Originally posted by Surtur
Lol so, someone is lying. How can he be both brain dead and in agony?
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.
Originally posted by SquallX
That’s not the point!The government should never have the power to outright tell a parent not to fight for the lives of their children and forced them to stop searching for a cure!
Look at it from your point of view. Your kids brain dead, and you desires to bring said child to another country for treatment, even if there’s no cure, what gives the government the right to denied you the right to save your child?
That’s my problem with this? The government’s is overreaching, same with the doctors.
The fact that no one sees a problem with this is disturbing.
What’s next? the Government going to now tell you how to dress? Or act?
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 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.
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.
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.