Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:55 -0400, "Jan Drew" wrote:

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf

Children are not the property of their parents.

And children must not be sacrificed for the religiotic minds of their parents.

Read:

http://www.pharmamafia.com

--
DIE ERSTE REIMBIBEL SEIT DEM MITTELALTER

http://www.reimbibel.de

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

Happy Oyster wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:55 -0400, "Jan Drew" wrote:

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf

Children are not the property of their parents.

And children must not be sacrificed for the religiotic minds of their parents.

Both are correct. However, children are entrusted to the care of their
parents. And parents usually act in good faith to provide the best for
their children, as they are in Daniel Hauser's case. Their idea of what
good medical care is differs signicantly with the state's (and mine,
which is pretty consistant with the state's idea). I guess the important
point here is that no one is trying to harm Daniel Hauser, even if his
parents' decisions are not the best ones.

Jeff

Read:

http://www.pharmamafia.com

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

Perhaps not the "property" of the parents. But sure as hell not "property of
the state. How did you become a Nazi?
"Happy Oyster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:55 -0400, "Jan Drew"
wrote:

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf

Children are not the property of their parents.

And children must not be sacrificed for the religiotic minds of their
parents.

Read:

http://www.pharmamafia.com

--
DIE ERSTE REIMBIBEL SEIT DEM MITTELALTER

http://www.reimbibel.de

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

Happy Oyster wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 02:18:24 GMT, Jeff wrote:

Happy Oyster wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:55 -0400, "Jan Drew" wrote:

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf
Children are not the property of their parents.

And children must not be sacrificed for the religiotic minds of their parents.
Both are correct. However, children are entrusted to the care of their
parents. And parents usually act in good faith to provide the best for
their children, as they are in Daniel Hauser's case. Their idea of what
good medical care is differs signicantly with the state's (and mine,
which is pretty consistant with the state's idea). I guess the important
point here is that no one is trying to harm Daniel Hauser, even if his
parents' decisions are not the best ones.

Really "no one"??? The difference lies in idea and consequences.

The idea is that faith heals or that those stupid native "medicaments" will
heal.

Fact is that they will NOT heal, so that the boy will die for sure.

Yet no one is trying kill or harm the boy.

http://www.pharmamafia.com
http://www.pharmamafia.de
http://www.impfkritiker.de
http://wehrhafte.medizin.se

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

In your twisted wet dream.
"Happy Oyster" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 May 2009 02:18:24 GMT, Jeff wrote:

Happy Oyster wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:55 -0400, "Jan Drew"
wrote:

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf

Children are not the property of their parents.

And children must not be sacrificed for the religiotic minds of their
parents.

Both are correct. However, children are entrusted to the care of their
parents. And parents usually act in good faith to provide the best for
their children, as they are in Daniel Hauser's case. Their idea of what
good medical care is differs signicantly with the state's (and mine,
which is pretty consistant with the state's idea). I guess the important
point here is that no one is trying to harm Daniel Hauser, even if his
parents' decisions are not the best ones.

Really "no one"??? The difference lies in idea and consequences.

The idea is that faith heals or that those stupid native "medicaments"
will
heal.

Fact is that they will NOT heal, so that the boy will die for sure.



http://www.pharmamafia.com
http://www.pharmamafia.de
http://www.impfkritiker.de
http://wehrhafte.medizin.se
--
DIE ERSTE REIMBIBEL SEIT DEM MITTELALTER

http://www.reimbibel.de

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

You are wrong about the "right treatment", as usual.
"Happy Oyster" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:29:07 GMT, Jeff wrote:

Happy Oyster wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 02:18:24 GMT, Jeff wrote:

Happy Oyster wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:55 -0400, "Jan Drew"
wrote:

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf
Children are not the property of their parents.

And children must not be sacrificed for the religiotic minds of their
parents.
Both are correct. However, children are entrusted to the care of their
parents. And parents usually act in good faith to provide the best for
their children, as they are in Daniel Hauser's case. Their idea of what
good medical care is differs signicantly with the state's (and mine,
which is pretty consistant with the state's idea). I guess the
important
point here is that no one is trying to harm Daniel Hauser, even if his
parents' decisions are not the best ones.

Really "no one"??? The difference lies in idea and consequences.

The idea is that faith heals or that those stupid native "medicaments"
will
heal.

Fact is that they will NOT heal, so that the boy will die for sure.

Yet no one is trying kill or harm the boy.

Not gving the boy he right treatment is letting him die, and EXACTLY THAT
is
what the parents are doing.


http://www.pharmamafia.com
http://www.pharmamafia.de
http://www.impfkritiker.de
http://wehrhafte.medizin.se

--
DIE ERSTE REIMBIBEL SEIT DEM MITTELALTER

http://www.reimbibel.de

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

On Sat, 30 May 2009 02:18:24 GMT, Jeff wrote:

Happy Oyster wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:55 -0400, "Jan Drew" wrote:

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf

Children are not the property of their parents.

And children must not be sacrificed for the religiotic minds of their parents.

Both are correct. However, children are entrusted to the care of their
parents. And parents usually act in good faith to provide the best for
their children, as they are in Daniel Hauser's case. Their idea of what
good medical care is differs signicantly with the state's (and mine,
which is pretty consistant with the state's idea). I guess the important
point here is that no one is trying to harm Daniel Hauser, even if his
parents' decisions are not the best ones.

Really "no one"??? The difference lies in idea and consequences.

The idea is that faith heals or that those stupid native "medicaments" will
heal.

Fact is that they will NOT heal, so that the boy will die for sure.



http://www.pharmamafia.com
http://www.pharmamafia.de
http://www.impfkritiker.de
http://wehrhafte.medizin.se
--
DIE ERSTE REIMBIBEL SEIT DEM MITTELALTER

http://www.reimbibel.de

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

On Sat, 30 May 2009 09:20:17 -0500, "t" wrote:

Perhaps not the "property" of the parents. But sure as hell not "property of
the state. How did you become a Nazi?

You are not ablre to read...?

"Happy Oyster" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:55 -0400, "Jan Drew"
wrote:

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf

Children are not the property of their parents.

And children must not be sacrificed for the religiotic minds of their
parents.

Read:

http://www.pharmamafia.com

--
DIE ERSTE REIMBIBEL SEIT DEM MITTELALTER

http://www.reimbibel.de


--
DIE ERSTE REIMBIBEL SEIT DEM MITTELALTER

http://www.reimbibel.de

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
 

Happy Oyster wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:29:07 GMT, Jeff wrote:

Happy Oyster wrote:

...

Yet no one is trying kill or harm the boy.

Not gving the boy he right treatment is letting him die, and EXACTLY THAT is
what the parents are doing.

No it isn't. The parents came to the conclusion that the boy needs
chemotherapy, apparently on their own. So they are giving him the needed
treatments. I am not sure they would have been doing so without court
supervision.

Even so, they had no wish to hurt the boy. They were mistaken in their
understanding of chemotherapy and the boy's illness. There is a big
difference between trying to kill a kid and having innocent actions that
lead to a kid's death.