Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I feel this topic deserves it's own thread. The link is in the triggered thread to the story, but essentially, a baby is dying in Britain and his parents want to take him to Italy where he can be treated further. Italy has granted him citizenship and the Pope even has a helicopter all lined up to take him to a hospital in Italy except...the British government ruled against letting that happen and the doctors in Britain have been instructed to let the boy die because they feel it's pointless to go to Italy for treatment. The father has been keeping his boy alive by giving him mouth to mouth while the hospital did nothing.....................................................................................seriously WTF. Can anyone explain why they would do this to this family? If Italy is onboard, why not let him go, even it there is no chance? This seems shockingly cruel and heartless...can anyone explain why the hell this is happening?

Because Britain is becoming a Fascist Nation. Its that Simple.

the UK government really is just trying to be horrible

Originally posted by Emperordmb
the UK government really is just trying to be horrible

At this point they don't even have to TRY anymore.

I don't want this to turn into a political blame game that so many other threads turn into, I'm just shocked that this would happen, and I want to know why the hell they would do something like this. It's just so...horrible.

IT is all due to Politics! That is why its so HORRIBLE!

Pls come over to the UK so we can pronounce a ruling on you.

The baby is potentially suffering and in pain, and there is no cure. Beni is right.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Pls come over to the UK so we can pronounce a ruling on you.

I look to people like Tommy Robinson and Count Dankula, and Lauren Southern and I have to agree with Beni. They WOULD Go all Fascist on me in the Land of U.K.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The baby is potentially suffering and in pain, and there is no cure. Beni is right.

Oh. You have a Medical Degree in this Area do you?

Or are you just another Leftist Baby killer?

I am leaning towards the latter.

Originally posted by Flyattractor

Oh. You have a Medical Degree in this Area do you?

Uh, do you? There is basically no chance you could've gotten a double digit score on the MCAT, so I'm going to go with no. What I said, however, is the consensus of every medical expert I've seen review his case, so the experts are not on your side.

Well you appear to live in the U.S to so...I would bet the same could be said about you.

And they are Medical Experts in the U.K. They HAVE to say what their Political Masters tell them.

That and The Land of U.K is a Socialist Country. That pretty much means that all of their "Experts" are at best 2nd Rate. I would let this poor child out of that country to seek Truly Professional help.

For this case I just have one simple question:

If this was Prince Williams kid, would we be seeing the same exact response from the doctors? Would they have been prevented from taking their child to another country to seek treatment?

Royal People are Blue Bood. And Blue is a Blood that MUST BE SAVED!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
And they are Medical Experts in the U.K.

So let me get this straight: you dismiss my position because I don't have a medical degree, even though you don't have one yourself, and are now saying that a medical degree isn't actually enough because there's some elaborate conspiracy among British doctors to mis-diagnose their patients for their "socialist masters"? Then why did you bring up medical credentials in the first place?

You don't have a Med Degree. How can You tell of what the U.K Doctors is saying is valid or not? You Can't. They Could Be WRONG! If the Land of U.K wants to Save Money they can just Let the CHILD Out of the Country instead of Holding it Prisoner of the State.

And it ISN'T A Conspiracy among Brit Docs. The Land of U.K Government has been pretty open with is Fascist Socialistic Agenda.

That would be reason to have a panel of medical professionals evaluate the baby's condition, which has little resemblance to what the parents were trying to do.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
They WOULD Go all Fascist on me in the Land of U.K.giljotiini

Originally posted by Flyattractor
That and The Land of U.K is a Socialist Country. A socialist country that's been run by the Conservative Party for the past nine years.

Yeah the Parents were TRYING to SAVE their Child's Life. That is DEF Something the Doctors are NOT trying to do.

Would you rather get killed instantly or slowly tortured to death? If you answered the former, you acknowledge that some things are worse than death.

As long as there is Life you should fight to save it. That is a problem with the Leftist Mind Set. They have been CHEAPENING Life for decades.

You didn't answer my question

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The baby is potentially suffering and in pain, and there is no cure. Beni is right.
So the state decides to end it, the parents decide to fight for it. Who has the better claim on the kid's life?

He never will. Mwahahahaha.

He probably won't though.

I think I would choose the LIVE One. Cause if I am ALIVE I can continue to FIGHT!

And funny how you compare the Baby Alfie Scenario to a Torture Session.

Kind of What the Land of U.K Doctors are doing. They are HOLDING Alfie a Literally Prisoner in that country.
Think how much money it would save the state if they let some other country take over the med bills.

