the Schiavos arguing to be allowed to attempt a new experimental treatment - on their own dime - which hadn't been yet attempted on anyone in a similar condition?

 

Ah! So now you DO find it important to do anything possible to keep a patient alive?

 

You're poisoning the well with your characterization. It is 'torture' to reset a compound fracture? What about an emergency tracheotomy?

You can characterize these things all you want, but there is no torture here, and the claim of it is a canard. In nearly every one of these cases - if not them all - the patient is unconscious, and feels no pain at all.

 

Yes, the Terri Schiavo story was settled in 2005, which was 5 years before the ACA was passed.

No, as far as I know was there any discussion about life saving experimental treatment for Schiavo. Nor do I imply or say that there was. I'm talking about the court rulings, not the treatment.

 

Why are you asking a question no one asked - and not answering the question I directly asked you?

And I'm speaking of the only thing that matters. You're bringing up 'court rulings', in an attempt to legitimize the power of the court to rule by equating these two cases.

They are not equivalent.

 

Where did I say anything about "anything possible"?

 

This story is about court rulings. The courts ruled that the baby is to be removed from life support. The same ruling the courts in this country made about Terri Schiavo.

 

Medical necessity vs doing unnecessary procedures that won't work to make the parents feel better.

 

How do you torture a brain dead baby?

 

Except the cases are different. There is a treatment avenue which hasn't been previously attempted.

You are reticent to consider the difference.

 

You edited your response before I could answer.

Why do you think you can judge what is 'unnecessary', when you're not paying for it, and this baby is - by your own characterization - brain dead?

 

Once again, I'm not talking about the treatment options. I'm talking about the court rulings and why they ruled as they did.

 

Do you notice that you do not directly address my questions?

You know who does that?

The debate loser.

 

You have no standing to say what is necessary to make parents feel better. You are condoning taking autonomous decisions out of their hands.

That's exactly what a Death Panel is.

 

Thanks, but I'm not a medical person and can't make any judgments about treatments and how they would work. Sorry I can't help you. If me not pretending to know something that I know nothing about makes me a "debate loser", then that's fine by me. I'm not here to win or lose contests anyway. I only post the legal facts as they were shared with us. I don't pretend to be a doctor.

 

How do you cure one? The body still feels pain.

 

I don't. Doctors however are eminently qualfied to judge that and all the doctors associated with this case say it is medically unnecessary.

 

I don't give a flying **** what makes parents feel better. I care about what doctors say is medically necessary and what they say is instead unnecessary torture that does nothing but cruelly prolong death.