Trump Tweets Bring Baby to US

So easy to drool, ""Oh, look, Trump got rid of death panels with one tweet"....when they never existed in the first place!


You TOO are a barrel of laughs!

There are no Big Scary "Death Panels".....

There is no "sanctity of life" as wars and travel bans have proven.........

Do you ever think of the quality of life and compassion? No.

 

There are no death panels in the UK. And nobody wants to bring death panels here. This is not much of a difference than the Terri Schiavo case. We apparently already have death panels in this country then, because the courts also decided that she should be allowed to die with dignity.

Declaring a baby is suffering and should be allowed to not suffer isn't a "death panel" decision. It's a humanitarian decision.

 

That's the typical religious conservative right-wing narrative - The Sanctity of Life. To people like you, the quality of life means nothing. You're all for letting a baby suffer as long as you keep it alive. The biggest hypocrisy in all this is that you supposedly believe that when the baby finally dies, it will go to heaven and be relieved of all pain and suffering. But for some sadistic reason, you want to delay that as much as possible.

 

How much "suffering" do the "brain-dead" experience?

There are some people who are not ready to throw in the towel. Yet. Legislation introduced to allow Charlie Gard & parents to come to USA.

 

Note that the UK supreme court made the decision. I know you want to pin this on government bureaucrats, but that's not the case.

The court had to decide based on the rule of law in the best interest of the child. "The judges concluded that the experimental treatment would be "futile," Fenton-Glynn said. "There's no evidence that it would provide benefit to the child."

Now, this is not really a health care "death panel" debate, it is rather about parental rights vs. the rights of a child who is unable to speak for themselves. Thus, the typical conservative charge of government "death panels" based on socialized medicine money decisions don't apply here, no matter how much our conservative friends want to make this into a referendum against socialized health care.

 

"Most" is the problem here. If you said "had never worked in all the past cases" then I would understand the point you're trying to make on behalf of the U.K. Government.

 

Once again, you deliberately only quote PART of the statement in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I am saying.

That treatment has never worked for the disease that Charlie Gard has, neither was it designed to treat it, and for the disease it was designed to treat, it doesn't even work in most cases.

 

I feel sorry for Europeans who live under totalitarian regimes that deny them basic human rights, such as what care to seek for their children.

 

They do? Link?

I guess we live under a totalitarian regime as well, since the United States courts ruled that no more care was to be given to Terri Schiavo, who was brain dead just like this baby is.

 

But that decision was made by family and courts, not just ordered down from on high, by bureaucrats. There was a court battle and one side won, and one side lost. This British story is just family versus the state, not the family versus other family.

They care they seek for their child won't work. But, they have every right, as human parents, to make that decision for themselves. Any body of government that takes that right away, is an oppressor.

This is basically the death panels that everyone made fun of Sarah Palin about. This is EXACTLY what she was talking about, when she said Obamacare would lead to death panels.

 

So you are saying parents have an unlimited right to torture their children?

 

Obviously I would not put it in those terms, as they are ridiculous, off topic, and would allow for abuse.

But, yes, I am saying that medical decisions belong to the parents, and anyone that takes that right away from them, based merely on disagreement of what care is being considered, is an oppressor. It is a fundamental human right, that parents make the decisions for their children, until the children reach such an age as to decide for themselves. Nearly ever society that has existed on THIS planet, has adopted, or did adopt some form of that philosophy.

 

So for instance, if parents chose to treat a eminently treatable but potentially lethal condition with prayer only, the government and medical authorities should do nothing to protect the child and instead sit by and let it die?

What about the rights of the child?

 

The Schiavo decision was made by the courts. The decision about this baby was made by the courts. This story was very similar as far as the ruling. The US court did not believe that Terri Schiavo's parents had the right to continue to force a brain dead woman to live in what was said to be constant pain. No different than the British courts ruled.

Actually, this isn't anything like what Palin was talking about. Unless she was saying Schiavo was a victim of a death panel?

What death panels did Obamacare lead to? Schiavo was pre-ACA.

 

Under US law, and the laws of most free countries, that is their right. Rights don't go away, just because people use them in ways YOU don't like.

At the root of this issue, is a simple difference between European and American thinking. To a European, what the most good for the most people is the goal. To an American, individuals choose for themselves what is best for them, and until those decisions impact others, nobody ought to tell them otherwise.

 

So the children have no right to life if that is what their parents choose? Doesn't that contradict the standard Conservative position? Or does right to life only apply to fetuses but once children are born, **** them they can die if the parents are religious fanatics?

 

The Schiavo decision was made by courts, as a settlement between two sides of a family. This story, has NOTHING to do with that. This story is just bureaucrats stepping in to make parental decisions, and holding a baby hostage when they have no right. They do not have the right to tell this families neighbors they can't leave the country with their kids, what makes this different?

You seem confused. The death panel is the English court, not the Schiavo judge.

 

How does your post relate to the fact that Trump's quick tweet was very effective? All this silly denial of the obvious only further undermines the credibility of Trump's now desperate opposition.

The serious informed left is trying to snap the crazed and dazed left back into reality. But what do leftist pundits and leaders know? Right?

“If Trump is the Antichrist, as they believe, then Georgia was going to be a cakewalk, and Nancy Pelosi was going to be installed as speaker before the midterms by acclamation. But it turned into another soul-sucking disappointment.

“It’s Trump four and us zero,” says the Democratic congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio. “I don’t want to admit that. When it comes out of my mouth, it bothers me. But Trump does robo calls. He tweets. He talks about the races. He motivates his base, and he moves the needle, and that’s a problem for us. Guys, we’re still doing something wrong here because a) he’s president and b) we’re still losing to his candidates.” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Donald Skunks the Democrats, Maureen Dowd, JUNE 24, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-jon-ossoff-democrats.html

 

No parent has the right to arbitrarily choose death for their child. You are arguing against a straw man. No person in this thread, is arguing for a parents right to execute a child for no reason.

I hardly think trying a different procedure, that won't harm the child, is "choosing death" for the child. The child will die regardless. These parents ought to have the basic rights that other citizens do in the UK, to leave the country with their child, if they choose.

This whole ordeal is sick, and it harms US/UK relations significantly. If I were the UK, I would be looking to make new friends, and make friendships stronger, now that they are leaving the EU. This hinders that significantly, in regards to US opinion.

 

The courts made a decision on the prognosis of Terri Schiavo's well being. Same as what happened in this case.

You shouldn't leave the country with your sick kids if doctors say it will only add more suffering to the kid. That's why the courts ruled as they did.

 

No, they ruled that the procedure won't save the kid, therefore it's "not necessary".

The case has NOTHING to do with Schiavo's case, as that case had different family members wanting different things. This case is just the people versus government.

 

So the parents in this case have an unlimited right to inflict unnecessary pain and harm on their child that will be fruitless just so it makes them feel better?

 

You just can't debate your point honestly, huh?

 

I'm drilling it down to it's essential details. This treatment is totally unnecessary and will not work. Every doctor involved has testified that doing this treatment will be tantamount to unnecessary torture. The only reason you can justify this treatment is that it will make the parents feel better.

 

I know otherwise. They ruled that the hospital can remove the life support. The same thing the courts ruled in the Schiavo case.