Healthy infant confiscated from family to be force-medicated by the government

[Zoub]

Nothing wrong here. You administered care to the child. It also sounds like you need a new doctor.

Should I tell an equally emotional story were medicine saved the life of a child? Somehow this situation morphed into you have to everything your doctor tells you while the crux remains neglect, or the lack of any care given at all.

Only if it is your child.

Do you have a story to tell?

 

[level.eleven]

That is a difference in method. Not in morality.

Either way, it comes down to a man with a gun taking her child from her. Whether it's you personally doing it or asking government agents to do it makes no difference from the perspective of morality. Am I less guilty of murder, morally, if I hire an assassin or kill the person myself? No.

If you're not morally willing to be the man pointing the gun, then you have no business asking others to do it for you.

I would have no problem working for CPS.

 

[level.eleven]

Only if it is your child.

Do you have a story to tell?

Nah. Appeals to emotion are fallacies and usually anecdotal. There is enough pap in this thread as is.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Come on, this is a cop out and you know it. Influenza can kill. An infection can kill. If untreated, AIDS will kill, and in a matter of months. Rambone, I respect your thoughts and I agree with the vast majority of your posts. But it seems like you are projecting this particular circumstance onto other situations that just aren't the same.


Thank you for that wonderful example, because feeding a child something that may have a more nutritious option is the same thing as withholding medication and sentencing your child to certain and immanent death.


I hope you don't believe that you are a conservative because you are not. You are an anarchist stuck in an endless philosophical loop. The one legitimate use of government is to protect the rights of the people, things like the right to life. You cannot choose to withhold all food from a child. You cannot choose to withhold medication from your child when it is the only thing that will keep him alive.

The government is supposed to protect that? Hummmmmmm

 

[steveh_131]

Not quite. Each case need be handled differently. That is why we have a system of jurisprudence were each side get to state their case. Had you done nothing, and at two years you weren't able to show weight gain, then your cases may be more similar. This baby was born with a treatable, curable actually, disease and denied treatment with the alternative being ride it out - do nothing, more similar to the transfusion case than yours.

I strongly disagree. He recommended these medications quite strenuously. He was convinced they were keeping her alive.

We took her off of them.

Now, how is it different?

I would have no problem working for CPS.

Yes or no: If you worked for CPS, would you personally break her door down and take her child from her at the point of a gun?

 

[Zoub]

Nah. Appeals to emotion are fallacies and usually anecdotal. There is enough pap in this thread as is.

No, it is not about emotion, it is about fact. It speaks to if you can identify to having your child in the hands of another who fails your child?

I can see where you may be employed in a system where you see victims and the benefit that may come from victims being saved by that system. You trust the system from your perspective. You see a benefit from your perspective and you think it fits the parents of this child.

In this case the system creates a victim by definition only.

When I was 14, I saw a person half my age being victimized by the system. There were 30-40 people between me and that person. I could not go around, through or under them so I went over all of them, then took on an adult three times my size and won. No one touches my blood. That is not emotion, that is family.

That day is nothing to how a parent feels about their baby when he or she is sick and the Doctors are failing and failing badly. BTDT too. We are not conditioned to call Doctors F'n idiots and failures but guess what, some are, ask other Doctors.

Like the Doctors that made the Mom in the OP sick.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

You really need to get out into the sunshine more ...

... because you just admitted to your opinion that .gov needs to be in our bedrooms, & you may also believe that they have a place in our GUN-SAFES as well! Get a life, you deluded LibTurdArian idiot!! A simple bolt on the door of that baby's house could have gone a LONG way towards preventing that baby-napping, and given the father a chance to call Mr. Mossberg to the scene .... then call the newspaper. As free citizens we DO NOT HAVE TO ACQUIESCE TO ANY IMMORAL, ILLEGAL "LAWS!" "... other issues aside ..." !? !? ! W.T.F.*!!! The ISSUE is FREEDOM. Who pays if that baby dies in the court's hands? O, I see it now, you say: "I feel bad ..." which makes me feel all warm&fuzzy about the deprivation of parent's rights. JMHO

Other issues aside...she had a baby knowing there was an very high chance she would pass along HIV? I can't see voluntarily transmitting it to someone else, especially my own child.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Courts have made the JW moot dating back to the 1950s. One reached the Supreme Court.

“the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose…the child…to ill health or death"

The majority (with the exception of one) of subsequent cases have maintained the trend, reiterating the views of earlier cases and emphasising three main points:

• The child’s interests and those of the state outweigh parental rights to refuse medical treatmen
• Parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children
• Parents do not have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment for their children based on their religious beliefs.

1000's of lifesaving interventions are done every year in the country.

Justifying compulsory blood transfusion based on four points—(1) minimal danger, (2) treatment efficacy, (3) lack of alternative treatments, and (4) based on religious beliefs—adults cannot choose to be responsible for the death of their children and, declaring no interest in Biblical interpretation, the court stated clearly that, if parental religious beliefs placed a child’s life in danger then the state could intervene to protect the child.

Children of Jehovah

Sorry folks, you can't kill your kids through inaction. When choosing sides of your ideology vs. a dead kid, society has chosen life. Rightly so.

We have already seen in this thread that the drugs that were/are being forced into this child do not pose "minimal danger". We've also seen that they are not an "effective treatment", they're just the only one we have right now in allopathic medicine. Finally, theirs was not based in religious belief, it was based in something far more easily proven.

Lastly, just because the majority of a group of nine people in black robes said it does not make it right, it just makes it law. Dred Scott, anyone? Obamacare, anyone? We're not discussing what's legal here. We're discussing something of much greater importance: What is right.