And I toss your question back at you.

WHICH OPTION WOULD YOU CHOOSE?!

Originally posted by Stigma
Who has the better claim on the kid's life?

Medical science

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Medical science

Nice to know that You Support State Approved Slavery.

PEOPLE NOW BELONG TO THE STATE!!!!!!!!

yeah ok you have to be a troll

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Medical science Why?

Because what's factually deemed best for the child should take priority over the parent's wishes. The parents don't have the authority to dictate a course of action that would prolong the child's suffering.

Originally posted by Stigma
Why?

More generally children aren't the property of their parents and we don't allow things like child abuse, so there's a clear precedence for the welfare for the child overriding parental authority.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Because what's factually deemed best for the child should take priority over the parent's wishes. The parents don't have the authority to dictate a course of action that would prolong the child's suffering.
I see.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
More generally children aren't the property of their parents and we don't allow things like child abuse, so there's a clear precedence for the welfare for the child overriding parental authority.
I see.

I have a Differing Opinion to him/her/it. To ...that just automatically makes those that DISAGREE a "Troll".

I answered you little Question? Can You give an answer to it yourself?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Would you rather get killed instantly or slowly tortured to death? If you answered the former, you acknowledge that some things are worse than death.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
More generally children aren't the property of their parents and we don't allow things like child abuse, so there's a clear precedence for the welfare for the child overriding parental authority. Pretty much.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
More generally children aren't the property of their parents and we don't allow things like child abuse, so there's a clear precedence for the welfare for the child overriding parental authority.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Because what's factually deemed best for the child should take priority over the parent's wishes. The parents don't have the authority to dictate a course of action that would prolong the child's suffering.

So in other words. We can walk up to any Parents in the History of the World point at the child and say...

http://www.framingthedialogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/you-didn_t-build-that-obama-300x300.jpg

in which flyboy reveals what this is really about: ma property rights.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
in which flyboy reveals what this is really about: ma property rights.

https://www.toonpool.com/user/15371/files/baby_factory_1311475.jpg

This is How Babies are Made! Aint that right Beni!?

Originally posted by Beniboybling


https://media.giphy.com/media/3SqYt1jvnpsY/giphy.gif

or a conservative, not much difference apparently.

After what your country , The Land of U.K has done the lasft few years.

I would have to say if any country around here acts "SITHY" it would be yours.

no surprise since conservatives are running it, yeah

MmmmmYeah. Try again.

The PM ISN'T THE WHOLE OF THE GOVERNMENT! Now is she?

Lots of Lefties still hold High positions in your Horrible Land of U.K.

is that so, can you name some flyboy?

This situation sounds horrible.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That would be reason to have a panel of medical professionals evaluate the baby's condition, which has little resemblance to what the parents were trying to do.

Do you think the doctors would be doing the same thing if this was Prince Williams kid? Would the royals be prevented from taking their child to another country for medical treatment?

Would the doctors be willing to do the same thing if it was their own kid?

I see one side making a lot of emotional arguments without much of a consistent line of reasoning. i mean, come on - it's really, really easy to point out the logical flaws in Fly Attractor and co.'s case. You guys surely aren't thinking it through very honestly.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Would the doctors be willing to do the same thing if it was their own kid?

That's rarely ever a fair argument, the "what if you...". A person in that position is emotionally compromised and I'd expect any parent to toss aside reason and logic when their child's life is on the line. The doctors' responsible is to put aside emotion and judge from a point of science and facts to the best of thier ability and training.

eg Similar when people use the "what if your loved one was murdered" angle as a means to force a pro capital punishment argument. Obviously I'd probably want to person dead, but I'm emotionally compromised in that situation. The State should make decisions based on logic/reason.

edit: Or what Ellimist said /ninja'd

Originally posted by Surtur
Do you think the doctors would be doing the same thing if this was Prince Williams kid? Would the royals be prevented from taking their child to another country for medical treatment? Originally posted by Emperordmb
Would the doctors be willing to do the same thing if it was their own kid? look at these alt-bros and their #gotcha questions.

Are these miracle Italian doctors (who apparently are saying they can't do much?) being stopped from coming to the UK to perform whatever treatment?

Originally posted by Robtard
Are these miracle Italian doctors (who apparently are saying they can't do much?) being stopped from coming to the UK to perform whatever treatment?

Don't know. Italy sent a chopper to the UK for the kid. The UK responded by posting police near the baby IIRC.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I see one side making a lot of emotional arguments without much of a consistent line of reasoning. i mean, come on - it's really, really easy to point out the logical flaws in Fly Attractor and co.'s case. You guys surely aren't thinking it through very honestly.

