|
| PeterB wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
>
> Legal findings based on Constitutional precepts are rarely formulated
> to cover every possible situation, that's why we have courts at the
> state and federal levels. If you believe the courts won't uphold this
> particular protection, I can show you a judge who isn't likely to
> finish his career as a judge.
>
>
> It would be in cases of proven child abuse or neglect, but you haven't
> proven that. You *could* have based your argument on the certainty of
> chemo, but you can't, because the chemo might just as easily kill him.
> If you think that isn't a factor in the current dog and pony show,
> you're a bigger fool than I thought.
>
>
> No shit.
>
>
> Which really doesn't change your argument, mine, or the price of chemo
> in Montana.
>
>
> In like manner, the state cannot force medicate Abraham unless the
> courts rule that his parents are neglecting his care. Since chemo
> cannot be proven effective for Abraham under these conditions, much
> less assure his surviving the treatment, any judgement rendered on
> behalf of the state vs. the parents will be a travesty of justice.
>
>
> The courts, if they are wise, will not find the terms "protect" and
> "chemo" to be synonymous, however.
>
>
> If I was cherry picking, I would have a bowl of cherries, jackass.
>
>
> It's obvious you have a talent for repeating yourself.
>
>
> How many "ifs" can you fit on the head of a pin (or, in your case, a
> pinhead)
>
>
> That should be the ruling in this case, as well. If not, the
> government will be complicit with industry for subjecting citizens to
> unproven medical treatments in a protectionist scheme.
>
>
> But it sounds like you still would rather be living in China. Be my
> guest.
>
>
> Here's a clue. The state has no evidence to even consider, much less
> rule on. You've proven that yourself.
>
>
> It's not a non sequitur, it's a precept the courts must overcome in
> order to usurp parental authority, and only in extreme cases. Your
> agenda here simply has you pimping for chemo.
>
>
> What a stupid regurgitation, which you are presumably lapping up.
> Clean up your mess.
>
>
> No, you're just desperate, and it shows.
>
>
> No one said that proven neglect or abuse does not permit the state to
> intervene, dumbass. Your idiotic position (hardly an argument) is that
> Abraham's rejection of chemo, combined with his parent's support of
> that position, represents neglect. What is your premise for drawing
> that absurd conclusion, if you cannot guarantee that chemo will cure
> (or at least not kill) the patient?
>
>
> I know an idiot when I see one, and in this case, one I can't see.
>
>
> That's not my argument, jackoff.
>
>
> Mr. Broken Bell in the Republic of China has proven that he thinks
> inference is equal to evidence. We already knew this from his
> chemo-pushing web site references, which tells you what about his
> motives and purpose for being here?
>
>
> I'm all for your rights, kiddo. Freedom of speech, despite your wanton
> disregard for the privilege, is what makes democracy work. Money alone
> corrupts it.
>
>
> My goals don't move. Your posts are proving your motives.
Your nonsense and breaks with reality notwithstanding, you have simply
babbled this time out.
The bottom line?
We only know about this case what the media allows us to know with the
slant the journalists put on it at the demands of their editors. Who, of
course, answers to the publisher, who of course makes his nut from what
the advertisers pay, who pay what the circulation indicates.
The answer here, of course is that the journalists will have to milk
this for every farthing of pathos they can wring out of it.
Hence, you may not have all the facts.
Tell you what, I'm tired of you, so I'm hanging you out to dry. I don't
have time for blatant liars, but I'll give you some time when the case
is finally closed and it is PUBLISHED, so we may comb the case for
details withheld from us by the press.
Trying cases in the newsgroups based on missing evidence can get stupid
fast, no?
Don't let the door hitcha.....
>
>
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
|
|