On Sat, 30 May 2009 12:01:19 -0500, "t" wrote:

You are wrong about the "right treatment", as usual.

Ah, no, you should read this:

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


"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


--
DIE ERSTE REIMBIBEL SEIT DEM MITTELALTER

http://www.reimbibel.de