Is it right that a child dies? Never. It is, however, a greater wrong that the children who have lived when that one has died have their rights, both as children and as adults, diminished solely to save the one child who might be saved from that virus only to be killed in a car accident on the way home. Should government also ban parents from transporting their own children in cars? It's an unnecessary risk, after all, and government can just keep them at a child-raising center where the parents can come to visit them a couple of times a week. No more than that, though; parental influences might corrupt the atmosphere government is trying to create with these young producers...

Hmm.... That sounds kinda Huxley-esque.

Anyone want a gramme?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Zoub]

I strongly disagree. He recommended these medications quite strenuously. He was convinced they were keeping her alive.

We took her off of them.

Now, how is it different?



Yes or no: If you worked for CPS, would you personally break her door down and take her child from her at the point of a gun?

Back in the 90's when CPS was on a tear taking kids, we had an agreement, CPS would never take one of our kids and all would come to help the one. Never had to do that, but we felt the need to have that understanding. We were all good parents with happy children and no issues with the Govt. Just concerned by what we were seeing and how much worse things had become since the 70's and 80's Now, 18 years after that, everything is worse.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just finished reading the articles. Sounds to me everything the state and the doctors were doing were making the baby get worse and suffer

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Two parties in the baby-napping:

I'm waiting for that "yes, or no" answer. But while I wait, please understand my rights; there would be TWO guns involved, and mine is the scatter-gun!

<snip>would you personally break her door down and take her child from her at the point of a gun?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would have no problem working for CPS.

Well, that certainly clarifies matters. I don't think we have anything left to discuss here.

Most of the people I know that do work for them, unless they are dyed-in-the-wool statists, have LOTS of problems working for CPS. If you would not, that explains everything, at least to me.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Zoub]

Well, that certainly clarifies matters. I don't think we have anything left to discuss here.

Most of the people I know that do work for them, unless they are dyed-in-the-wool statists, have LOTS of problems working for CPS. If you would not, that explains everything, at least to me.

Blessings,
Bill

Oddly all the ones I have ever known had no children of their own. Huh, go figure.

 

[jbombelli]

Well, that certainly clarifies matters. I don't think we have anything left to discuss here.

Most of the people I know that do work for them, unless they are dyed-in-the-wool statists, have LOTS of problems working for CPS. If you would not, that explains everything, at least to me.

Blessings,
Bill

It explains it to me, too. And probably many others who have posted in this thread.

Some people think they should have the right to take your kids if they don't like how you raise them, how you discipline them, how you choose to educate them, or how you choose to treat their maladies. They've built government to allow them to do just that, and think they can do it without recrimination because "hey... it's legal."

It's a sad world we live in today.

 

[Bunnykid68]

World Health Organization -
Breast is always best, even for HIV-positive mothers


WHO | Breast is always best, even for HIV-positive mothers

 

[Denny347]

CPS (DCS here in Indiana) has a valid function the serves a true need. I don't agree with how this situation was handled by them but they do good work every day. Hell, I CHINS 2-4yr olds and a 2yr old yesterday who were left in a high crime craphole motel room all alone all night while their moms were out partying. DCS came at my direction and took the kids. I wished to hell SOMEONE would have taken the infant I fished out of the creek yesterday before mommy dumped it. Some people DESERVE to have their kids removed. It the OP's story, I don't see the dire need like my examples.

 

[level.eleven]

We have already seen in this thread that the drugs that were/are being forced into this child do not pose "minimal danger". We've also seen that they are not an "effective treatment", they're just the only one we have right now in allopathic medicine. Finally, theirs was not based in religious belief, it was based in something far more easily proven.

Lastly, just because the majority of a group of nine people in black robes said it does not make it right, it just makes it law. Dred Scott, anyone? Obamacare, anyone? We're not discussing what's legal here. We're discussing something of much greater importance: What is right.

Is it right that a child dies? Never. It is, however, a greater wrong that the children who have lived when that one has died have their rights, both as children and as adults, diminished solely to save the one child who might be saved from that virus only to be killed in a car accident on the way home. Should government also ban parents from transporting their own children in cars? It's an unnecessary risk, after all, and government can just keep them at a child-raising center where the parents can come to visit them a couple of times a week. No more than that, though; parental influences might corrupt the atmosphere government is trying to create with these young producers...

Hmm.... That sounds kinda Huxley-esque.

Anyone want a gramme?

Blessings,
Bill

We can sit around and stoke egos all day long about right and wrong. You have presented nothing fresh. These same questions have been asked and answered many times. The fact is you are going to wind up in front of a judge and be asked to make a case. People tried, they all have failed in being allowed to kill their child.

 

[level.eleven]

Well, that certainly clarifies matters. I don't think we have anything left to discuss here.

Most of the people I know that do work for them, unless they are dyed-in-the-wool statists, have LOTS of problems working for CPS. If you would not, that explains everything, at least to me.

Blessings,
Bill

What does it explain? That I agree with society that children don't have to endure neglect and abuse at the hands of their parents? That I understand this isn't an issue the magical private sector can even begin to address?

 

[level.eleven]

I strongly disagree. He recommended these medications quite strenuously. He was convinced they were keeping her alive.

We took her off of them.

Now, how is it different?



Yes or no: If you worked for CPS, would you personally break her door down and take her child from her at the point of a gun?

If the evidence has been reviewed by the proper channels and a case of neglect or abuse was strong, yes. Now what? Do I get called a statist pig?

 

[steveh_131]

What does it explain? That I agree with society that children don't have to endure neglect and abuse at the hands of their parents? That I understand this isn't an issue the magical private sector can even begin to address?

ETA: Just one skipped question.

If you support this woman's child being removed for refusing medications that the doctor ordered, why shouldn't my daughter have been removed from my care as well?