Can't speak for others, but I'm not trying to point out the flaws in anyone's case. I am simply curious if people believe the royals in the UK would receive the same exact treatment. If people think they would be told "No, you can't remove your sick child to get treatment in another country, he has to die".

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Uh, do you? There is basically no chance you could've gotten a double digit score on the MCAT, so I'm going to go with no. What I said, however, is the consensus of every medical expert I've seen review his case, so the experts are not on your side.

I got a 524.


I have determined that this baby is pregnant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I got a 524.


I have determined that this baby is pregnant.

The baby self identifies as a healthy baby and not a sick one.

Boom, nailed it. Now the UK needs to explain why healthy babies can't go to Italy.

Originally posted by Surtur
The baby self identifies as a healthy baby and not a sick one.

Boom, nailed it. Now the UK needs to explain why healthy babies can't go to Italy.

Checkmate, atheists.

i agree with beni and elm

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
i agree with beni and elm

SO you think that we are just Slaves to what every Government we are subject to?

And that is pure Fascism right there.

So no shock.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
SO you think that we are just Slaves to what every Government we are subject to?

And that is pure Fascism right there.

So no shock.

yes, the ancap thinks that we should be slaves to the government.

Viva La Revolution.

So the kid passed away this morning:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/28/alfie-evans-dies-after-withdrawal-of-life-support

finally the end of it

Originally posted by Beniboybling
The chances weren't slim, they were non-existent, the vast majority of his brain had been reduced to fluid, medical professional after medical professional ruled that there was no chance he would ever recover.

Do you think that its ethically responsible to artificially prolong a child's life when there is no chance at all of him ever getting better?

Just tell me you can answer "yes" to the question of "would this have played out exactly the same if this was Will and Kates kid?".

In fact I encourage anyone who thinks the answer is "yes" to say so.

Why should I waste time answering your dumb question?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Why should I waste time answering your dumb question?

Because you just wasted time asking me why you should waste time.

IMO if he was Will and Kate's kid instead of being a corpse he'd be in Italy receiving treatment. And that is wrong on so many levels.

Next person the State will want to put on their "To Kill" List will probably be this guy......

Hopsital kicks Alfie's Family Priest out of Hopsital when He points out they are being watched by God...Aka They know what they did was Wrong!

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Medical science Perhaps I misjudged you. Good Post!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/memes/obamacareanchorman.jpg

Gay in a Happy Way.

in the more True definitions of the words.

Well, in that case...

Old School Definitions can be the best...

Oh and back on Topic!


GEOAJD006Tc

I truly hope this treatment would have caused Alfie horrible horrible horrible pain and that is why it wasn't allowed. That is the only rationale that makes sense. If it truly just comes down to "meh, doctors said no cuz they don't think it will work" then the UK is a shithole country, just in a different way than Mexico or Haiti.

Wait can you even feel pain if you are brain dead?

Leftists seem to ....


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P2l_vEoLtx8/TW8llW_J89I/AAAAAAAAC7M/mA_tqE6BgcI/s400/rim-shot.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
The answer would be that a child is no one's "property", though the parent's are responsible for said child's well being and there is precedence where the state can interfere if said parents are doing something harmful to the child's well being and/or quality of life. I hope that clears up your confusion.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Because what's factually deemed best for the child should take priority over the parent's wishes. The parents don't have the authority to dictate a course of action that would prolong the child's suffering.


There's no cure for the baby, the brain is rapidly degenerating. It's essentially in constant agony, and it's better to end the suffering than the prolongue it. I know that's a hard truth for the parents to deal with, but it's the truth. May Alfie rest in peace.

Originally posted by MythLord




There's no cure for the baby, the brain is rapidly degenerating. It's essentially in constant agony, and it's better to end the suffering than the prolongue it. I know that's a hard truth for the parents to deal with, but it's the truth. May Alfie rest in peace.

Lol so, someone is lying. How can he be both brain dead and in agony?

A brain can be 'dead' in terms of thoughts/consciousness, but still register pain, iirc.

eg if you hooked up the person's head to an EEG and poked the comatose/brain-dead patient with a needle, you'd see activity in the pain sectors of the brain.

Well is pain the reason this was denied? It is the only thing that would make sense, but it more comes off like this is just "the doctors said it won't work".

