A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 29th 09, 01:58 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...inal_Order.pdf
  #2  
Old May 29th 09, 09:12 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
Happy Oyster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default 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
  #3  
Old May 30th 09, 03:18 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,321
Default 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

  #4  
Old May 30th 09, 03:20 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
t
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default 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



  #5  
Old May 30th 09, 05:29 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,321
Default 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

  #6  
Old May 30th 09, 05:53 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
t
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default 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



  #7  
Old May 30th 09, 06:01 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
t
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default 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



  #8  
Old May 30th 09, 06:07 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
Happy Oyster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default 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
  #9  
Old May 30th 09, 06:24 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
Happy Oyster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default 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
  #10  
Old May 30th 09, 06:27 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,misc.headlines
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,321
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On Courts Ordering Boys to Pay Child Support to Women Who Statutorily Raped Them (Part II) Dusty Child Support 0 August 23rd 08 01:16 PM
Ordering from Sell Com Bible John Solutions 24 April 23rd 07 08:41 PM
Daniel V Single Parents 0 March 13th 04 03:09 AM
J. Daniel Scruggs Fighting for kids Child Support 0 October 29th 03 08:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.