N'Al on 28/4/2018 at 16:22
Doesn't matter how it is phrased. Pretending it's in defense of Islamic radicals is idiotic rubbish, though.
N'Al on 28/4/2018 at 16:43
Not the same thing. What happened in Rotherham was utterly idiotic, yes, and should never have happened. It's still not defending Islamic radicals, though.
Starker on 28/4/2018 at 16:49
Quote Posted by Draxil
1) Alfie had a terminal illness. He would never have a normal life, and had slim (short of miraculous) chance of recovery. Even with extraordinary care his lifespan wasn't going to be long.
2) The state could argue a compelling interest in his case when the financial burden of caring for him was being shouldered by the taxpayer
3) The minute a third party stepped in and offered to shoulder that burden, the state should have said "OK", and gotten the
fuck out of the way
4) Instead, the state thought it best to make this a precedent where it is the final arbiter of which lives are worth preserving/prolonging and which aren't.
5) All men are endowed (not by the state) with the right to life. In the event that they are unable to exercise that right, it falls to their family, their appointed surrogates, or at last resort, the state to intervene on their behalf. The state, in this case, said that it was the final arbiter in the matter and everyone else had better get in line.
6) The populace, after allowing itself to be deprived long ago of the means to do otherwise, gave a half-hearted angry "baaa" and got back in line.
The state did not make this a precedent. There have been other instances like this, and in some cases the courts ruled in the parents' favour. Also, if people want to change this, they would have to change the law, as is done in civilised societies. Killing doctors or judges would not change a thing, other than bringing more grief.
Quote Posted by Draxil
My point about children and McDonald's wasn't a (
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fattest-children-to-be-taken-away-from-their-parents-898972.html?cmp=ilc-n) strawman. There are dozens of instances I can link to in that vein, in the UK and the US. If you start unloading parental rights and obligations on the government, at what point do you stop? It's a very slippery slope, and you can always justify just a little more government intervention. 200 lbs at age 10 is ridiculous. But if that's ridiculous, then why not 180? If 180, why not 150? Why not 145? 140? Cut-off point at 120? BMI greater than 26 or 90th percentile? What if you teach that evolution is hog-wash in your homeschooling? What if you don't teach sex ed? If you teach that birth control is immoral? That homosexuality is unnatural and sinful? That there is such a thing as immutable, biological sex and gender? That sin exists? That there is a God? Are these reasons for state intervention?
If you're making a slippery slope argument, you better show how you are getting there every step of the way. Else it's a fallacy. Also, when the state takes away parental rights, the state is not taking the parental rights and obligations onto itself. If possible, custody is given to a relative instead. Otherwise, the child is placed into foster care.
As for homeshooling, you are allowed to teach your child any nonsense you want, as you would be if your child went to a regular school. You can teach them that the Sun revolves around the Earth, if you like. But you also have to teach them about how the Solar System works according to the heliocentric theory.
The parents' rights don't supersede the child's rights. As I said earlier, if the parent is harming the child and/or neglecting parental obligations, the state absolutely should intervene. This doesn't automatically mean taking away parental rights or that the state should intervene in every trivial case when a child comes to harm. The decisions are made on a case-by-case basis according to the law and courts consider first and foremost what is in the best interest of the child.
Quote Posted by Draxil
One man's terrorist etc. as your side frequently says when defending Islamic radicals. I'd say it's taking up arms against the state. Who better constitutes "the state" than an appointed judiciary? They're not subject to democratic recall, and are not accountable to the populace they are appointed to serve. There is no redress available to the Evans family. The state has deemed that their child isn't going to live, and is forbidding them from taking any measures to prolong his life. There's absolutely no justification for usurping their parental authority in this case. If it's willing to do this to a child, it's willing to do it to Grandpa. Then dad. Then a wife or sibling. You knock US citizens for living in an Orwellian surveillance state, but you defend that same surveillance state when it arbitrarily exercises its power in life and death decisions.
Yeah. If I lived there, I'd say it's time to overthrow the state. I was at that point long before this decision, though. When the Lord Mayor of your most populous city declares that "there's no reason to carry a knife", and that all men are subject to arbitrary searches by the police, then you know you're living in a totalitarian state. When your government refuses to let you own arms, you live in a totalitarian state, no matter how benevolent. The Evans affair was an instance of the totalitarian state testing its boundaries. Apparently there aren't any boundaries. And there's no point that is "too much" for the subjects of the UK.
The UK is not "arbitrarily exercising its power in life and death decisions" though. In UK, things are based on law. According to the doctors, keeping the child alive would have been unkind and inhumane, especially as there was no hope for recovery or improvement. Quite the opposite, in fact.
As for arms, you are allowed to own them in the UK, and many people do. Gun control doesn't mean that you can't own guns. The stop and search policy is nonsense, though, and the London mayor was wrong in proposing it. But, the US also has (had) similar policies, though. Did you go shoot up the New York law enforcement when they had stop and frisk? And your president is arguing for bringing it back. Will you go assassinate him when he puts it in place again?
Finally, we have had your version of society before. All that brought were blood feuds and a cycle of violence. If you can just go kill a judge that didn't rule in your favour, what's to stop the judge's relatives from taking revenge on your family?
Draxil on 28/4/2018 at 18:54
My bad. It was officially repealed. (
http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/105269.aspx) 9 days ago. Only took 7 years! Congrats, Scotland!
Quote:
The state did not make this a precedent. There have been other instances like this, and in some cases the courts ruled in the parents' favour. Also, if people want to change this, they would have to change the law, as is done in civilised societies. Killing doctors or judges would not change a thing, other than bringing more grief.