Pain is irrelevant here imo, if professional after professional is saying "this kid's brain is beyond recovery as it's essentially goop; there's nothing modern science can do", then he's just a living corpse being kept alive. I'm not judging the parents as they're emotionally involved and rightfully so, but what's the point in keeping a brain-dead body alive?

Originally posted by Robtard
Pain is irrelevant here imo, if professional after professional is saying "this kid's brain is beyond recovery as it's essentially goop; there's nothing modern science can do", then he's just a living corpse being kept alive. I'm not judging the parents as they're emotionally involved and rightfully so, but what's the point in keeping a brain-dead body alive?

I guess I'd argue...if it isn't causing the child massive amounts of discomfort, why not try? It would be one thing if treatment was going to need to be paid for by the UK. But this was another country offering and even sending a helicopter. I just don't get it.

If the child isn't actually suffering then isn't the only true harm to the parents? They get their hopes up and could get them dashed. But that is their choice to make IMO. Nobody was advocating for keeping the child perpetually on life support.

SquallX

Well I mean it's the UK, the same place that fined a dude over $1000 for making a joke, decided ****ing knife control was a good idea, and thinks its a good idea to arrest a teenager for posting rap lyrics with the N-word to the internet to pay tribute to a dead kid (she now has to wear an ankle monitor for 8 weeks and pay like $800)

UK is going authoritarian

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well I mean it's the UK, the same place that fined a dude over $1000 for making a joke, decided ****ing knife control was a good idea, and thinks its a good idea to arrest a teenager for posting rap lyrics with the N-word to the internet to pay tribute to a dead kid (she now has to wear an ankle monitor for 8 weeks and pay like $800)

UK is going authoritarian


OH they have shot WAY past "authoritarian" when you get deeper in to it. Just look at the Tommy Robinson Case.

ITs FULL FASCIST Time in the Land of U.K!!!!

Oh you mean how they harassed the dude and put him in jail right next to radicalized muslims hoping they'd kill him? Yeah ****ed up shit like that.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh you mean how they harassed the dude and put him in jail right next to radicalized muslims hoping they'd kill him? Yeah ****ed up shit like that.


I forget, was that before or after the U.K. Gov tried to Force him to be their undercover shill?

Can't remember but that was pretty messed up too.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol so, someone is lying. How can he be both brain dead and in agony?
There actually has been controversy on this topic, actually. Some doctors speculate a brain can shut down, but not completely, and still leave certain nerve receptors active. So you can feel pain, but your body can't react to it.

Regardless, the baby was then either a corpse or in agony. Both would mean prolonging his life is futile.

@DMB Was that when "Tommy Robinson" (not the real name, the name of Luton Football hooligan) went inside for getting into the US (a country he is banned from) with a fake passport to meet white supremacists and clan members... Or one of the other times that little cock got banged up? Although knowing "Tommy' anything he says is probably untrue.

Yeah. It is a shame we WASTED so many U.S Lives for this Scum Bag Country back in WWII.

For the same reason the government does not allow a parent to substitute prayer for medical treatment.

Originally posted by MythLord
There actually has been controversy on this topic, actually. Some doctors speculate a brain can shut down, but not completely, and still leave certain nerve receptors active. So you can feel pain, but your body can't react to it.

Regardless, the baby was then either a corpse or in agony. Both would mean prolonging his life is futile.

Why is trying one last treatment that costs the UK nothing a big deal? I do not get it. Why were they so eager for this kid to die?

And I still don't believe for a single second if this was Prince Williams kid they would have said "no, you can't try this other treatment".

While I think that, based on the evidence provided, there wasn't really a way to reverse the damage done. Though I don't like the the UK was able to deny the parents the opportunity to try especially if it was at no detriment to the government.

With that in mind I wonder why the treatment had to happen in Italy instead of inviting the doctors over. Also not sure if this supposed treatment would do anything either to actually improve the condition.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
While I think that, based on the evidence provided, there wasn't really a way to reverse the damage done. Though I don't like the the UK was able to deny the parents the opportunity to try especially if it was at no detriment to the government.

With that in mind I wonder why the treatment had to happen in Italy instead of inviting the doctors over. Also not sure if this supposed treatment would do anything either to actually improve the condition.

The UK was standing in the way. Italy sent a friggin helicopter and you know how the UK responded? They set up cops around Alfie. This is why nobody else could get to him. The doctors apparently decided it wouldn't work so he couldn't leave.

Weird. When the kid is inside the woman it's her property and she can kill it, but after it's born apparently the parents have no rights.

Originally posted by Surtur

Weird. When the kid is inside the woman it's her property and she can kill it, but after it's born apparently the parents have no rights.

