Here are the FACTS about Charlie Gard

Following your own logic, what’s your argument against a state power to force the abortion of a child against a mother's wishes?

 

You'd be the first to criticize judges if your right to choose abortion were taken away.
If that were to happen (which I doubt will happen), will you still say 'they still rule'?

 

Yah. A judge in the UK system (if this is where these cases wind up) has training & practice & presumably support to investigate the law, precedents, & so on surrounding these cases. Furthermore, if this is how the UK typically treats these issues - of when to cease life support procedures - then that is where the case will be adjudicated.

We (outside of the UK) are observers - we can comment all we like, but if the authority to determine outcomes (for the UK NHS) lies within the UK legal system, then that's where it resides.

 

A defense of abusing children....OMGAWD! That's the lowest of lows....

 

You haven't refuted a word of the post of mine you quoted....YOU don't "like" a judge or his rulings so you think you can just ignore the justice system....can we all or just you and Trump??

YES, we should all have Trump's power to decide which judge is suitable for us and which ones are sympathetic and fire the rest because we don't like what they say......


Snowflakes !!

 

Duh, that wasn't MY logic, I was addressing another poster's words....


As soon as RvW is overturned and women are controlled like cattle THEN YES the state will be able to force women to have abortions....

 

Yup, they still rule but I have no fear of RvW being overturned because DUH you need a REASON to overturn it. Yes, if Trump destroys the Constitution then it may be overturned ....and abortions will keep right on happening

 

You mean like this?

Some parents are just ****ing dumb people.

 

So, according to you...they would be just like Trump by ignoring a ruling because they don't like it.

 

The suffering would occur during future treatment, not the current.

 

The baby has had a mitochondrial deficit problem since before birth - masked by the mother's system sustaining him, I assume. I'm sorry - for everyone involved, beginning with the baby - but he's apparently never been a normal and healthy baby. He's beyond anything that current medical science can do for him to cure his condition.

It's simply time to let him go, & for the parents to honor his passage as best they can.

 

Are you saying giving an expiremental surgery it's first human trial is anything but a good thing?

That's how we figure things out. The kids probably going to die, let's not allow his death to be a waste. Plus he might live, win-win. Doing nothing will result in certain death and no advances in the procedure, lose lose.

 

Nobody said the Republicans don't have skills. That they use their skills for spreading misery while claiming victim hood is really unfortunate. Some day they'll step into the light again.

 

Not an answer, try again, this time the how, what and whys.

 

So, you are saying that the parents know personally the judges who have taken away their custody of their child and are withholding care? That seems very unlikely.

 

Has someone on this thread said that the UK government does not have the power to hold and kill British subjects?

I did not see that post.

 

They are holding and will eventually kill the child to show that they have the power to do just that.
It is not about anything else. All this blather about the state's concern for the welfare of the child is just a smoke screen for the kill shot.

 

TMK, UK does not have a written Constitution, like the US. & in fact, as I recall, the US Constitution was written expressly as a curb upon the powers of the state, specifically the bad example that the rebels thought that the British crown had been (in its treatment of the colonies, soon to become the US). That said, I'm not sure that the case of Baby Charlie fits the charge - Is Charlie a British subject? He's not of the age of consent, & apparently will never develop mentally sufficiently to assent to such a status, even if he lives (chronologically) that long.

My understanding is that the British government has to adhere to law in order to arrest, try & condemn a subject - established by political struggles there going back to @ least 1215CE & the Magna Carta. But someone more knowledgeable should weigh in - this isn't my area of expertise.

 

It is time for the state and everyone else to stop dictating to this family - release their child, so that the parents can use the doctor and treatment they have chosen. No one else should have meddled in what should have been a family affair.

 

How exactly does that contradict my post?

 

Great post and true!


I think it will fall on the deaf ears of those with no common sense nor compassion.

 

Because in the face of an entrenched establishment that is bound and determine to finish of their kid they feel they have no other choice.

 

Sorry American slang.

 

That's not what it said in the article. It said he was normal for the first month of his life and then his parents noticed that he was having a difficult time holding his head up, and they brought him to the doctor and that is when they discovered his condition, and from there he rapidly progressed to the state he is in now.

Who is Charlie Gard?
Charlie is a 10-month old patient in intensive care at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London.

On August 4, 2016, he was born a "perfectly healthy" baby at full term and at a "healthy weight". After about a month, however, Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, noticed that he was less able to lift his head and support himself than other babies of a similar age.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

 

So? What now? Who doesn't know the facts? I know the facts of this case. I read quite a bit about it last night.