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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ordering Daniel Hauser to have chemo
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 02:09 AM |
J. Daniel Scruggs | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 0 | October 29th 03 07:09 PM |