I'm tired of back and forth and quote games. The UK adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of Children as its guiding document for child welfare. A few relevant articles:
Quote:
Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision....
Article 6
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.It doesn't make sense to say that it's in a person's best interest to die. Death is the opposite of having an interest in
anything. Even as a means to relieve suffering death isn't a good answer, because you can't appreciate the cessation of suffering if you can't appreciate. It's in the interests of others, perhaps, to end your suffering; they're not doing you any favors, though. The state didn't do Alfie or his parents any favors, and it's rather vile and repulsive to see the likes of yourself so eagerly defending the government apparatus that would so blithely do the same to you or your children. I thought you grew up under totalitarian rule--miss it?
I wasn't opposed to withdrawing treatment from Alfie Evans. I'm opposed to the State, and not the parents, making that decision. You should be, too.
Back to guns for a moment:
Quote:
As for arms, you are allowed to own them in the UK, and many people do. Gun control doesn't mean that you can't own guns. The stop and search policy is nonsense, though, and the London mayor was wrong in proposing it. But, the US also has (had) similar policies, though. Did you go shoot up the New York law enforcement when they had stop and frisk? And your president is arguing for bringing it back. Will you go assassinate him when he puts it in place again?
Gun ownership has been made so onerous in the UK that it's practically impossible to own one. Handguns and semiautomatic rifles are banned, and extensive paperwork is necessary to own a common shotgun. I was opposed to stop and frisk when it was in place, but never subject to it as I didn't live in New York. If those idiots want to fritter away their freedom to be secure in their person or carry firearms, in exchange for non-existent security from criminals, that's their business. I'm not sure how it wasn't in violation of the constitution to start with. If we had a legislature and president willing to implement nationwide stop-and-frisk, then yes, by all means (including armed revolt and assassination) overthrow them.
I appreciate the exchange of views on the Evans situation, even if I have no appreciation for your views. I have four children with a fifth on the way, and the subject is too emotionally close to home. I've had friends whose children would have died far faster in the UK. Some of those children lived for years having undergone incredibly expensive and extraordinary life saving measures. One lived for almost 9 years, to the age of 16, after having a soccer goal fall on his head and suffering a traumatic brain injury. A friend from childhood's daughter was born with only a portion of her heart, and suffered multiple strokes at birth. She underwent multiple cardio-thoracic surgeries, and died at the age of 6 months. She never left the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. She had a profound impact on the lives of everyone that had the good fortune to meet her, as did her parents' love, loyalty, and strength. I'm certified in pediatric resuscitation, and have participated in (successful) postoperative resuscitation efforts for a 3 year old. The UK courts' decision is abhorrent, in my view, and damning.
I'm happy to continue discussing gun control, but am done discussing this.
Renzatic on 28/4/2018 at 20:16
Quote Posted by Draxil
It doesn't make sense to say that it's in a person's best interest to die. Death is the opposite of having an interest in
anything. Even as a means to relieve suffering death isn't a good answer, because you can't appreciate the cessation of suffering if you can't appreciate. It's in the interests of others, perhaps, to end your suffering; they're not doing you any favors, though. The state didn't do Alfie or his parents any favors, and it's rather vile and repulsive to see the likes of yourself so eagerly defending the government apparatus that would so blithely do the same to you or your children.
The state didn't do Alfie any favors, no. Didn't exactly do much to hurt him, either. Like I said, he wasn't a person anymore. The components necessary to construct what we philosophically consider a human being were long since gone. His brain consisted only of the parts necessary to keep him breathing, and his heart pumping. All things considered, Alfie was already dead. Had been dead for awhile. We were just keeping his body alive.
Though on the flipside of things, while I can understand the reasoning behind the laws that kicked this little drama off, there really was no reason for the hospital to deny the parents their one last glimmer of hope. Alfie's brain had degenerated to the point he was no longer capable of any sensation. Putting him on a plane and flying him to Italy would've caused Alife no undue pain or suffering. There was nothing there to experience discomfort.
I can't work up any emotions other than a general sadness for the plight of the family, and the fate of the poor kid. Any anger I feel are for the people using this tragedy as an excuse to advocate insurance based medical care and guns, cuz fuck it, nothing's sacred these days. Maybe the hospital did put its foot down a little too hard, but in the end, it wasn't a decision driven by a tyrannical need to force its authority on the blinkered masses, so much a decision driven by cold pragmatism. Alfie was gone. There was no coming back. That trip to Italy? It wasn't for Alfie's wellbeing. It was for the parents. Yeah, they probably should've placated them, since everyone was happily volunteering for the extra help, but don't make this into something it's not.
Quote:
I thought you grew up under totalitarian rule--miss it?
It's because of people like you, shit like this, that I see most big L Libertarians less as a group of people making a strong, proud stance for their rights and freedoms, and more as spoiled brats who scream TYRANNY like toddlers throwing toys out of the crib when they don't get their way.
jkcerda on 28/4/2018 at 20:26
Some of us are even toddler sized
Anyways best wishes to Alfies parents as they cope with the loss
RENZ. check you email. Send nudes back
Draxil on 28/4/2018 at 20:27
Quote Posted by Renzatic
It's because of people like you, shit like this, that I see most big L Libertarians less as a group of people making a strong, proud stance for their rights and freedoms, and more as spoiled brats who scream TYRANNY like toddlers throwing toys out of the crib when they don't get their way.
It was a cheap shot. Sorry, Starker.