You're being disingenuous again with your anti-abortion rhetoric. There's a time limit as to when a woman can legally have an abortion; once it's considered a person, abortion is illegal, barring the extremely rare instances when late term abortions are allowed and that's typically because the child would not survive and is a threat to the mother's life.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're being disingenuous again with your anti-abortion rhetoric. There's a time limit as to when a woman can legally have an abortion; once it's considered a person, abortion is illegal, barring the extremely rare instances when late term abortions are allowed and that's typically because the child would not survive and is a threat to the mother's life.

Weird how it's property until it is not.

Hey, just for fun: name me the moment it goes from property to not property.

Originally posted by Surtur
Weird how it's property until it is not.

Hey, just for fun: name me the moment it goes from property to not property.

Not sure how that's "weird".

Medically it's been accepted at 22 weeks, iirc.

edit: Or 24.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure how that's "weird".

Medically it's been accepted at 22 weeks, iirc.

edit: Or 24.

22 weeks. Weird. We just had people whining a state wanted to ban abortions after 20 weeks though. I'm guessing if they'd said 22 weeks those folk would have been okay with it. Great.

Oh the edit, or no doubt 24 would be great for lefitsts. Yes.

Anyways, either this kid would feel pain or he wouldn't. If he wouldn't, it's asinine to deny him this shot.

F*ck the UK for this, and for their crackdown on free speech. Shithole countries come in all shapes and sizes it seems.

You really are a weirdo when it comes to abortions, it's not like you care on the grounds of "babies are being killed!" as is the usual anti-abortion stance, you're concerned that a woman is allowed control over her body up to a certain point.

Send the UK a nasty letter then?

Originally posted by Robtard
You really are a weirdo when it comes to abortions, it's not like you care on the grounds of "babies are being killed!" as is the usual anti-abortion stance, you're concerned that a woman is allowed control over her body up to a certain point.

Send the UK a nasty letter then?

Well, my issue comes from the "it's totally my choice, until it pops out, then you gotta pay and you don't have a choice".

Nah, sending the UK a nasty letter wouldn't work. The pansies are investigating a girl for rap lyrics.

But it's not, as noted, there's a time-limit as to when abortions can legally happen, it literally becomes 'not my choice' at a given time.

As far as the Male Rights Activist angle you're using, men fully know that sex with a woman can lead to pregnancy, so unless they're being forced to have sex, that's the risk you take.

Originally posted by Robtard
But it's not, as noted, there's a time-limit as to when abortions can legally happen, it literally becomes 'not my choice' at a given time.

As far as the Male Rights Activist angle you're using, men fully know that sex with a woman can lead to pregnancy, so unless they're being forced to have sex, that's the risk you take.

And women know unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. You don't get to say it's my problem until it's your problem. Or at least adults dhouldn't be able to pull that shit. This won't be debated.

Anyways, like I said. Unless the treatment would result in extreme pain, the UK is a shithole country for this.

Who said the woman isn't responsible? No one. The point is that it's both parties responsibility and if a child is born out of a consensual sexual encounter, then both have responsibility to provide for the child.

Nah, UK despite its problems (which we all have) seems like a pretty top notch place.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka Though I don't like the the UK was able to deny the parents the opportunity to try especially if it was at no detriment to the government.

That's what I'm still unclear on myself. Why they thought that was okay. People fly abroad for radical treatments all the time. I've seen mention that the hospital said that any attempts to save the child would be inhumane, but I haven't been able to find specifics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who said the woman isn't responsible? No one. The point is that it's both parties responsibility and if a child is born out of a consensual sexual encounter, then both have responsibility to provide for the child.

Nah, UK despite its problems (which we all have) seems like a pretty top notch place.


Nah, it's a shithole.

Not in the same way Mexico is a shithole(and its not up for debate Mexico is), but still.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nah, it's a shithole.

Not in the same way Mexico is a shithole(and its not up for debate Mexico is), but still.

Define shithole. It has its issues, and has had some scandals of late in law enforcement in the government, but in general it's as good as most western countries to live in.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Define shithole. It has its issues, and has had some scandals of late in law enforcement in the government, but in general it's as good as most western countries to live in.

Shithole, as defined by websters dictionary: a place where kunts won't whine if you train your dog as a joke to do a nazi salute and where you won't face possible jail time or fines for it

And where they won't whine over rap lyrics either.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/23/she-posted-rap-lyrics-to-remember-a-dead

Originally posted by Surtur
Shithole, as defined by websters dictionary: a place where kunts won't whine if you train your dog as a joke to do a nazi salute and where you won't face possible jail time or fines for it

And where they won't whine over rap lyrics either.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/23/she-posted-rap-lyrics-to-remember-a-dead

Well if all it takes is a couple of instances of legal lunacy, most western countries are going to fall under the definition of shithole, I would imagine.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Well if all it takes is a couple of instances of legal lunacy, most western countries are going to fall under the definition of shithole, I would imagine.

It's kinda what I'm afraid of, that what is happening in that shithole will spread. It's why it is unwise for folk to dismiss what is going on there as no big deal.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's kinda what I'm afraid of, that what is happening in that shithole will spread. It's why it is unwise for folk to dismiss what is going on there as no big deal.

Sorry, I should have phrased my point differently. I'll try again:

If a few silly court-cases are all it takes to get a country labelled a shithole, then most western countries are also shitholes, and have been for a while. Yours, mine, etc.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Sorry, I should have phrased my point differently. I'll try again:

If a few silly court-cases are all it takes to get a country labelled a shithole, then most western countries are also shitholes, and have been for a while. Yours, mine, etc.

Indeed, and I guess I don't want this shithole to have anymore poop put into it cuz shitholes in Europe take it too far.

Like...stop that shit.

It's funny, because Europe feels the same away about America in a lot of ways.

Ideally, nobody is shitty.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nah, it's a shithole.

Not in the same way Mexico is a shithole(and its not up for debate Mexico is), but still.

It's really no worse than the US all in all. An instance here and there of something you disagree with does not make a country a "shit hole". Saudi Arabia where women are second class citizens and gay people have to hide they sexuality or face prison/death as being the law, yes, that makes for shit-hole conditions.

Mexico, not really a shit-hole either, sure it has its problems' quiet a few of them, but it's not a draconian law country like KSA.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's funny, because Europe feels the same away about America in a lot of ways.

Ideally, nobody is shitty.

I can see that. You guys are prolly like "shit we don't want these dipshits eating tide pods to spread here". I get it.

Stop getting mad over nazi dogs and we will try to stop retarded teens from being retarded. Pinky swear?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's really no worse than the US all in all. An instance here and there of something you disagree with does not make a country a "shit hole". Saudi Arabia where women are second class citizens and gay people have to hide they sexuality or face prison/death as being the law, yes, that makes for shit-hole conditions.

Mexico, not really a shit-hole either, sure it has its problems, but it's not a draconian law country like KSA.

If Mexico is not a shithole why are the caravans not stopping and settling the people in Mexico?

If it's not a big pile of dog shit they can stay there, correct?

EDIT: Brb bro, I look forward to coming back and seeing all the reasons they can't stay in the non-shithole of Mexico.

Originally posted by Surtur
If Mexico is not a shithole why are the caravans not stopping and settling the people in Mexico?

If it's not a big pile of dog shit they can stay there, correct?

Easy: Somewhere having better opportunities for certain people does not make their native country a shitty place on that merit alone.

eg We have people from Norway who move to the US for a better opportunity for them specifically, doesn't make Norway a shitty place because people relocate.

Originally posted by Robtard
Easy: Somewhere having better opportunities for certain people does not make their native country a shitty place on that merit alone.

eg We have people from Norway who move to the US for a better opportunity for them specifically, doesn't make Norway a shitty place because people relocate.

LOL so it's a shithole. You know it, they know it. If they were worried about escaping gangs and shit they'd settle in the first non-shithole.

Moving on, brb.

Originally posted by Surtur
LOL so it's a shithole. You know it, they know it. If they were worried about escaping gangs and shit they'd settle in the first non-shithole.

Moving on, brb.

Stop the silly tactics of ignoring, we're having a friendly discussion. Anyhow: You gave a reason of 'people leave, so that means it's a shit place', I showed you how that logic is severely flawed.

As for your 'they have gangs', okay, so do we, from lowly street gangs to mob crime empires. Also of importance, the biggest/deadliest gangs in Mexico are the drug cartels who thrive they way they do because of the US' love of narcotics. The US is directly linked to Mexico's drug cartel problem; it's a symbiotic relationship, so if they're shitty for that; then so are we.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's really no worse than the US all in all. An instance here and there of something you disagree with does not make a country a "shit hole". Saudi Arabia where women are second class citizens and gay people have to hide they sexuality or face prison/death as being the law, yes, that makes for shit-hole conditions.

Mexico, not really a shit-hole either, sure it has its problems' quiet a few of them, but it's not a draconian law country like KSA.

There is a significant difference in the economy and citizens of the USA vs Mexico. They have lower incomes, lower education levels..pretty much lower everything compared to the USA economically for individuals.

I wouldn't compare Mexico to any predominantly Muslim country where they believe sharia should dictate the law and they want a Theocracy.

When you compare economic mobility and education, yes Mexico is a shit hole compared to the USA(which makes it great for us from the USA to leverage our dollars there.)

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's funny, because Europe feels the same away about America in a lot of ways.

Ideally, nobody is shitty.

Or everybody is.

I mean, Europe isn't really wrong.

Everybody is shitty.. except maybe Canada. They must be pretty nice people, if everyone's constantly bagging on them.

Originally posted by cdtm
Or everybody is.

I mean, Europe isn't really wrong.

Everybody is shitty.. except maybe Canada. They must be pretty nice people, if everyone's constantly bagging on them.

Eh, Canada's no better or worse than anywhere else. I liked it.

America has a first amendment that we guard jealously, the UK government oppresses people for their speech.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's funny, because Europe feels the same away about America in a lot of ways.

Ideally, nobody is shitty.
Ideally No. Realistically on the other hand....

Originally posted by Robtard
Easy: Somewhere having better opportunities for certain people does not make their native country a shitty place on that merit alone.

eg We have people from Norway who move to the US for a better opportunity for them specifically, doesn't make Norway a shitty place because people relocate.

If Mexico aint a "Shithole" then why didn't the "Immigrant Caravan" stop once they crossed the Southern Mexico Border?

Originally posted by Surtur
Why is trying one last treatment that costs the UK nothing a big deal? I do not get it. Why were they so eager for this kid to die?
Because medical expert after medical expert said he couldn't be saved. Hell, didn't the doctors in Italy claim they don't have a cure and would only prolongue the child's painful existance?

I don't think the UK should've been as strict as they were, but they honestly didn't do anything wrong. They prevented a loss of resources on a lost cause. It's really sad, but it's the truth.
Originally posted by Surtur
And I still don't believe for a single second if this was Prince Williams kid they would have said "no, you can't try this other treatment".
And you'd be right, but this is because Prince William is in a position of power, which he'd abuse to get his kid treatment. However, Will would be emotionally compromised. When his kid's life was on the line, he obviously would try anything and everything, but that doesn't mean he'd be objectively right.

If Alfie's dad was in a position of power, he'd do that too, but the end result would be the same. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by MythLord
Because medical expert after medical expert said he couldn't be saved. Hell, didn't the doctors in Italy claim they don't have a cure and would only prolongue the child's painful existance?

I don't think the UK should've been as strict as they were, but they honestly didn't do anything wrong. They prevented a loss of resources on a lost cause. It's really sad, but it's the truth.

Makes NO sense. Why is UK now suddenly so damn concerned about Italy wasting resources?

Lol wait...the "resource" thing falls apart even more when you realize the UK expended its own resources to PREVENT this. Unless the cops they used to protect Alfie once Italy sent a helicopter to UK were just there for free?

If the UK is so worried about resources why are they spending resources to go after people for nazi dog jokes?



Just noting the obvious I guess.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Ideally No. Realistically on the other hand....



If Mexico aint a "Shithole" then why didn't the "Immigrant Caravan" stop once they crossed the Southern Mexico Border?

The Mexico shithole defense makes no damn sense. If these people are fleeing gangs and violence and Mexico isn't a shithole? It makes no sense for them not to stay there in the first SAFE non shithole country they come across.

So the "they are fleeing violence!" argument leftists try to use does not work unless you deem Mexico a shithole. Cuz if it's solely about fleeing violence...then the first non-shithole should be the goal.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
America has a first amendment that we guard jealously, the UK government oppresses people for their speech.

Precisely my point: Everyone has good, everyone has bad.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Ideally No. Realistically on the other hand....



If Mexico aint a "Shithole" then why didn't the "Immigrant Caravan" stop once they crossed the Southern Mexico Border?

Hmm?

Originally posted by Surtur
Makes NO sense. Why is UK now suddenly so damn concerned about Italy wasting resources?

Lol wait...the "resource" thing falls apart even more when you realize the UK expended its own resources to PREVENT this. Unless the cops they used to protect Alfie once Italy sent a helicopter to UK were just there for free?

If the UK is so worried about resources why are they spending resources to go after people for nazi dog jokes?
I didn't say the UK was at all concearned with Italy wasting resources, just that after them wasting their own they realized it was a lost cause, so it would be futile to try and do it.

Sure, it wouldn't be futile for the parents to try, but they aren't thinking straight on the issue.
Originally posted by Surtur
Just noting the obvious I guess.
Yeah, but your argument is based on a man of power being emotionally compromised. That doesn't mean the UK made a mistake.

Originally posted by Surtur
The Mexico shithole defense makes no damn sense. If these people are fleeing gangs and violence and Mexico isn't a shithole? It makes no sense for them not to stay there in the first SAFE non shithole country they come across.

So the "they are fleeing violence!" argument leftists try to use does not work unless you deem Mexico a shithole. Cuz if it's solely about fleeing violence...then the first non-shithole should be the goal.

If you're going to use the "Mexico is a shithole because people are fleeing to avoid the violence and to save their lives", fine, do that. Also makes your case for denying immigrants entry seem even more petty and cruel. Here are people trying to escape death for themselves and their children and you're against saving them. See?

Originally posted by MythLord
I didn't say the UK was at all concearned with Italy wasting resources, just that after them wasting their own they realized it was a lost cause, so it would be futile to try and do it.

Sure, it wouldn't be futile for the parents to try, but they aren't thinking straight on the issue.

Yeah, but your argument is based on a man of power being emotionally compromised. That doesn't mean the UK made a mistake.
My argument is based on the idea that this is not a level of power and control over people's lives that we should hand over to a government.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
My argument is based on the idea that this is not a level of power and control over people's lives that we should hand over to a government.
And on that, I agree. The UK was too strict, and went too far with the defenses around Alfie. It definitely could've been handled better.

Originally posted by MythLord
I didn't say the UK was at all concearned with Italy wasting resources, just that after them wasting their own they realized it was a lost cause, so it would be futile to try and do it.

Sure, it wouldn't be futile for the parents to try, but they aren't thinking straight on the issue.

If the treatment wouldn't cause the kid massive amounts of pain I do not see why the doctors should be able to take that choice away from the parents. I just don't get it. It won't ever make sense. Any true harm from this would seem to be to the parents, but they are adults and can make up their own minds.

I'd feel different if extreme pain would result from this treatment. If it's not going to cause that...even if it fails won't at least something still be learned? About perhaps Alfie's condition? Or about how helpful the new treatment might be in the future for others? At least then if Alfie passed away something would have come from his death.



They did make a mistake, but this wouldn't show that. It would just show they are hypocrites. What makes it a mistake is it seems the only risk was to the mental well being of the parents.

Hell I'd actually support the UK if the government was being expected to foot the bill for this treatment. I would support them not wanting to do it, but there was nothing for them to lose here.

Originally posted by Surtur
If the treatment wouldn't cause the kid massive amounts of pain I do not see why the doctors should be able to take that choice away from the parents. I just don't get it. It won't ever make sense. Any true harm from this would seem to be to the parents, but they are adults and can make up their own minds.

Because the responsibility of the doctor is to the patient, not the parents.

Because the child deserves the full-protection of the law, independently of the wishes of the parents.

Because he is not property.

The Land of U.K gave this Child a DEATH SENTENCE.

Funny how Adam is FINE With That!

Originally posted by Surtur
If the treatment wouldn't cause the kid massive amounts of pain I do not see why the doctors should be able to take that choice away from the parents. I just don't get it. It won't ever make sense. Any true harm from this would seem to be to the parents, but they are adults and can make up their own minds.
Several people have been over this: the parents obviously aren't in the right state of mind. The baby isn't their property, and in this case as much as they wish the opposite to be true(and I don't blame them for that), the sad case is: the baby could not be saved.
Most of it's brain was either shut down or fluid. Modern medicine, unfortunately, cannot save him from that. Prolonging the baby's life would only prolongue the suffering of the baby/parents and give them false hope.

Originally posted by Surtur
They did make a mistake, but this wouldn't show that. It would just show they are hypocrites. What makes it a mistake is it seems the only risk was to the mental well being of the parents.

Hell I'd actually support the UK if the government was being expected to foot the bill for this treatment. I would support them not wanting to do it, but there was nothing for them to lose here.
There was also nothing to be gained. I understand the moral outrage of the government trying to force itself too much into this situation, but I don't understand why their decision that the baby couldn't be saved and thus shouldn't get the treatment is bad.

What did the Government do that it could claim more "Ownership" of the Child then its Actual Parents?

That just sees so "Hitler Youth" of the Land of U.K. Gov but then it is a Leftist Gov.